Digg: Free market protects endangered species better than government - Walter Block

[freemarketblog]

Here's a 10 minute YouTube video by Austrian Economist Walter Block explaining how the free market would handle endangered species. Very interesting explanation for those curious about this issue:

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Free_market_protects_endangered_species_not_govern ment

Free market protects endangered species, not government

Privatizing endangered species would undoubtedly protect against extinction. Take for instance the American Buffalo: it was not privatized and the government gave free reign for overkilling resulting in near extinction. The cow (very similar to the buffalo), however, has never been endangered of extinction because it has always been privatized.

[canadian4ronpaul]

thats an interesting idea but still think there is a difference between survival and living. having a bunch of elephants crammed into factory farms doesnt really qualify. it will ensure their survival at a basic level but its not the same goal as having them exist in their natural habitats

[freemarketblog]

thats an interesting idea but still think there is a difference between survival and living. having a bunch of elephants crammed into factory farms doesnt really qualify. it will ensure their survival at a basic level but its not the same goal as having them exist in their natural habitats

It seemed to work quite well in the Midwest and West during the 1800's with cattle. They didn't cram their livestock into small corridors, and in fact if you live in a rural area, you can understand how this would work. Zoos seem to do fairly well keeping their animals in a very, VERY small amount of real estate. You don't think it's practical that someone in Africa with a hundred acres or so of land to use that to raise wildlife? In that case, it's not very practical to have zoos or ranches yet we seem to be expanding and opening more year after year.

How many poachers are there on government property? Plenty. How many poachers have you heard of on private property?? Not very many...at least I haven't. It's not too often that you hear people shoot cattle illegally, yet it seems pretty commonplace that individuals illegally hunt outside of licensed hunting seasons here in America. I know one of my friends was caught shooting a deer outside of bow season, which is illegal. How many people hunt privately owned cattle in this country?? Again, hardly any. How many people hunt un-private animals illegally? A lot...even though America is supposedly an unbarbaric and civilized society.

Seems like private property has reconciled all of the problems we experience with poaching and overhunting.

[canadian4ronpaul]

the goal of the environmentalists is to preserve the animals in their natural habitats. not to domesticate them. it is a good idea but the goals are different

[MyLibertyStuff]

Posting in this so I dont forget to watch it when I am out of work :)

[freemarketblog]

the goal of the environmentalists is to preserve the animals in their natural habitats. not to domesticate them. it is a good idea but the goals are different

You don't need to domesticate them at all. In fact I believe in Wyoming they have open range meaning barbed wire fences are not necessary. In the Old West prior to the commonly used barbed wire we use today, livestock owners used branding to keep track of their property. Cattle were able to graze in their natural habitat and yet they were not poached to extinction. The same cannot be said about the American Buffalo which had open range, but were not privatized. Because they were not privatized, their numbers trickled down to a few hundred before they began to recover.

Why could we not tag these species very similar to branding? Environmentalists already do this, so why can't we privatize these animals?

[sheepmoney]

Cool video & Dugg. I'm not sure how receptive the digg community is to free market ideas though. There's big Obama support on that site.

[freemarketblog]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Bison_skull_pile%2C_ca1870.png

^^^^ Fate of the American Bison due to lack of privatization (buffalo skulls piled up).

vvvvv Fate of cattle due to privatization.

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=75954&rendTypeId=4

[emazur]

Govt. policy helped exterminate the buffalo:
http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/buffalo.htm

[dannno]

Wow, that was a great discussion!!

[freemarketblog]

Wow, that was a great discussion!!

Yep Walter Block does a great job explaining a lot of things. Here's a link to more of his interviews (video and MP3's)

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=443

[tnvoter]

5Star thread here.

[dannno]

the goal of the environmentalists is to preserve the animals in their natural habitats. not to domesticate them. it is a good idea but the goals are different

Yes, but as mentioned in the video the creation of the black market leads to killing the animals in their habitat. If you can move some of them out of their habitat and protect them then they will multiply and you can create an ivory market outside of the black market. You can still make killing elephants in their habitat illegal, but nobody would ever do it for profit because hunting them would be more expensive than harvesting from elephant farms. Just like how today it is cheaper to just buy cattle meat rather than to go deer hunting and kill it yourself, especially when you consider lost potential work hours (you could have made $100 working, but instead you spent money to hunt a deer which provides you with less than $100 of deer meat (I think? I don't know what the value of one deer's meat is..I doubt it's over $100 tho..)

[slothman]

Can anyone give examples about how the gov't did a bad job in the 1990s or 2000s?
The world was too different 100 years ago to compare it.
People don't shoot animals from trains anymore.

