Letters to the Editor
-
Well then, I misunderstood your statement
I was not addressing human caused extinctions in my post to Cassia. I was simply making a statement of fact that it is impossible to prevent endangered species from becoming extinct insofar as we are NOT the cause. When we are the cause, anyone can see that a change in our practices is needed and can remedy the situation.
I have often heard the "defense" of the idea that human-caused species extinction is "natural" because humans are part of nature, so (naturally) anything humans do is natural (and must be "good"). I am glad that you were not making that argument. It is specious, baseless, careless, and nothing but self-serving self justification.
Since you were not making that particular argument...nevermind :) But for those that think they can...button it.
-
Ron Paul- a modern Cincinnatus
Cincinnatus (a mixed portion of fact and fiction) was a small, struggling famer in Rome in the 6th century BCE.
When Rome became so entangled in threats from the outside and the inside, they turned to Cincinnatus to straighten things out. When he was in charge, he acted as a dictator, with no opposition from anyone. When the problem was solved, Cincinnatus went back to his small farm.
Would that someone like Cincinnatus, who's sole end was the continuation of his beloved Rome, could be a Ron Paul who values fealty above glory and power.
Oh well! It was only a dream.
-
But history shows...
You are so dogmatic in your assertions that people are just going to run willy-nilly and screw everyone else over, including the environment, as though property development is always profitable.
History shows, in fact, that this is precisely what happens. It is the reason behind the Endangered Species Act. That law didn't just pop up out of the ether. It was in response to a problem, a problem that goes back throughout most of human history. Particularly western (Christian) history that consigns nature to a mere commodity to be exploited at our pleasure, without consequence or care. Afterall, nature was "put here for us to use as we see fit" blah blah.
People are animals. Nothing more, nothing less. They are not Spock-like logical creatures that are never ruled by emotion or drives to satisfy their immediate desires. To act in a more Spock-like fashion actually requires effort and diligence and, virtually always, some form of central authority, be it in the form of a person, a god, or a set of laws and regulations with consequences for their violation. People are NOT, as a rule, rational.
-
Are all these Paul "supporters" paid by Paul's opponents?
What an obnoxious gaggle.
Property rights as the bulwark against environmental destruction. As property rights (and nuisance tort claims based on those rights) have been in existence since the beginnings of the republic, I'm sure we need only look to the periods of time prior to federal environmental intervention to see how successfully this means would work to protect the environment. Oh, perhaps people just weren't exercising their rights fervently enough. Yes, I see no problems whatsoever staking the health of our planet and biological systems on the vigor of private property owners.
Global warming. It is easily the worst environmental (perhaps existential) threat we face as a species. Sure, contaminated water tables and dying species are serious, but the potential consequences of continued global warming dwarf all others. I am curious how vindication of private property rights will ameliorate or stop these consequences from manifesting. If you think you have a pithy answer to that rhetorical question, might I suggest you do some research into tort law and the doctrines of remoteness and proximate cause. Yes, I'm quite sure the concept of greenhouse gases was not at the fore of the Founders' imaginations, or in Blackstone's ruminations.
Endangered species. Under a purist (Paulian?) understanding of property rights, all the species on one's land would be subject to that person's plenary discretion. And again, let's check the illustrious historical record of private property owners' defense of threatened species of toad and bug. "Damn you, your business is harming the bats on my land! I'll see you in court!"
Entrusting individuals to magnanimously protect things that are more profitable to exploit or ignore is a bit like entrusting the baron to champion the prosperity of the indentured servants that till his land. Such is the case when we take a long stroll into history while whistling past the lessons we already tried to learn from it.
-
There goes tempus
Maybe because it was so friggin' easy to take it from the people that were already here and using the land?
That's right Tempus, keep showing your true colors. I get it now, the entire Declaration of Independence was a scam to steal land from "poor" people, and the founding fathers were evil racists with a secret agenda to steal everything for themselves from those that looked different.
But yet, the modern government is somehow our savior and has all of the solutions?
Are you even an American? If you like smearing the history of your own country so much, and the principles it was based on, why don't you move to another one? You seem to have a hard on for big government, communitarian style command and control policies, maybe China would be a better place for you to live?
I find it amazing how you and your ilk can sit there and bad mouth "big corporations" and Made in America ideas like Private Property Rights, yet you give a pass to big government and act like it has all of your answers.
The "big corporations" are bad and corrupt, but yet "big Government" is somehow wonderful, transparent, free from corruption, and has all of the answers in the form of clever new taxes. What planet are you living on?
Paul would cut down on Carbon emissions simply by ending the occupation and drawing down the empire, and not just in Iraq, but the 700 bases in 130 countries around the world. Seems like there would be less emissions without all those bases operating... but I guess controlling our lives domestically while the empire keeps the war machines oiled up and rolling, like Hummers that get 9mpg, while "big government rulez" countries like China poison its own groundwater, make just as much sense....
All of those tanks, planes, missiles, and other killing machines, they release greenhouse gases. But to even bring up the environment when the bulk of our entire foreign policy is based on oil, and our empire is burning lots of oil to get... more oil, seems shortsighted. Talking about environmental issues while ignoring the amount of emissions we put out defending our fossil fuel empire is little more than a hypocritical game of divide and conquer.
Where were you all in 1776? The Founding Fathers could have used your wisdom when they were all gung ho about property rights. Where was the wise Will whateverhisnameis, and the wise Tempus, to tell the founding fathers that their ideas regarding property are no better than the king's ideas regarding property. You could have saved them a lot of wasted time with their "revolution", since they could have just stuck with the tyrannical, top down system they had, instead of doing it all for nothing when 200 years later it is replaced by.... a different tyrannical, top down system.