Extinction of the Black Rhino and Capitalism

[Captain Shays]

Please help me out here. Though I am as libertarian as the day is long and I believe strongly in free markets, I posted on Facebook about last week's announcement that the black rhino was officially declared extinct relative to the ivory trade and the US being the world's largest importer of ivory.
One of my friends, called poaching "the free market".

This is his reply: "Capitalism isn't really a political party or system although it is claimed to be so. One of the common items in capitalism is to "sell for what the market will bear." What if the markets were controlled? Then the markets would bear any price (what we are seeing in the US now).

As for the Black Rhino, it was seen by the poachers as "worth it" to continue to over-harvest the horns of poor rhinos. What will ALWAYS hold true are the laws of physics and science. Economic theories are cool perhaps and somewhat useful for investing. All the economists in the world cannot come up with an innovation to bring back the Black Rhino. The "free markets" took their course (in and outside of the law) and decimated them.

I'm surprised it is so hard to get my point across, but speak to any 'total' believer in Capitalism and if you present a problem, they will answer that the very problem you mentioned opens up a new market. This works say 95% of the time. EX: An oil spill opens up a market for oil clean up crews etc. From this it appears that there can be a business solution to everything. I contend that there are some things that investors don't want to be bothered with or simply cannot fix. Who has come up with the wonderful and highly profitable solution for Fukushima? Nobody."


I was wondering what your thoughts are and if you can give me some good answers to my friend. Thanks in advance. I see this as an educational opportunity for me and maybe others as well so I'm counting on your guys.

[Ronin Truth]

“The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’ It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.” — AYN RAND (http://www.aynrand.org/)


What is Capitalism?

Capitalism (http://capitalism.org/capitalism/what-is-capitalism/) is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its’ result is the free-market.


http://capitalism.org/

[acptulsa]

I am a libertarian, not an an-cap. I don't mind protecting a species from the unscrupulous any more than I reject regulations (like antitrust laws) that give capitalism a more level playing field. The problem is that government is more corruptible than anything else on earth. This is the problem that the progs never, ever address.

It's interesting that he brings up Fukushima. The free market solution to that is obvious and effective. But it isn't a curative solution, it's a preventative solution. Nuclear plants do not get built by the free market, they get built with government encouragement--and particularly by nations that want quantities of enriched, weapons-grade material. I've never heard anyone argue that the free market can get us out of any mess a government gets us into. But the free market certainly does avoid pitfalls that the government pathologically charges us right into.

Perhaps the market endangered the black rhino. But governments set out to save the species. Unfortunately, the government was too incompetent and too corruptible to do that thing. Does that make the free market the sole perpetrator or is the government that did try and failed to do something about it just as culpable? Your prog thinks he has a black-and-white answer. I say he or she is wrong.

Obamacare is such a wonderful case study. The free market does a great job of catering to those with money, even to the point of babying the hypochondriacs. For those without money, the market isn't so effective. Charity and county-level governments did a credible job until the federal government decided that no one should die while hospital bean counters search the corpse for signs of money. Perhaps that's fair enough. But they wrote the law in such a way that trauma centers couldn't even send those with nothing more than head colds on down the road with impunity. After that, it was no longer possible to say, 'It ain't broke, don't fix it.' But, unfortunately, those who have gained a smidgen more power never, ever give it up voluntarily. This is a great human failing that the progs never, ever address. And when governments gain sway over the press, the obvious solution--repealing those cures which prove worse than the disease--never gets presented to the general public as a possibility. And I think the progressive notion of turning the whole mess over to the entity that created most of the problems in the first place, and which can't even seem to set up a working website, is a foolish and completely self-destructive idea.

You know, the free market might just have the fix for this problem. Cloning was invented by the free market, and if enough people take an interest it's possible that this species can still be brought back by that method. It all depends upon whether other species of rhino can bring a black rhino embryo to term. But one thing is certain. Government tried to prevent this tragedy, and was too incompetent and corruptible to do it.

