1
109
110

How Libertarians Deal With Endangered Species (youtube.com)

submitted by nobody25864There's no government like no government!

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Autodidact420 [score hidden]

What about species you can't hunt, eat, etc?

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

You mean species that are entirely useless for human existence, even for aesthetic value, novelties, or pets? Well, I'd argue that those probably aren't good uses of resources to preserve in the first place.

[–]Autodidact420 [score hidden]

Well I'd disagree with you fundamentally on that one, moralistically I find it absurd that the only good species is a species that humans keep around for food, pets, novelties or aesthetic value... And I mean, even some that narrowly fit those roles would probably die out as long as the demand was low.

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

I didn't say that it's the only good kind of species, I'm just wondering whether it would be a good use of resources to try and keep anything from every changing in nature. I don't think it is, and we need to discriminate as to what we want to put effort into preserving.

[–]Autodidact420 [score hidden]

We don't need to keep everything from changing, although I'm fully in support of governmental funded/ran science in general, especially (for example) projects like that one that is gathering the DNA of every species, taking pics of them, keeping a taxidermic body, etc. I do think that we should attempt to save most of them, especially ones that humans had an impact on killing- that's not nature, that's us fucking them up. *Which, is a fucking large number of them, btw.

Also education programs and laws against certain medicines are probably preferable in the east.

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

I don't see why the government needs to do that, but whatever. I also don't see why "us fucking them up" is any less natural than another species fucking them up. But efforts like that should certainly be left up to voluntary contributions, not extorting the funding out of people. Voluntarily contributed funds would be more efficiently used anyways.

Why would we need laws against certain medicines? Surely if an animal is a resources for medicine, that'll help preserve it, not destroy it, so long as we allow private property again.

[–]Autodidact420 [score hidden]

You don't know how the Eastern Medicine thing works eh? They're not actually medicine, but fake medicine *(Edit: Real-fake medicine, like shit that works on "Magic") , and the whole preservation thing doesn't seem to matter much, especially considering a lot of the poachers lack education/logic.

And again, a large point of preservation is to keep species alive in the wild not in zoos, etc.

And would voluntarily contributed funds be used more efficiently? What makes that an innate fact? What about tons of charities that exist today and are massive that flat out waste peoples money, especially on exec pay?

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

They're not actually medicine, but fake medicine

Whether it works or not seems to be an entirely irrelevant to your question of preserving the species. If something's believed to be useful for human health, right or wrong, that should give people an incentive not to want to see it disappear from the earth's surface, no? The only way I could see problems arising is if people can't have property rights in that thing because of state intervention, thus subjecting it to the tragedy of the commons.

...and the whole preservation thing doesn't seem to matter much, especially considering a lot of the poachers lack education/logic.

Surely if poachers see a means for profit though, then someone with education and greater intelligence could see the chance to profit from owning them as property though, right?

And would voluntarily contributed funds be used more efficiently? What makes that an innate fact?

A charity needs to prove its worth to people to get voluntary donations on a regular basis. A thief who can just steal what he needs doesn't need to prove the worthiness of his cause at all.