you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cp5184 [score hidden]

Like the Moa, Aurochs, Dodo, Stellar's sea cows, Bluebucks, mauritius blue pigeon, Great Auk, Sea Mink, Hokkaido wolf, falklands island wolf, wuagga, atlas bear, newfoundland wolf, passenger pigeon, kenai peninsula wolf, tarpan, Mogollon Mountain wolf, Southern Rocky Mountains wolf , bali tiger, heath hen, bernard's wolf, Cascade Mountain wolf was hunted to extinction. British Columbia wolf Texas wolf Barbary lion, Thylacine, Toolache wallaby, mexican grizzly bear, caribbean monk seal, Crescent Nail-tail Wallaby, Red-bellied gracile opossum , arabian ostrich, Turgid riffle shell, yellow-blossom pearlymussel, caspian tiger, javan tiger, Dusky seaside sparrow, Baiji Dolphin, liverpool pigeon, Pyrenean Ibex, eastern cougar, western black rhinoceros hunted to extinction in 2006, Cape Verde Giant Skink, Formosan clouded leopard?

How's that working?

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

On the contrary, it's clear that leaving these animals in the common isn't working.

[–]cp5184 [score hidden]

The western black rhinoceros was hunted to extinction in 2006. None of these hunting preserves wanted them. And who's going to pay to hunt sea cows, or pigeons, or hens, or opossums, or sparrows?

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

No one wants to hunt rhinos? I have a hard time believing that.

Besides, the point here isn't hunting per se, but private property ownership. If people value a resource, then a market is the most efficient at doing it and presents the best incentives for doing so.

However, if something is left in the commons, it is subject to the tragedy of the commons, and without property rights will be overused until it is whipped from existence. It is for this very reason that the african elephant is endangered today, and it is the introduction of property rights that is saving them today.

[–]cp5184 [score hidden]

They hunted them to extinction in 2006. What they didn't want to do was preserve them.

What these "libertarian" hunting preserves are doing are taking these species into their preserves and preserving them. But that doesn't mean that tragedy of commons wouldn't take place in a libertarian system. And as I said, what preserve is going to protect pigeons, or hens, or sparrows?

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

So if so many people wanted to hunt them, why didn't the hunting preserves want them?

The tragedy of the commons strikes because of a lack of property rights. Libertarianism does eliminate this tragedy by establishing and respecting property rights. As for who is going to preserve those, I take it the same way as the question of who will grow our food. Where there's a demand for it, someone will do it.

Now perhaps all endangered species won't have demand for them, but is the goal to preserve every single species, all 60 million forms of beetles, or the ones people happen to care about the most and want to preserve the most? Because for me, it's the later.

[–]cp5184 [score hidden]

For every two rhino kills they'd need 10 adult rhinos. Apparently the numbers didn't come out in favor.

And the goal is to preserve genetic diversity. So that if, for instance, a disease hits cows, or chickens, or apples, or bananas, or honey bees that that doesn't cripple an entire industry.

[–]nobody25864There's no government like no government![S] [score hidden]

For every two rhino kills they'd need 10 adult rhinos. Apparently the numbers didn't come out in favor.

Why not? What's wrong with having a greater supply of adult rhinos? Surely if the mere numbers are the problems, supply and demand can come to the rescue as the price goes up with a lower supply.

I don't see how genetic diversity would change anything here, especially if there's an industry for it.