[Captain Shays]

I found this piece about the tragedy of the commons from Von Misis institute that I found relevant http://mises.ca/posts/articles/tragedy-of-the-commons-and-species-extinction/

[Scrapmo]

If it was a "free-market" then they would not have to be sold on a "black market". Black Rhinos were not part of a free market system. AFAIK no one could legally invest in Black Rhinos to be harvested. They were under the protection of a government and look how well that turned out. Lets say people were allowed to legally breed and sell black rhinos. You would have ranchers ensuring that their product, and thus their income, would not go extinct. Historically though over hunting of several species have been a problem no matter what form of government or economy is being used.

The problem is that most of animals with large home ranges are doomed to become extinct in the wild due to encroachment of human civilizations. This is irrespective of government or economy. People multiply and expand, animals lose environment and their numbers dwindle. The government solution is to ban the sell and trade, isolate populations in small "protected" regions. No investors with any capital can invest, poachers then fill the market gap, and poachers do not care about the animal population or the laws protecting them.

The free market solution would allow ranchers and investors to capture, breed and sell a product. Ask your friend why their are no cow or chicken poachers. Although the American bison was nearly brought to extinction from over hunting and sells in a capitalistic setting, the free market also brought them back from the brink in the manner I previously outlined.

I know this model does not work for every animal (animals with no market value, or animals that are too hard to hold captive), but the cold hard truth is that many animals that rely on large home ranges (example the black bear ideally would have a home range of hundreds of square miles) are going to go extinct in the near future due to human encroachment. Your friends solution is to do more of the same, let the government unsuccessfully protect thousands and thousands of square miles of habitat and pass laws the poachers are going to ignore. The free market solution would at least give these animals a future in a domestic setting.

FWIW this is coming from a former biologist who has worked in conservation and animal husbandry of endangered animals.

P.S. Markets are not my area of study or expertise, zoology is or was formerly anyways. I'm sure someone else around here can explain the market aspect a little better than me.

[acptulsa]

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

An outstanding analysis. I should have thought of the fact that endangered animals are 'protected' from domestication myself. Fortunately, I am not so arrogant as the progressives, or else I'd have insisted this thread be locked after I had my say and your brilliant observation would not have been allowed to enter into it.

Nice job.

[LibForestPaul]

As for the Black Rhino, officially declared extinct, it was seen by the poachers as "worth it" to continue to over-harvest the horns of poor rhinos.
1. Assuming the declaration of this species extinction is truthful and factual.
2. Assuming the reason of the extinction, poaching, was truthful and factual.
3. Assuming the nation-states that these poaching activities occurred were free market states.
The conclusion then is that 7,000,000,000, seven thousand million people, have decided together that the Black Rhino's exsitance is not worth their resources. Otherwise, at least a handful of these millions upon millions of people would have pooled their resource to presever this species. It appears greedy sloathful people are complaining about their greed and sloathfulness.

[Henry Rogue]

Please help me out here. Though I am as libertarian as the day is long and I believe strongly in free markets, I posted on Facebook about last week's announcement that the black rhino was officially declared extinct relative to the ivory trade and the US being the world's largest importer of ivory.
One of my friends, called poaching "the free market".

This is his reply: "Capitalism isn't really a political party or system although it is claimed to be so. One of the common items in capitalism is to "sell for what the market will bear." What if the markets were controlled? Then the markets would bear any price (what we are seeing in the US now).

As for the Black Rhino, it was seen by the poachers as "worth it" to continue to over-harvest the horns of poor rhinos. What will ALWAYS hold true are the laws of physics and science. Economic theories are cool perhaps and somewhat useful for investing. All the economists in the world cannot come up with an innovation to bring back the Black Rhino. The "free markets" took their course (in and outside of the law) and decimated them.

I'm surprised it is so hard to get my point across, but speak to any 'total' believer in Capitalism and if you present a problem, they will answer that the very problem you mentioned opens up a new market. This works say 95% of the time. EX: An oil spill opens up a market for oil clean up crews etc. From this it appears that there can be a business solution to everything. I contend that there are some things that investors don't want to be bothered with or simply cannot fix. Who has come up with the wonderful and highly profitable solution for Fukushima? Nobody."


