Man Arrested for Selling Catfish on Craigslist

[green73]

ALLEGAN, Mich. - Authorities say a Grand Rapids man has been arrested for selling catfish online to undercover wildlife officers.

The Grand Rapids Press and the Sentinel-Standard of Ionia report the man is accused of selling 14 catfish taken from the Kalamazoo River in Allegan County via the Craigslist website. The man's name wasn't released pending an arraignment in July.

The state Department of Natural Resources says it got a tip about the ad. Officers made contact with the man and purchased the catfish from him Tuesday.

The sale of the fish in this case is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days behind bars and a fine between $250 and $1,000.


http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/authorities-grand-rapids-man-arrested-for-selling-catfish-to-wildlife-officers-on-craigslist/-/1719418/20755008/-/u5y8ikz/-/index.html

via
http://www.dailypaul.com/290772/man-arrested-for-selling-catfish-on-craigslist

[Christian Liberty]

Why is this illegal?

I mean, we all know its a bad law, but how do the fascists and socialists defend this?

I get why drugs are illegal. I'm extremely against it, but I understand the arguments. Some of the arguments are completely dumb, others have merit but are still incompatible with a free society. But I can at least comprehend the arguments there.

I can't comprehend why selling catfish could be an issue.

[WM_in_MO]

Why is this illegal?

I mean, we all know its a bad law, but how do the fascists and socialists defend this?

I get why drugs are illegal. I'm extremely against it, but I understand the arguments. Some of the arguments are completely dumb, others have merit but are still incompatible with a free society. But I can at least comprehend the arguments there.

I can't comprehend why selling catfish could be an issue.

Didnt come from state-approved food factory. Comrade, are you feeling ok?

[Christian Liberty]

Didnt come from state-approved food factory. Comrade, are you feeling ok?

No, I have the "I hate government and they need to stop tempting me to become an anarchist" disease...

[green73]

No, I have the "I hate government and they need to stop tempting me to become an anarchist" disease...

There’s no cure for that except stupidity.

[Christian Liberty]

There’s no cure for that except stupidity.

Well, I was being sarcastic of course. I don't really consider it a disease. Rabid statism is a disease, but I honestly don't know how to cure it in 80+% of cases.

[angelatc]

Why is this illegal?

I mean, we all know its a bad law, but how do the fascists and socialists defend this?

I get why drugs are illegal. I'm extremely against it, but I understand the arguments. Some of the arguments are completely dumb, others have merit but are still incompatible with a free society. But I can at least comprehend the arguments there.

I can't comprehend why selling catfish could be an issue.

Read the comments. If the DNR didn't license commercial fishing, the lakes and rivers would be fished out in no time flat. Yeah, I know.....but that's what they say.

[Christian Liberty]

Read the comments. If the DNR didn't license commercial fishing, the lakes and rivers would be fished out in no time flat. Yeah, I know.....but that's what they say.

Is there even any accuracy to that claim?

I mean, even if there were, there's always private property rights to solve the problem. But I'm not necessarily convinced it even is a problem.

[green73]

Well, I was being sarcastic of course. I don't really consider it a disease. Rabid statism is a disease, but I honestly don't know how to cure it in 80+% of cases.

Where do you draw the line?

[green73]

Read the comments. If the DNR didn't license commercial fishing, the lakes and rivers would be fished out in no time flat. Yeah, I know.....but that's what they say.

That's why they should be privatized.

[Christian Liberty]

Where do you draw the line?

For "Rabid" statism?

I see your point that its arbitrary, but anyone with half a brain can see a difference between Rand Paul (I would even say Ron Paul here but I know you think he is an anarchist) and George W. Bush.

Its a continuum, its not a hard and fast scale. Personally I consider people who blindly believe government propaganda consistently to be rabid statists regardless of what specific positions they hold. If you're voting either Republican or Democrat in Presidential elections, you likely qualify, although this is not absolutely certain. If you blindly believe that the terrorists are attacking us "Because we're free" than you likely qualify. If you support silly laws like the one in the OP, or even if you oppose them but support enforcing it "Because its the law" than you qualify for sure. If you support people like Snowden being prosecuted, or think he's a "traitor" than you qualify, (This is a serious flaw on the otherwise solid Mike Lee. Rand Paul definitely set himself apart from everyone else in the senate there.)

Ultimately, I don't really know. I'd like to say anyone who thinks the government deserves more of our income than God (Biblically, God's share is 10%) would qualify, although I recognize that that's Christian-centric and so doesn't necessarily work as a secular standard.

I don't know, exactly. I guess I know it when I see it, with some room for gray area...

[Christian Liberty]

That's why they should be privatized.

If Rand Paul wasn't a good enough example...

Do you really consider someone like me to be in any way equivalent to someone like George W.? Or can you tell the difference, even if you can't precisely define where the line is?

[jclay2]

I bet these wildlife officers are feeling really big today. Probably had someone from discovery following them around as they setup the "sting". We are so done as a nation.

