Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 03:49:57 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 03:09:32 PM

Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.

That's a gross oversimplification. When you consider that private entities don't have the power of compulsory purchase, (directly) enacting legislation in their favour, taxing for revenue, I think that 1/8th figure should be considered impressive.

Besides, the point wasn't about scale, it was to demonstrate that private property can be conducive to environmental protection.

What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale? Is it due to you not understanding the issue?

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 03:49:57 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 03:09:32 PM

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

Here's a perfect example of an unjust law - being coerced into preserving a species on behalf of those who want it preserved. I'm all for conservation, but it's something that individuals who support it should do themselves.

But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.