Quote from: FredericBastiat on August 10, 2012, 07:50:14 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 10, 2012, 06:02:36 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on August 10, 2012, 05:58:20 PM

Quote from: dree12 on August 10, 2012, 05:47:32 PM

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods never ends well.

You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong.

The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters.

How are you going to go about implementing your nature protection suggestions? Persuasion or force? Education or statism? Individual choice, or authoritarian central planning?

You see I'm not going to discuss your views on proper stewardship of the environment, you will probably have the upper hand in that knowledge department, but I will definitely defy you every step of the way if you think you're going to lord over me by participating in the rampant theft and plunder of private land so you can have your utopian nature preserve.

Some of the science is questionable, some of it is not, but your implementation methods are definitely what's at stake here. I could be the smartest "god/man" on earth, but I'm not about to make you my serf, subject, minion, or liege because I know what's the "best" use for your land.

I'm curious. Consider:

Let's say someone hires you on the East Coast. They pay you wages to fulfill their vision for their land. By doing so, the "improvements" to the land are environmentally neutral. However, we could consider the cases where the "improvements" are positive or negative as well. After years of toil, you have saved up your money from these labors, and you set out for the West Coast, money in tow.

You have converted your labor to money, possibly at the expense to the environment. However, we won't hold it against you.

You arrive at the West Coast and purchase land, becoming a proud property owner, whereupon you commence in creating your own "improvements" to the land you purchased. Let's assume that your "improvements" have a negative environmental impact to your land, but not the surrounding land. This, incidentally is unlikely, due to how the environment interacts, but for the sake of argument, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, let's summarize:

- Your labor (and the desires of your employer) resulted in a net neutral effect of the environment on the East Coast.
- Your labor granted you the rights to receive compensation in the form of money.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you having money.

- Your money afforded you the right to travel to the West Coast and purchase land.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you owning land on the West Coast.

- Your ownership of land now provided you the ability to make "improvements".
- These "improvements" have a net negative impact on the land you own, environmentally.

Thus, your net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast, according to you, provides you with the right to negatively affect the environment on the West Coast.

Now, imagine if your labor on the East Coast actually resulted in a net negative effect on the environment. Whatever the case, your argument appears to be that labor, which earns you money, then earns you the right to purchase land, own the land, and harm the land. This is not a sustainable model, yet it's one you support.

Regulations can and do help alleviate this.

Let's examine other models you support:

1. Being born to rich parents provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
2. Being given money provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
3. Inheriting land from your parents gives you the right to negatively affect the environment.

And, as described in detail above:

4. Labor, regardless of what type and where performed, affords you the right to negatively affect the environment.

In all cases, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt such that your "improvements" actually don't extend beyond your property boundaries, which would be a rare case. However, that really doesn't seem relevant.

The issue then, is what defines effective stewardship of land, and the consistent application of it through individual ownership among thousands.