[silverhandorder]

If Rand Paul wasn't a good enough example...

Do you really consider someone like me to be in any way equivalent to someone like George W.? Or can you tell the difference, even if you can't precisely define where the line is?

There is no difference in concept or the end result. The end result is that Rand Paul and Ron Paul will never win political battles you want them to win. It is not their fault it is simply how the system works. It is cringe worthy when Rand has to lie or flip flop to make sure he keeps the base he needs to win the presidency.

[Origanalist]

If Rand Paul wasn't a good enough example...

Do you really consider someone like me to be in any way equivalent to someone like George W.? Or can you tell the difference, even if you can't precisely define where the line is?

I can't speak for green but I sure don't. You're alright by me FF.

[Origanalist]

Well, the "perp" can join me in the "I've been to jail for fishin'" club.

[Dr.3D]

So if I had a pond stocked with catfish in my back yard and I caught them and sold them I could get in trouble?

[phill4paul]

In the late 70's I spent a summer with my mom's parents. Mamaw and Papaw were catfishers. Ran trot lines. Didn't have a "License." In the three month period we caught thousands. Caught, skinned and gutted froze and, once the freezers were filled took it directly to restaurants to sell by the pound.
Done with this "New World."

[Christian Liberty]

There is no difference in concept or the end result. The end result is that Rand Paul and Ron Paul will never win political battles you want them to win. It is not their fault it is simply how the system works. It is cringe worthy when Rand has to lie or flip flop to make sure he keeps the base he needs to win the presidency.

For the record, and you guys should probably know this by now, but I'm not saying that Rand is perfect or that he defends liberty perfectly 100% of the time. Heck, I'm not even trying to convince anyone to vote for him. I'm just saying, there's clearly a difference between the policies people like Rand Paul advocate and what people like George W. Bush advocate.

That said, there's no clear, dividing line that shows us why Rand is not a "Hardcore statist" and why George W. is. You know it when you see it. Which was my point.


I can't speak for green but I sure don't. You're alright by me FF.

Thanks :D

I don't think green would disagree with you, but my point is, there's no real clear line, at least AFAIK, between people with common sense and hardcore statists. Its something that, with a little gray area, you know it when you see it.

[Anti Federalist]

One of the reasons that I got out of commercial fishing.

When I realized that I would go to jail for a longer period of time for selling a box of short fluke than if I sold an eightball of crack.

[Anti Federalist]

In the late 70's I spent a summer with my mom's parents. Mamaw and Papaw were catfishers. Ran trot lines. Didn't have a "License." In the three month period we caught thousands. Caught, skinned and gutted froze and, once the freezers were filled took it directly to restaurants to sell by the pound.

Done with this "New World."

New World is not done with you, comrade.

[Origanalist]

New World is not done with you, comrade.

Just getting started, more wonderful advancements coming daily.

[Occam's Banana]

Why is this illegal?

I mean, we all know its a bad law, but how do the fascists and socialists defend this?

I get why drugs are illegal. I'm extremely against it, but I understand the arguments. Some of the arguments are completely dumb, others have merit but are still incompatible with a free society. But I can at least comprehend the arguments there.

I can't comprehend why selling catfish could be an issue.

There's not much to understand. It's quite simple. They are totalistic authoritarians.

They want power and control. Absolute power and control. Over everything. That is all there is to it.

Any other reasons they might give you (no matter how "understandable" they may be) are just window dressing for this simple fact.

They want to control what you say.
They want to control what you eat.
They want to control what you buy.
They want to control what you sell.
They want to control what medicines you use.
They want to control what you know & believe.
They want to control how you educate your children.
They want to control how you do what you do for a living.

They even want to control the size of your toilet.

They just want to control. That is all.


Well, the "perp" can join me in the "I've been to jail for fishin'" club.

I knew it! I just knew there was something suspiciously disreputable about you. You scofflaw, you!

[Origanalist]

I knew it! I just knew there was something suspiciously disreputable about you. You scofflaw, you!

Crap! And I try so hard to hide it! :eek:

[heavenlyboy34]

I bet these wildlife officers are feeling really big today. Probably had someone from discovery following them around as they setup the "sting". We are so done as a nation.
And it's about time, too. Violent, hegemonic nation-states/empires like Amerika are bad for everyone in the world.

[Anti Federalist]

There's not much to understand. It's quite simple. They are totalistic authoritarians.

They want power and control. Absolute power and control. Over everything. That is all there is to it.

Any other reasons they might give you (no matter how "understandable" they may be) are just window dressing for this simple fact.

They want to control what you say.
They want to control what you eat.
They want to control what you buy.
They want to control what you sell.
They want to control what medicines you use.
They want to control what you know & believe.
They want to control how you educate your children.
They want to control how you do what you do for a living.

They even want to control the size of your toilet.

They just want to control. That is all.

Never to be forgotten.

Anything else is just incidental, money, "good intentions", saving this, preserving that...all secondary to control.