[freemarketblog]

Can anyone give examples about how the gov't did a bad job in the 1990s or 2000s?
The world was too different 100 years ago to compare it.
People don't shoot animals from trains anymore.

You really think the American Buffalo reached near extinction because some teenagers on trains shot a few buffalo on their way to Dodge?

How is it so difficult to compare cows 100 years ago with buffalo 100 years ago? It would be a bad comparison to say cows today with buffalo then, but that's not the point he was making. Back in the 1800's, privatization of cattle kept their numbers quite numerous; the lack of privatization of the American Buffalo led to 7.5 million of them slaughtered between 1872 and 1874. Cattle, which are damn near the same species as Buffalo, have always numbered in the millions in America--Buffalo were annihilated down to a few hundred that migrated to Canada until their numbers were replenished.

If history repeats itself, then your view of discarding something 100 years ago is incompatible with the idea that history repeats itself. What is the optimal time frame to compare things then? Is it 10 years, 20 years, 50? Is 75 years too far back, or is 25 years just right? What is the cut off point for something completely relevant to suddenly become irrelevant based on the proximity of the here and now?

[Standing Like A Rock]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Bison_skull_pile%2C_ca1870.png

^^^^ Fate of the American Bison due to lack of privatization (buffalo skulls piled up).



daaaaaayyumn

[canadian4ronpaul]

i agree it makes sense, but you will never get environmentalists/leftists/liberals to agree to something like that, because it garuntees the killing and harvesting of animals, despite the fact that it ensures their survival. maybe they are not practical enough in their thinking... who knows. interesting ideas anyhow

[MyLibertyStuff]

That was awesome thanks for the post

[freemarketblog]

i agree it makes sense, but you will never get environmentalists/leftists/liberals to agree to something like that, because it garuntees the killing and harvesting of animals, despite the fact that it ensures their survival. maybe they are not practical enough in their thinking... who knows. interesting ideas anyhow

Rationale was never meant to sway irrational people. If reason cannot convince illogical claims by certain people, then so be it. Those aren't the people we're trying to get on our side as it would appear pointless to do so in the first place. If they reject sensible points then they aren't worth debating...I find it no different than trying to debate Sean Hannity as even when he's wrong and losing an argument, he's still convinced in himself that he's right. Can't do much about that...

[slothman]

Rationale was never meant to sway irrational people. If reason cannot convince illogical claims by certain people, then so be it. Those aren't the people we're trying to get on our side as it would appear pointless to do so in the first place. If they reject sensible points then they aren't worth debating...I find it no different than trying to debate Sean Hannity as even when he's wrong and losing an argument, he's still convinced in himself that he's right. Can't do much about that...

I agree, it's just who is being irrational.

[canadian4ronpaul]

Rationale was never meant to sway irrational people. If reason cannot convince illogical claims by certain people, then so be it. Those aren't the people we're trying to get on our side as it would appear pointless to do so in the first place. If they reject sensible points then they aren't worth debating...I find it no different than trying to debate Sean Hannity as even when he's wrong and losing an argument, he's still convinced in himself that he's right. Can't do much about that...

you should know this by know, but cold logical thinking does not dictate the way the world works, we arent computers, and you have to deal with irrationality and emotions when talking with people and trying to sway them. you cant just say "oh we arent trying to get them on our side" because in the end, in the system we live in, we do need to get these people on our side. that is the only way policies we wish to see enacted, get enacted. im not saying youre wrong, im just saying not everyone is going to just accept the "logical" choice. people see animals being killed as wrong, under any and all circumstances, and they will see it as even worse if it is being done so for profit, even if the long term result is guaranteed survival of the species in question. smug elitist attitudes of "we're right, they're irrational and wrong" will not get you very far.

again, im not saying you're wrong, but from the point of view of the environmentalist/animal rights activist, they will disagree with these, and they are ultimately the people who care about this issue the most.

[freemarketblog]

you should know this by know, but cold logical thinking does not dictate the way the world works, we arent computers, and you have to deal with irrationality and emotions when talking with people and trying to sway them. you cant just say "oh we arent trying to get them on our side" because in the end, in the system we live in, we do need to get these people on our side. that is the only way policies we wish to see enacted, get enacted. im not saying youre wrong, im just saying not everyone is going to just accept the "logical" choice. people see animals being killed as wrong, under any and all circumstances, and they will see it as even worse if it is being done so for profit, even if the long term result is guaranteed survival of the species in question. smug elitist attitudes of "we're right, they're irrational and wrong" will not get you very far.

again, im not saying you're wrong, but from the point of view of the environmentalist/animal rights activist, they will disagree with these, and they are ultimately the people who care about this issue the most.

If you've had success converting a Sean Hannity, then you're the first of your kind.