1
106
107

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 →

[–]ufcarazyOnly Love Will Save Us. 24 ポイント25 ポイント

I understand why this would bother a traditional conservationist, but when she said these animals belong in Africa, not in Texas, it demonstrated her poor reasoning. Humans migrated out of Africa and thrived. You can't expect animals to stay on one continent forever.

[–]lemonparty 21 ポイント22 ポイント

Her only argument was her feelings. She thinks it's "obscene and immoral." Everything else she said was completely devoid of logical reasoning.

[–]lessfoxlikethansome 9 ポイント10 ポイント

And this is why she isn't worth talking to. She knows the factual truth, but she doesn't want to acknowledge it because the simple truths conflict with her feelings. So she chooses not to listen to reason.

Sadly, her blinders aren't unique and there's tons of people like her out there.

[–]urbanpsycho [score hidden]

Especially when asked if she rather not be here at all she said not on hunting ranches, as if they are going to be here in any other way. She is delusional.

She has a reserve in Africa, these hunters are totally dominating her at growing and maintaining these rare animals for profit.. and she is simply just pissed about it.

[–]LetThemEatWar32 [score hidden]

No, this 'solution' just doesn't address her actual problem. She believes that individual animals are important, as well as the species in general; therefore, she will not be content with a system whereby the individuals are brutally shot for the sake of the species.

Libertarians should be sympathetic to her type of problem: how often do we gripe about being urged to sacrifice individual well-being for the sake of a 'greater collective good'?

[–]laserhunden [score hidden]

This is an important issue to note, and one I'd like to hear some opinions on. Thank you for putting it clearly!

[–]LetThemEatWar32 [score hidden]

You're welcome.

For anyone who thinks I am trolling/a leftie, I want to put my position across: I am fairly anti-government, hence my presence on this subreddit. However, I don't think that humans have any kind of exceptional position or divine rights. Therefore, I don't see how I could logically be outraged at demonstrations of force and coercion on humans, while being totally unmoved by similar displays of aggression against peaceful animals.

[–]LetThemEatWar32 [score hidden]

Her argument was just as legitimate as the libertarian equivalent of natural rights:

"I think eminent domain is obscene and immoral, because of my belief in property rights."

Compared with,

"I think blood sports are obscene and immoral, because of my belief in animal rights."

What's the difference?

[–]imagineyouarebusy [score hidden]

Beyond the false equivalency, the difference is that she is jeopardizing the future for those rare animals.

Her hatred for hunting, is clouding her judgment.

There is nothing logical about her opinion, if saving an endangered species is the real goal.

[–]LetThemEatWar32 [score hidden]

Beyond the false equivalency

Why is it a false equivalency? Please explain.

if saving an endangered species is the real goal

Yes, but she values the welfare of the individual animals, too. It is possible to have more than one objective, y'know.

[–]imagineyouarebusy [score hidden]

There will be fewer animals to "value", and possibly none at all if the only breeding stock is a small group in Africa.

[–]LetThemEatWar32 [score hidden]

Don't you see that it's an incredibly unsatisfactory trade-off being presented, though? And she sees no reason to take it, because she has no qualms over involving the government.

Also, still waiting to hear back on why exactly that was a false equivalency.

[–]imagineyouarebusy [score hidden]

"I think eminent domain is obscene and immoral, because of my belief in property rights."

Look how you structured that, from a position of logical structure.

Who (besides your strawman) poses the statement that it is "because of my belief in property rights, eminent domain is obscene and immoral"?

That is what you actually said, and I doubt you realized it.

It isn't a belief in property rights that makes eminent domain obscene and immoral, it is whatever logical reasons the person would present.

But you phrased it as the belief was the cause of the immorality and obscenity, not that a logical statement would be the support for the right etc.

[–]LetThemEatWar32 [score hidden]

Who poses the statement that it is "because of my belief in property rights, eminent domain is obscene and immoral"?

Every libertarian ever.

It isn't a belief in property rights that makes eminent domain obscene and immoral, it is whatever logical reasons the person would present.

Logical arguments concerning pragmatism do not have any kind of sway over whether or not something is immoral/moral. As an example, take the following:

"If you're going to make a cake, carrying the ingredients back from the store on your nose is immoral, because it is likely they will fall and be wasted."

Before you can start any kind of logical argument regarding the morality/immorality of something, you must first define a moral code. For example, the above would be a logical argument for the immorality of carrying ingredients on your nose, if we first decided that it was immoral to waste flour/eggs/sugar etc.

My point is that, yes, libertarians do start with the statement that natural rights are moral, and any arguments against eminent domain go from there (assuming there were discussing its morality).

[–]StMichaeIfriedmanite 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Another example, horses were not native to America. They were imported by the Spanish when they explored the new world, and the horses took to the great plains like they did to Mongolia. Wide expanses of grassland with no natural predators, it was perfect.

[–]archpopeminarchist 4 ポイント5 ポイント

But for every one of those examples, there are lots of examples where importation of species did more harm than good. Kudzu and Africanized honeybees being just the first things off the top of my head.

[–]chiguyNon-labelist [score hidden]

Another example, orcas used to live in the open ocean and now can live in large swimming pools with no consequence.

-Sea World

[–]urbanpsycho [score hidden]

According to that "friend" of animals lady, they should all be taken back to the steppes!

[–]Dookietlibertarian party [score hidden]

The irony is that the earliest efforts in conservation where done by hunters and fisherman, and in fact more money goes into conservation from hunting and fishing than any other source.

[–]KJew 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I don't understand her reasoning exactly as to why they should be on a reservation in Africa. Isn't Africa a corrupt place? How is she sure that this reservation is actually the best interest for these animals?

[–]elliottok [score hidden]

You're a fucking idiot. Giraffes aren't humans, and there's a reason you don't find wild giraffes in America or anywhere else besides Africa.

[–]Metzger90 [score hidden]

Yeah because no one has imported breeding pairs. There are wild camels in Texas. They didn't swim there, they were put there, and they thrived.

[–]elliottok [score hidden]

There are wild camels somewhere in Texas, ergo any wild animal from Africa can survive in Texas.

[–]Metzger90 [score hidden]

What makes you think other animals can't survive there? The climates are very similar, the terrain is similar, they are basically at the same latitude just on opposite sides of the equator. Most animals don't give a fuck were they live, as long as there is food and the habitat is kind of the same. There are giraffe in Texas as the video showed, they seem to be doing fine. So what makes you think you know better than actual real world proof?

[–]elliottok [score hidden]

They're living on a ranch in Texas, not in the wild. Not the same thing or even close.