[Origanalist]

And it's about time, too. Violent, hegemonic nation-states/empires like Amerika are bad for everyone in the world.

But, but, I thought we were a "force for good" and the world would descend into darkness without US?

[Anti Federalist]

25 years ago, had the director of NMFS tell me right to my face that he was going to put at least half of the East coast fishermen out of business.

[phill4paul]

One of the reasons that I got out of commercial fishing.

When I realized that I would go to jail for a longer period of time for selling a box of short fluke than if I sold an eightball of crack.

On the river my Papaw "popped" for shad. We'd get up at 3 am. First things first was coffee. Mamaw made it "steeping" hot and he would "saucer" it. Pour some onto the cup plate and then blow on it to cool it enough to sip. McDonald's lawsuits be damned. Then he would hand roll his cigarettes for the day. Then he would light one. Then he would take out a stick of dynamite. He'd cut it in quarter inch slices. Tick it into a piece of foil with a two inch fuse. We'd head out early to beat the "revenoors." As an ex moonshine man making a "legitimate" living he recognized the wardens the same as he did the ATF.

[Anti Federalist]

On the river my Papaw "popped" for shad. We'd get up at 3 am. First things first was coffee. Mamaw made it "steeping" hot and he would "saucer" it. Pour some onto the cup plate and then blow on it to cool it enough to sip. McDonald's lawsuits be damned. Then he would hand roll his cigarettes for the day. Then he would light one. Then he would take out a stick of dynamite. He'd cut it in quarter inch slices. Tick it into a piece of foil with a two inch fuse. We'd head out early to beat the "revenoors." As an ex moonshine man making a "legitimate" living he recognized the wardens the same as he did the ATF.

I would have liked to have met your Papaw and had a drink with him.

[phill4paul]

25 years ago, had the director of NMFS tell me right to my face that he was going to put at least half of the East coast fishermen out of business.

25 years ago. SMFH.

[Anti Federalist]

25 years ago. SMFH.

And now, 25 years later, even though Fox is not at NMFS anymore...

Mission Accomplished.

[Tod]

Is there even any accuracy to that claim?

I mean, even if there were, there's always private property rights to solve the problem. But I'm not necessarily convinced it even is a problem.


Something I don't understand is how private property rights apply to a navigable waterway such as a river or one of the Great Lakes. Who is the owner who would protect 40 acres in the middle of Lake Michigan?

Overfishing can certainly be a problem. Freshwater sturgeon were nearly extinctified (hehehe) in the Great Lakes because of a caviar craze. Something like 98 or 99 percent of them were killed off in a very short time.

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/prehistoric-fish-species-personalities-get-help-humans-survive

http://www.hulu.com/watch/495479

[phill4paul]

I would have liked to have met your Papaw and had a drink with him.

At the time I lived with him that summer I was a tween. I couldn't believe that I was abandoned to a wilderness by my parents. Never had a drink with him though my uncle sure had his nips. I grew up the son of an Airforce E-8 in Air Traffic Control. At retirement he went to FAA then got out just before the strike. My mom left the country life and my dad was never there. But they were good enough parents to let me experience substance living. I would have loved to have a drink with him too. His batch was sold as far west as the Carolina's before the bust. A stint in federal got his "head right." Lol.

[Nobexliberty]

Mass commercial fishing has done more damage to fish species then family fishing trips. I do not have the evidence to back it up but atlest in a fishing village my grandma has a cabin people live of fish. They do not go extinct because people are efficient with the fish they catch.

[Anti Federalist]

A stint in federal got his "head right." Lol.

As it will with us all...if.

[Anti Federalist]

Mass commercial fishing has done more damage to fish species then family fishing trips. I do not have the evidence to back it up but atlest in a fishing village my grandma has a cabin people live of fish. They do not go extinct because people are efficient with the fish they catch.

One of the reasons I am not a huge "technology" booster.

For 1000 years, men fished cod off the Grand and George's banks.

It was one of the most productive fishing grounds in the world and mostly self regulated.

Post WWII advances in boats, navigation and trawling wiped out a centuries old resource in 40 years.

[Tod]

Mass commercial fishing has done more damage to fish species then family fishing trips. I do not have the evidence to back it up but atlest in a fishing village my grandma has a cabin people live of fish. They do not go extinct because people are efficient with the fish they catch.


The menhaden fishing industry has had a huge effect on the Chesapeake Bay. Nowadays, planes fly around looking for schools and direct the ships to them, where pretty much the whole school is scooped up, leaving a big hole in the food chain. The schools attract larger game fish and the scraps that fall to the bottom feed the blue crab.

[heavenlyboy34]

But, but, I thought we were a "force for good" and the world would descend into darkness without US?
you get a +rep for giving me giggles. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Something I don't understand is how private property rights apply to a navigable waterway such as a river or one of the Great Lakes. Who is the owner who would protect 40 acres in the middle of Lake Michigan?