I was wondering what your thoughts are and if you can give me some good answers to my friend. Thanks in advance. I see this as an educational opportunity for me and maybe others as well so I'm counting on your guys.
There is nothing Free Market about a black market as it is government restrictions taken to the extreme, that is prohibition.

[oyarde]

Some Rhino ranches could have saved them.

[MelissaWV]

Well I am sure that, to combat poachers, I could just start farming black rhinos and keeping them safe on my own property, selling the horns of those that die of natural causes, right? Especially seeing how much rhino horns go for, I would absolutely want in on that. Hell, there would be young males that get injured or die during the course of fighting over females. I might also come up with a way to harvest and cap the horns on some of the rhinos. I'd certainly have incentive to do so.

Oh, no? You mean there were a dozen levels of Government regulation in the nation of origin, plus another two dozen governing the importation of rhino horns and rhino products in other nations? Oh. Well then no, that's not really attractive to me.

[Henry Rogue]

I found this piece about the tragedy of the commons from Von Misis institute that I found relevant http://mises.ca/posts/articles/tragedy-of-the-commons-and-species-extinction/Looks like you found the answer you seek. Oceans maybe the best example of the tragedy of the commons. I wonder if it goes much deeper than the tragedy of the commons in some cases. Government created corporations may compound the affect of the tragedy of the commons.

[ClydeCoulter]

I found this piece about the tragedy of the commons from Von Misis institute that I found relevant http://mises.ca/posts/articles/tragedy-of-the-commons-and-species-extinction/

Could this also provide a basis for the ownership of drinking water? (Note: I reserve the ownership of my well and any water that I can and will draw from it).

[Henry Rogue]

Could this also provide a basis for the ownership of drinking water? (Note: I reserve the ownership of my well and any water that I can and will draw from it).I don't think we can own the entire aquifer, but we certainly posses what comes out of our well. People don't want to pollute their own water. I guess the question is, how could a Free Market protect the aquifer? But protection by the Free Market is a different problem than what is the cause of a problem.

[ClydeCoulter]

I don't think we can own the entire aquifer, but we certainly posses what comes out of our well. People don't want to pollute their own water. I guess the question is, how could a Free Market protect the aquifer? But protection by the Free Market is a different problem than what is the cause of a problem.

I was thinking of Nestle (I think that's who the thread was about a few days ago).

I still can't believe that I predicted water would be sold in bottles back in the early 70's, what I can hardly believe is that it is.

[Henry Rogue]

I was thinking of Nestle (I think that's who the thread was about a few days ago).

I still can't believe that I predicted water would be sold in bottles back in the early 70's, what I can hardly believe is that it is.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431515-Nestle-CEO-Says-You-Shouldn%92t-Have-The-Right-to-Water&highlight=Nestle
Oh, I see. How did you come to that prediction?

[brushfire]

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[erowe1]

If the free market is why black rhinos are extinct, then why are cows and chickens doing so well?

[kcchiefs6465]

If the free market is why black rhinos are extinct, then why are cows and chickens doing so well?
"Well" is subjective. They aren't extinct, at least. There are many small farms that treat the animals rather well, though.

Gestation and other factors obviously contribute. Saying what you posted will leave you open to quite a few convincing counter arguments from even a somewhat competent debater.

I actually looked into it before but cannot recall exactly what I learned. (there was a thread on this about a year ago) Their mating and gestation periods contribute largely to the extinction rhinos face, I do recall.

[erowe1]

Saying what you posted will leave you open to quite a few convincing counter arguments from even a somewhat competent debater.

No it won't. If they're competent, then they'll get my point, which was that legalizing the sale of black rhino products would have ensured their survival, and that the banning of doing so is positively counterproductive.

Nothing else about mating or gestation or anything like that even matters once that point is gotten. Rhino farmers would make sure their herds were reproducing, and they'd do a better job than anyone else could.

