Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 May 2001 13:34:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2775 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Tracey writes:
> 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.
Good point. Also, *if* you owned all the plants, would you have the right to
destroy them if you so wished?
Scott A
>
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