Overfishing can certainly be a problem. Freshwater sturgeon were nearly extinctified (hehehe) in the Great Lakes because of a caviar craze. Something like 98 or 99 percent of them were killed off in a very short time.

http://www.michiganradio.org/post/prehistoric-fish-species-personalities-get-help-humans-survive

http://www.hulu.com/watch/495479
This is in the realm of "public goods". It's similar to the roads question. There are many ways of privatizing waterways, just as with roadways. I'm not familiar with the nuances, but it's doable. Central planning certainly is impossible for such things.

[phill4paul]

One of the reasons I am not a huge "technology" booster.

For 1000 years, men fished cod off the Grand and George's banks.

It was one of the most productive fishing grounds in the world and mostly self regulated.

Post WWII advances in boats, navigation and trawling wiped out a centuries old resource in 40 years.

Wonder what the "navigation and trawling" is gonna do to U.S. citizens.....................

[asurfaholic]

Read the comments. If the DNR didn't license commercial fishing, the lakes and rivers would be fished out in no time flat. Yeah, I know.....but that's what they say.

So is this a private property case? How can this be solved without an oppressive govt? Who owns the rivers and lakes and seashores?

Natural resources should be owned by all people and defended from theft or depletion.

[Danan]

So is this a private property case? How can this be solved without an oppressive govt? Who owns the rivers and lakes and seashores?

Natural resources should be owned by all people and defended from theft or depletion.

So you are in favor of putting this guy into jail?

[Tod]

This is in the realm of "public goods". It's similar to the roads question. There are many ways of privatizing waterways, just as with roadways. I'm not familiar with the nuances, but it's doable. Central planning certainly is impossible for such things.

Why would I want the Great Lakes to be owned by a private entity? If it were owned by a private entity and huge wealth were to be obtained through its misuse (such as selling fresh water around the world, draining them to levels that completely alter the ecosystems, what would prevent the private entity from doing that at the expense of the environment and people who live near the Lakes? (historically, private entities have demonstrated hugely pronounced preference for short term profits as they seek to maximize profits for shareholders)

As it is, the Lakes have historically been exploited by private entities and local cash-strapped small governments, over fished and used as a dumping ground for everything from sewage to toxic waste from mine tailings, timbering, and manufacturing. Restraint on this misuse really has come through people and governments who are more detached and less able to profit from exploitation. As progress has been made in restoring the Lakes, public opinion among the locals who once benefited from the exploitation has been molded to the point where now they are among the most ardent supporters of protecting the Lakes.

Great Lakes states and provinces have banded together to form an international alliance dedicated to determining proper management of this tremendous resource and Ontario, which once considering permitting the exportation of Great Lakes water to China, was dissuaded from that folly. Had those sales happened, how would this have been any different than the exploitation of natural resources that South America has been victim of by multinational corporations (which has led a considerable percentage of the population to view "capitalism" in a dim light as has been discussed in another thread)?



http://www.glc.org/

[tangent4ronpaul]

Read the comments. If the DNR didn't license commercial fishing, the lakes and rivers would be fished out in no time flat. Yeah, I know.....but that's what they say.

http://www.reefball.org/album/==)%20Non-Geographic%20defined%20Photos/reefbuildershallofshame/slides/blastinwater.jpg

Yeah, I can believe the depletion argument. My uncle used to launch M-80's over a lake with a wrist rocket, long ago. You can't get M-80's anymore, but it sure killed a lot of catfish.

-t

[Tod]

So you are in favor of putting this guy into jail?

Is natural resources taken from public property without public permission theft? If so, why would there not be a penalty? If there were no penalty, what would prevent a free-for all for the exploitation for natural resources and treasures? What if huge unique valuable mineral deposits were discovered in El Capitan? Should El Capitan be dynamited and mined, or should someone protect it from mining companies, even going so far as imprisoning the company members who act to blast it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/El_capitan_and_merced_river.jpg

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why would I want the Great Lakes to be owned by a private entity? If it were owned by a private entity and huge wealth were to be obtained through its misuse (such as selling fresh water around the world, draining them to levels that completely alter the ecosystems, what would prevent the private entity from doing that at the expense of the environment and people who live near the Lakes? (historically, private entities have demonstrated hugely pronounced preference for short term profits as they seek to maximize profits for shareholders)

As it is, the Lakes have historically been exploited by private entities and local cash-strapped small governments, over fished and used as a dumping ground for everything from sewage to toxic waste from mine tailings, timbering, and manufacturing. Restraint on this misuse really has come through people and governments who are more detached and less able to profit from exploitation. As progress has been made in restoring the Lakes, public opinion among the locals who once benefited from the exploitation has been molded to the point where now they are among the most ardent supporters of protecting the Lakes.