[kcchiefs6465]

No it won't. If they're competent, then they'll get my point, which was that legalizing the sale of black rhino products would have ensured their survival, and that the banning of doing so is positively counterproductive.

Nothing else about mating or gestation or anything like that even matters once that point is gotten. Rhino farmers would make sure their herds were reproducing, and they'd do a better job than anyone else could.
If rhinos don't mate in captivity, only have one calf (I think that's what they call them) per life time, and are generally reclusive animals, there isn't much to be done. At least, especially with regards to the rest of humanity short of twenty years ago. Rhino farmers would intend to do as much, sure. But if it is not possible? We are reaching an age where we could probably ensure even the most reclusive animals would reproduce but it wasn't always that way. That is aside from what was my point of that instead of black rhinos facing the horrors of what factory farming has perpetrated on chickens and cows, let them go extinct. As if we are somehow entitled to prolonging or exacerbating suffering for our own petty enjoyments. What an egotistical species we are.

I do know your position, by and large, I think. Animals are for our enjoyment. Whether that be for consumption or otherwise. You aren't alone in that mindset, no doubt. I am no vegan or anything, I just prefer to live and let live. A racket of capturing and mating animals for tusks seems rather barbaric to me. Make the shit out of plastic. Tell the Baby Grand owner to fuck off.

[oyarde]

Oh yeah , for the record the poachers that killed rhinos for horn are retarded.

[kcchiefs6465]

Oh yeah , for the record the poachers that killed rhinos for horn are retarded.
Probably the laws, and then the prices horn is going for. As I can tell, they'd take the meat but won't risk it.

You are right, to waste the whole animal for a piece of tusk is retarded. Laws and dumbfucks abound.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

unless those tusks cure cancer i see no value in hunting those rhinos. Probably an act of desperation for the poor countries involved trying to feed their families.

[oyarde]

If I had a Rhino ranch , I would just grind up my fingernail clippings and sell that as Rhino horn flakes....

[oyarde]

Then grill out some ground beef , call them rhino burgers ....LOL

[oyarde]

Oyarde's Rhino Ranch , high priced items for peckerwoods . Nice ring to it.

[angelatc]

This is not actually even real, exactly. Last weeks "announcement" was actually dated 2011.

[oyarde]

This is not actually even real, exactly. Last weeks "announcement" was actually dated 2011.

It is all confusing anyway , Black & White Rhinos are the same color , Whites have a square lip , the other not , White from the dutch word wijd.Rhinos are super cool animals.I would put a saddle on it and ride it :)

[oyarde]

This is not actually even real, exactly. Last weeks "announcement" was actually dated 2011.

2011 , I think that would be the Western Black.Maybe a dozen left in 2002 , none seen since 2005.Maybe 5k Black Rhinos left of all the sub species, three are extinct.

[erowe1]

If rhinos don't mate in captivity

...then those who stand to make a profit from their mating will figure out what it takes.

Those being funded by taxes in some kind of government-animal-benevolence program won't.

[kcchiefs6465]

...then those who stand to make a profit from their mating will figure out what it takes.

Those being funded by taxes in some kind of government-animal-benevolence program won't.
It isn't one or the other. As far as I'm aware, there are privately funded conservatories. And before only a couple of decades ago and the advances in DNA technology, there really was no hope for these creatures. There's only so much that can be done "naturally."

But like I said, if we think we should clone or otherwise forcibly reproduce rhinos or other exotic animals so we can go to the zoo and take pictures of them, or so we can kill them to take their tusk, or any other trivial reason I can imagine why a human would want to "save" these creatures, perhaps it is us as a species that needs to change. Let them go extinct, if keeping them alive means the same brutal conditions many animals are slaughtered here under. Of course there are always exceptions and some people are probably legitimately interested in saving these creatures or at the least, not keeping them subject under prod and whip.

