Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 May 2001 23:15:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1050 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > But before you do, take a look at how one of your fellow libertarians messed
> > up her state's Environment:
> > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0105/ridgeway.shtml
>
> Thanks for the cite. I take everything that the Village Voice asserts with a
> grain (or more) of salt. In this case, a dump truck load.
I know you are trying to stay on a narrowly focused topic here, but this
is something I started to think about (again) as I was reading the end
of the article and it may have bearing on this discussion. Can the
market foster an ethical relationship with the land? If so, how long
will that relationship last? Is it sustainable?
> Now, let's try to stay on topic. I have an open mind about this. I am not
> sure that the conventional prescription of ownership works for migratory
> animals. Hence my interest in exploring this. If you don't want to bring an
> open mind and work through examples, your time would be better spent elsewhere.
I'm fairly confident that ownership cannot and should not apply to
migratory animals. Of course, ownership is a strange term to use, at
least to me. For example, I work with a threatened plant, which means
that that I need permits to collect seed from it. Does this mean the
management agency owns the plants that are located on their land?
Probably yes- at least in the legal sense. What if the population
expands onto a neighboring piece of property owned by someone else--
Whose plants are those? Again probably that landowner owns them. Is
this how nature works? No- that population functions as an unit, just
because some individuals move next door doesn't affect what the
ecosystem owns.
If natural systems rarely follow man-made borders (1). How would does
this fact affect ownership- that is if ownership is possible?
Furthermore, migratory animals that are protected by the Endangered
Species Act or other measure of species/ecosystem protection are 'owned'
in a sense of the word, for they are controlled by someone.
I'm sure we can bring in some information from the use of
genetically-modified organisms into this but I'll save it for the next
round.
-chris
1- except for the downpours of rain today, that covered everyplace we
have a field site today :/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| Christopher, I found this text which goes over most of your points. It is rather long (I have not read it all yet). The key passage for me is this one: == ++ == "The libertarian's error resides in their proposal that privatization, which is clearly (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Yes. Let us review the difference between "states" and "asserts". Had you said "As the text I quoted asserts", you would be acknowledging that the author believed it to be true but not saying you felt it was fact yourself. However, you said (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