Great Lakes states and provinces have banded together to form an international alliance dedicated to determining proper management of this tremendous resource and Ontario, which once considering permitting the exportation of Great Lakes water to China, was dissuaded from that folly. Had those sales happened, how would this have been any different than the exploitation of natural resources that South America has been victim of by multinational corporations (which has led a considerable percentage of the population to view "capitalism" in a dim light as has been discussed in another thread)?



http://www.glc.org/

You would probably like this book/movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milagro_Beanfield_War

Nearly 500 residents of the agricultural community of Milagro in the mountains of northern New Mexico face a crisis when politicians and business interests make a backroom deal to usurp the town's water in order to pave the way for a land buy-out. Due to the new laws, Joe Mondragon is unable to make a living farming because he is not allowed to divert water from an irrigation ditch that runs past his property.

Frustrated, and unable to find work, Joe visits his father's field. He happens upon a tag that reads "prohibited" covering a valve on the irrigation ditch. He kicks the valve, unintentionally breaking it, allowing water to flood his fields. He decides against repairing the valve and instead decides to plant beans in the field. This leads to a confrontation with powerful state interests, including a hired gun brought in from out of town.

An escalation of events follows, leading to a final showdown between law enforcement and the citizens of Milagro.

-t

[brandon]

That's why they should be privatized.

You can't own the water, because it doesn't want to stay put. Lakes and streams are common resources that everyone has to share.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'd agree that you can't own the water (though some counties around here think they own it and will fine/jail you if you put a rain barrel out to catch some of it for irrigation, drinking or whatever. Other communities sell rain barrels at cost.

I think you should be able to own access to the water, so long as it's not a monopoly thing where you are cutting off irrigation or access to larger bodies to the public. For example if you owned a hotel and your plat went to the water line, it's reasonable for you to maintain that beach and restrict its use to your customers.

-t

[roho76]

Correct. Please watch 100 hours of FOX News and come back in two weeks.

[green73]

You can't own the water, because it doesn't want to stay put. Lakes and streams are common resources that everyone has to share.

:rolleyes:

[Danan]

Is natural resources taken from public property without public permission theft? If so, why would there not be a penalty? If there were no penalty, what would prevent a free-for all for the exploitation for natural resources and treasures? What if huge unique valuable mineral deposits were discovered in El Capitan? Should El Capitan be dynamited and mined, or should someone protect it from mining companies, even going so far as imprisoning the company members who might act to blast it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/El_capitan_and_merced_river.jpg

I was asking asurfaholic a question. You are completely right that if one agrees to the premise that roads, mountains, bodies of water, and/or nature reserves should not be private, then they can not argue that the public has no right to regulate its "rightful" public property and also to punish those who violate their regulations. Of course they can still argue that a specific regulation is not sensible or goes to far, but they can not say that the government / public regulatory body has no right to regulate public property.

The only people who can consistently argue that it's non of the government's business to regulate waterways, roads, etc. are those who believe that the current form of collective ownership are against libertarian property rights theory and thus should be owned privately, namely consistent libertarians.

See also:
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf

[Danan]

Is natural resources taken from public property without public permission theft? If so, why would there not be a penalty? If there were no penalty, what would prevent a free-for all for the exploitation for natural resources and treasures? What if huge unique valuable mineral deposits were discovered in El Capitan? Should El Capitan be dynamited and mined, or should someone protect it from mining companies, even going so far as imprisoning the company members who might act to blast it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/El_capitan_and_merced_river.jpg

I was asking asurfaholic a question. You are completely right that if one agrees to the premise that roads, mountains, bodies of water, and/or nature reserves should not be private, then they can not argue that the public has no right to regulate its "rightful" public property and also to punish those who violate their regulations. Of course they can still argue that a specific regulation is not sensible or goes to far, but they can not say that the government / public regulatory body has no right to regulate public property.

The only people who can consistently argue that it's non of the government's business to regulate waterways, roads, etc. are those who believe that the current form of collective ownership are against libertarian property rights theory and thus should be owned privately, namely consistent libertarians.

See also:
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf

[asurfaholic]

So you are in favor of putting this guy into jail?

I didnt say anything to that effect. At the heart of it, I don't think someone should be hauled off to jail for fishing fish then selling them off.

But being a coastal born and raised on the beaches, I also understand that the worlds parasites will destroy important ecosystems if left unchecked.

I'm still learning here.. Open mind.

Edit- by parasites, i mean humans...

[tangent4ronpaul]

I was asking asurfaholic a question. You are completely right that if one agrees to the premise that roads, mountains, bodies of water, and/or nature reserves should not be private, then they can not argue that the public has no right to regulate its "rightful" public property and also to punish those who violate their regulations. Of course they can still argue that a specific regulation is not sensible or goes to far, but they can not say that the government / public regulatory body has no right to regulate public property.

The only people who can consistently argue that it's non of the government's business to regulate waterways, roads, etc. are those who believe that the current form of collective ownership are against libertarian property rights theory and thus should be owned privately, namely consistent libertarians.

See also:
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Something that pisses me off:
Roads created at public expense, then "gifted" to friends as it's cheaper for the state to let them maintain them and collect tolls on them. The state then collects taxes on the tolls.