ETA: I suppose I just cannot find myself caring aside from trying to come to a philosophical understanding of why we think we are so damn special as to warrant suffering from any and everything for our petty enjoyments. I don't get people, sometimes.

[compromise]

It isn't one or the other. As far as I'm aware, there are privately funded conservatories. And before only a couple of decades ago and the advances in DNA technology, there really was no hope for these creatures. There's only so much that can be done "naturally."

But like I said, if we think we should clone or otherwise forcibly reproduce rhinos or other exotic animals so we can go to the zoo and take pictures of them, or so we can kill them to take their tusk, or any other trivial reason I can imagine why a human would want to "save" these creatures, perhaps it is us as a species that needs to change. Let them go extinct, if keeping them alive means the same brutal conditions many animals are slaughtered here under. Of course there are always exceptions and some people are probably legitimately interested in saving these creatures or at the least, not keeping them subject under prod and whip.

ETA: I suppose I just cannot find myself caring aside from trying to come to a philosophical understanding of why we think we are so damn special as to warrant suffering from any and everything for our petty enjoyments. I don't get people, sometimes.

We are the only species with natural inalienable rights.

[acptulsa]

We are the only species with natural inalienable rights.

But the only species with an inalienable right to torture other species at his pleasure is Dickus Cheneius.

[kcchiefs6465]

We are the only species with natural inalienable rights.
Because God said so? In any case, whether or not God put animals here for our enjoyment or because we are cognitive of our rights and are able to articulate them, it really doesn't matter towards more the point I was making. Which is, so what? Does that mean I should just shoot shit for the hell of it? That I should inflict suffering because..? I mean seriously, who the hell made us so important that everyone has the complex that the world revolves around them.

The issue here, is not whether or not humans are the only species with inalienable rights. It is to what extent are people petty, selfish, wastes of space and to what extent will the subjugation or mistreatment of creatures exist (for by and large trivial reasons).

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we ought to do something. Do you understand?

[klamath]

For the disinformation, Rhino horns are NOT ivory. Ivory is from elephant tusks, a very exaggerated tooth. Rhino horns are caratin , hair, fingernails.
Rhino horns;
are used by some cultures for ornamental or traditional medicinal purposes. East Asia, specifically Vietnam, is the largest market for rhino horns. Rhino horns cost as much as gold on the black market. People grind up the horns and then consume them believing the dust has therapeutic properties.[2] The horns are made of keratin, the same type of protein that makes up hair and fingernails

[compromise]

Because God said so? In any case, whether or not God put animals here for our enjoyment or because we are cognitive of our rights and are able to articulate them, it really doesn't matter towards more the point I was making. Which is, so what? Does that mean I should just shoot shit for the hell of it? That I should inflict suffering because..? I mean seriously, who the hell made us so important that everyone has the complex that the world revolves around them.

The issue here, is not whether or not humans are the only species with inalienable rights. It is to what extent are people petty, selfish, wastes of space and to what extent will the subjugation or mistreatment of creatures exist (for by and large trivial reasons).

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we ought to do something. Do you understand?

The world pretty much does revolve around the human race.

It is only within the interests of the human race to keep species alive that have purpose. The black rhino does have purpose and so it should be used for profit.

People will only ever care about things they can own. In Kenya in 1978, elephant hunting was banned, now they're near-extinct there. In Rhodesia, it was ruled that an elephant belonged to whichever man owned the property the elephant was on and then elephant numbers significantly increased. When they were treated as a renewable resource rather than a government-protected nuisance, they thrived.

Nobody will care for property that nobody owns. I doubt that will ever change, it's a fundamental part of human nature.

[Henry Rogue]

FYI FWIIW
At the beginning of the 20th century there were 500,000 rhinos across Africa and Asia. This fell to 70,000 by 1970 and further to just 29,000 in the wild today.
global rhino population figures have been increasing in recent years.