Or municipalities building a power generation system at public expense, then selling it to an energy company and seeing your utility costs quadruple. Remember Kucinich? That was one of his big fights, and the reason he got elected mayor. This also happened in our area recently, and due to bought off politicians we got screwed!

Or leasing a forest to a mining or logging company and not requiring some environmental restoration (if gvmt land).


the government / public regulatory body has no right to regulate public property.

Should the gvmt even own property? In some cases yes. Like utilities and roads built at public expense.

But for such items, should unknown bureaucrats be able to make the regulations or just enforce them. I rather like the Swiss approach, where if you want to have a neighborhood playground, you meet about it and decide what you want in it and where to put it and then the NEIGHBORHOOD votes on if to fund it. I think it should be done the exact same way for MAKING regulations. Let the beurocrats enforce the rules, not make them. If you've ever heard of the Farm in Summersville, TN, they came together as a collective/commune by choice and as they evolved and built a town, they specialized and broke down into small business units. Capitalistic small business units.

So should the Gvmt own property? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The more local that ownership is and the more controlled by the population, the better. OTOH, when you move up the gvmt ladder, the less this works. But the federal and state gvmt should be doing very little anyway.

-t

[angelatc]

So if I had a pond stocked with catfish in my back yard and I caught them and sold them I could get in trouble?

I'd have to check. You could probably call yourself a catfish farmer and get away with it. But, as AF would say, you have no right to the fish that lie in the King's waters. The Realm passes out 9 commercial fishing licenses annually to those who serve him by paying their tributes.

[angelatc]

http://www.reefball.org/album/==)%20Non-Geographic%20defined%20Photos/reefbuildershallofshame/slides/blastinwater.jpg

Yeah, I can believe the depletion argument. My uncle used to launch M-80's over a lake with a wrist rocket, long ago. You can't get M-80's anymore, but it sure killed a lot of catfish.

-t

The argument is to privatize the waters. In which case said fisherman would still be fishing illegally.

[Warlord]

One of the reasons that I got out of commercial fishing.

When I realized that I would go to jail for a longer period of time for selling a box of short fluke than if I sold an eightball of crack.

Warlord sells what must be thousands of 8balls a year and never gets into trouble with the law. In fact, we are the law. It's a fun system.

[Elias Graves]

Read the comments. If the DNR didn't license commercial fishing, the lakes and rivers would be fished out in no time flat. Yeah, I know.....but that's what they say.

And that is true. Buffalo, deer, wolves and many species of fish and bird were all nearly hunted out entirely by 1900. If not for fish and game law protection, commercial hunters and fisherman woulda never quit until they were all gone.

[fisharmor]

Why would I want the Great Lakes to be owned by a private entity? If it were owned by a private entity and huge wealth were to be obtained through its misuse (such as selling fresh water around the world, draining them to levels that completely alter the ecosystems, what would prevent the private entity from doing that at the expense of the environment and people who live near the Lakes? (historically, private entities have demonstrated hugely pronounced preference for short term profits as they seek to maximize profits for shareholders)

Historically there's a thing called the tragedy of the commons. All of the cases you can cite are cases where the people raping the resources did not own the property they were raping.
If the piece of property is for sale, then the person buying it has to actually pay for it up front.
If they completely destroy it in the process of extracting the resources, then they have destroyed the value of the property. They will never get even close to the initial purchase price back when they're done with it.
The economic equation to clear-cutting a forest becomes totally different if the land itself isn't owned and subsidized by a state entity.

[Seraphim]

The unfounded and emotional based concept of "The Commons" has repeatedly proven to be the single most effective way to destroy ecosystems and destroy resource-like species.

There is no perrogative to keep the ecosystem healthy. NO ONE owns it. No one has a direct stake. Most importantly, NO ONE is accountable. So if mass pollution occurs...it's everyones fault and no one's responsibility to clean up the mess.

There's no reason why chunks of lakes and rivers can't be owned by a person/family/enterprise - at least that when when pollution that spills over into other people's property, there is direct accountability.

There's nothing perfect, but some accountability would be a fanstastic start.

This cluster fuck of The Commons must end.


I didnt say anything to that effect. At the heart of it, I don't think someone should be hauled off to jail for fishing fish then selling them off.

But being a coastal born and raised on the beaches, I also understand that the worlds parasites will destroy important ecosystems if left unchecked.

I'm still learning here.. Open mind.

Edit- by parasites, i mean humans...

[angelatc]

And that is true. Buffalo, deer, wolves and many species of fish and bird were all nearly hunted out entirely by 1900. If not for fish and game law protection, commercial hunters and fisherman woulda never quit until they were all gone.


And yet there's no shortage of cattle.

[Seraphim]

Precisely.

Cattle ranchers are privately owned and operated. Cattle lineage is thus protected.

Marxism is Marxism is Marxism.

"The Commons" is economic Marxism to the Nth degree.


And yet there's no shortage of cattle.

[Elias Graves]

And yet there's no shortage of cattle.

True. And you can sell all the captive raised catfish you want.
But the population is way too big to rely on hunting/gathering for support.
Blame the guy who invented the plow and the stock pen. :lol:

As a boy in Oklahoma during the 70s, it was still very rare to see a deer, turkey, pronghorn or bison in the wild here. They were almost driven to extinction by 1910 because of commercial hunters. The lakes and rivers were heavily depleted as well.
I hate regulations as much as anyone but greed nearly wiped the wildlife out completely.

My uncle's farm was one of the original sites where the national wild turkey federation began releasing Rio Grande turkeys in western Oklahoma in the 1960s. With protection, we now have huge thriving flocks again. I saw four large herds of pronghorn in the panhandle a few weeks ago and the wild bison herds in the Rita Blanca grasslands are a sight to behold.

I am a believer in protecting the helpless and that includes wild animals who don't know how to escape a determined greedy bastard.

[Tod]

Historically there's a thing called the tragedy of the commons. All of the cases you can cite are cases where the people raping the resources did not own the property they were raping.
If the piece of property is for sale, then the person buying it has to actually pay for it up front.
If they completely destroy it in the process of extracting the resources, then they have destroyed the value of the property. They will never get even close to the initial purchase price back when they're done with it.
The economic equation to clear-cutting a forest becomes totally different if the land itself isn't owned and subsidized by a state entity.

There are a whole lot of brownfields and toxic waste sites that dispel the myth that property owners will care for their properties in order to avoid devaluing them. There was a lead smelter in the Cleveland area, Master Metals, that left their property a disaster zone. They made their fortune then closed up shop and their property be d*mned, it was not worth the expense of keeping it clean or cleaning it up. And that is just one example of many such businesses that operated under the philosophy of "it costs too much to keep it clean", doesn't matter whether it is property they own or not.

[angelatc]

True. And you can sell all the captive raised catfish you want.
But the population is way too big to rely on hunting/gathering for support.
Blame the guy who invented the plow and the stock pen. :lol:

As a boy in Oklahoma during the 70s, it was still very rare to see a deer, turkey, pronghorn or bison in the wild here. They were almost driven to extinction by 1910 because of commercial hunters. The lakes and rivers were heavily depleted as well.
I hate regulations as much as anyone but greed nearly wiped the wildlife out completely.

My uncle's farm was one of the original sites where the national wild turkey federation began releasing Rio Grande turkeys in western Oklahoma in the 1960s. With protection, we now have huge thriving flocks again. I saw four large herds of pronghorn in the panhandle a few weeks ago and the wild bison herds in the Rita Blanca grasslands are a sight to behold.

I am a believer in protecting the helpless and that includes wild animals who don't know how to escape a determined greedy bastard.


Do you think that the species would have died out if farmers were raising them for meat?

[Nobexliberty]

Do you think that the species would have died out if farmers were raising them for meat? Yes, it be like domesticaded pigs and a wild boars.

EDIT: Bad example :mad:

[angelatc]

There are a whole lot of brownfields and toxic waste sites that dispel the myth that property owners will care for their properties in order to avoid devaluing them. There was a lead smelter in the Cleveland area, Master Metals, that left their property a disaster zone. They made their fortune then closed up shop and their property be d*mned, it was not worth the expense of keeping it clean or cleaning it up. And that is just one example of many such businesses that operated under the philosophy of "it costs too much to keep it clean", doesn't matter whether it is property they own or not.

Didn't the EPA put them out of business?

[Tod]

And that is true. Buffalo, deer, wolves and many species of fish and bird were all nearly hunted out entirely by 1900. If not for fish and game law protection, commercial hunters and fisherman woulda never quit until they were all gone.

Yep, and these people seem to think they have the right to ruin the world for the rest of us. They don't. Somewhere in the middle is the least destructive position between the extremes, a place that allows the maximum liberty without spoiling life for others.

[Anti Federalist]

Look at forest resources.

Maine is one of the most heavily forested states in the nation, healthy and lush.

And the one of lowest percentages of government owned land.

With commercial fishing in mind, some very simple restrictions on the technology used would have solved the problem.

No, can't have that, government came in and set catch limits and size limits, which had the doubly perverse incentive of using the most efficient fish killing equipment, only to throw short and dead by-catch fish back, as waste.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e87f3e653970d-800wi

[Tod]

Didn't the EPA put them out of business? Yeah, I believe so. The place was a disaster. Hopefully the owners were held to account by the government, because market forces sure weren't working there.

There are a lot of industrial sites whose owners disappeared, leaving behind messes for the rest of us to clean up.

[Danan]

I don't care for animals that can't be used economically (which includes people willing to spend their own money to "protect" them and own them just to keep the species around - if that's what they want...).

That doesn't mean that I want them to suffer, but if they're not able to procreate sufficiently because we hunt them down, or take away their habitat (which is the far more common reason why species go extinct) that's just the way it is. What's the gain from keeping the Bolivian stripe frog or the Atlantic sea snail around at high costs?