96% decline from 65,000 individuals in 1970 to just 2,300 in 1993.
black rhino numbers have risen since the early 1990s to a current population of 5,055.


southern white rhino. With numbers as low as 50 left in the wild in the early 1900s, this subspecies of rhino has now increased to over 20,000 and has become the most populous of all the rhino species. The population is continuing to increase every year
Looks like poaching has increased dramatically in recent years. 13 in 2007 to 827 in 2013.

[Icymudpuppy]

I am a wildlife Biologist, and work in the field of Wildlife Management resolving animal/human conflicts. I endorse this post.


If it was a "free-market" then they would not have to be sold on a "black market". Black Rhinos were not part of a free market system. AFAIK no one could legally invest in Black Rhinos to be harvested. They were under the protection of a government and look how well that turned out. Lets say people were allowed to legally breed and sell black rhinos. You would have ranchers ensuring that their product, and thus their income, would not go extinct. Historically though over hunting of several species have been a problem no matter what form of government or economy is being used.

The problem is that most of animals with large home ranges are doomed to become extinct in the wild due to encroachment of human civilizations. This is irrespective of government or economy. People multiply and expand, animals lose environment and their numbers dwindle. The government solution is to ban the sell and trade, isolate populations in small "protected" regions. No investors with any capital can invest, poachers then fill the market gap, and poachers do not care about the animal population or the laws protecting them.

The free market solution would allow ranchers and investors to capture, breed and sell a product. Ask your friend why their are no cow or chicken poachers. Although the American bison was nearly brought to extinction from over hunting and sells in a capitalistic setting, the free market also brought them back from the brink in the manner I previously outlined.

I know this model does not work for every animal (animals with no market value, or animals that are too hard to hold captive), but the cold hard truth is that many animals that rely on large home ranges (example the black bear ideally would have a home range of hundreds of square miles) are going to go extinct in the near future due to human encroachment. Your friends solution is to do more of the same, let the government unsuccessfully protect thousands and thousands of square miles of habitat and pass laws the poachers are going to ignore. The free market solution would at least give these animals a future in a domestic setting.

FWIW this is coming from a former biologist who has worked in conservation and animal husbandry of endangered animals.

P.S. Markets are not my area of study or expertise, zoology is or was formerly anyways. I'm sure someone else around here can explain the market aspect a little better than me.

[ClydeCoulter]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?431515-Nestle-CEO-Says-You-Shouldn%92t-Have-The-Right-to-Water&highlight=Nestle
Oh, I see. How did you come to that prediction?

I'm not entirely sure... I was walking to the local store (along a blacktop road about 2 miles away, nothing else within 10 miles from us) and was just thinking, which I did a lot of when I was young, about unions, wages and costs, price inflation, etc... and how each of these effect the other. Just trying to get a feel for how things work and how a lot of it just didn't make sense (although I couldn't put my finger on any particular fault at the time). For some reason, I visualized a soda and other flavored drinks and it just came to me out of nowhere, they will convince people to buy drinking water in a bottle.

I saw the same thing about service stations, I knew that the day would soon come when you would pump you own gas, check your own oil and pressurize your own tires but pay more for all of it. No more "service" station in the future.

I spent too much time thinking when I was young. I was pretty well an introvert and spent a lot of time walking and talking to trees and little critters (for company). :)

[MelissaWV]

For the disinformation, Rhino horns are NOT ivory. Ivory is from elephant tusks, a very exaggerated tooth. Rhino horns are caratin , hair, fingernails.
Rhino horns;

Eh I was going with it since the OP was so passionate :p

[erowe1]

Does that mean I should just shoot shit for the hell of it? That I should inflict suffering because..?

I agree with your point. I don't like the idea of hunting an animal just for sport, especially an especially precious one. And it's not just about animal suffering. It would be like cutting down a giant redwood or tipping over a huge rock that has been an object of human marvel balancing on another rock since prehistoric times.

But the people who would have the most incentive to prevent those things are those resources' owners.

[Origanalist]

I am a wildlife Biologist, and work in the field of Wildlife Management resolving animal/human conflicts. I endorse this post.

I am not, but I also agree completely.

[AZJoe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bOtbe_sdV8