Like Walter Block said it in his article:

For all too long these creatures have been free to roam the range of the oceans. It is time, it is past time, for we humans to do for them what we have done for land based animals: to tame and domesticate them, and to bring them within the purview of economic rationality.

[tangent4ronpaul]

For all too long these creatures have been free to roam the range of the oceans. It is time, it is past time, for we humans to do for them what we have done for land based animals: to tame and domesticate them, and to bring them within the purview of economic rationality.

EUGENICS! - AWESOME! :rolleyes:

-t

[angelatc]

Yeah, I believe so. The place was a disaster. Hopefully the owners were held to account by the government, because market forces sure weren't working there.

There are a lot of industrial sites whose owners disappeared, leaving behind messes for the rest of us to clean up.


Im thinking it was the government that wasnt working. How did the site get so bad before anybody noticed it ?

[Danan]

There are a whole lot of brownfields and toxic waste sites that dispel the myth that property owners will care for their properties in order to avoid devaluing them. There was a lead smelter in the Cleveland area, Master Metals, that left their property a disaster zone. They made their fortune then closed up shop and their property be d*mned, it was not worth the expense of keeping it clean or cleaning it up. And that is just one example of many such businesses that operated under the philosophy of "it costs too much to keep it clean", doesn't matter whether it is property they own or not.

So what you're saying is that there was a clean piece of land which was being sold. The entity willing to pay the most for this land was a lead smelter and so they bought it. Obviously they believed they could use the land more economically than anyone else.

It was more profitable to do whatever they did and leave their property worthless than to keep it around for long term use. So what exactly is your problem? Who was being harmed in your scenario? At seems to me like everybody was doing just fine.

Why do you care if their property is a toxic waste side? As long as they don't damage other people's property I don't see the problem here. If they did, the government obviously messed up the legal system, which is hardly the fault of private land ownership.

[Danan]

Im thinking it was the government that wasnt working. How did the site get so bad before anybody noticed it ?

And why would anybody care what I do with my property as long as I don't harm anyone else (which would also not be allowed under a private property system)?

[Danan]

Look at forest resources.

Maine is one of the most heavily forested states in the nation, healthy and lush.

And the lowest percentage of private land.

Really, the lowest? Everywhere else private property of land is what keeps forests intact, while public ownership of forests is mostly disasterous for them (for instance the rain forest).

[tangent4ronpaul]

So what you're saying is that there was a clean piece of land which was being sold. The entity willing to pay the most for this land was a lead smelter and so they bought it. Obviously they believed they could use the land more economically than anyone else.

It was more profitable to do whatever they did and leave their property worthless than to keep it around for long term use. So what exactly is your problem? Who was being harmed in your scenario? At seems to me like everybody was doing just fine.

Why do you care if their property is a toxic waste side? As long as they don't damage other people's property I don't see the problem here. If they did, the government obviously messed up the legal system, which is hardly the fault of private land ownership.

Because toxic waste spreads just like water.

-t

[Danan]

Because toxic waste spreads just like water.

-t

In which case the property owner is liable. I fail to see how that's problem of private land ownership and not of a completely failed (government) legal system.

[Anti Federalist]

Really, the lowest? Everywhere else private property of land is what keeps forests intact, while public ownership of forests is mostly disasterous for them (for instance the rain forest).

Whoops...had not had my coffee yet, I meant to say government owned.

[heavenlyboy34]

You can't own the water, because it doesn't want to stay put. Lakes and streams are common resources that everyone has to share.
LMAO!! :rolleyes: My uncle would be surprised to know he doesn't own the lake and creek on his farm. Sorry, your geo-socialist ideal doesn't hold water (pardon the pun).

[Christian Liberty]

LMAO!! :rolleyes: My uncle would be surprised to know he doesn't own the lake and creek on his farm. Sorry, your geo-socialist ideal doesn't hold water (pardon the pun).

:D

+1.

[oyarde]

I own all waters on my lands and the Fish, I do not however sell fish to DNR .The DNR graze at fast food places , we are fattening them up in case we run out of fish :)

[Dr.3D]

I own all waters on my lands and the Fish, I do not however sell fish to DNR .The DNR graze at fast food places , we are fattening them up in case we run out of fish :)
Wise thoughts indeed. That's being conservative. :D

[oyarde]

This kind of example is a good one to show how over the top this stuff has become , most likely they are going to fine this guy and take his hunter gatherer privledge, the state should not have those powers .

[Dr.3D]

This kind of example is a good one to show how over the top this stuff has become , most likely they are going to fine this guy and take his hunter gatherer privledge, the state should not have those powers .
Well, they know how to make him their slave.

[oyarde]

Fine of up to $1000 for 14 fish, I could buy replacement fish hatchlings several inches long from a hatchery that sells them through my local feed mill for less than $14.Excessive fines like that are an act of economic terrorism and we all know terrorists such as this should be drone bombed :)

[Anti Federalist]

bump