Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: How would protecting orcas be handled in a libertarian society?

  1. #1

    Default How would protecting orcas be handled in a libertarian society?

    I have read the orcas in the Pacific Northwest are somewhat at risk, due to various underlying issues (commercial transport, chinook shortage, etc.). If true, how (or what) would a free society do to preserve them? I'm assuming after a certain distance from shore, the ocean is nobody's property. So unless someone claimed a specific stretch of ocean, it wouldn't be a property rights issue.

    So how would the market figure out how to protect the species, in the absence of charitable contributions?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Reduce population growth with an emphasis on a meritocracy and personal responsibility. IMHO There are too many people on this planet producing waste and consuming vital resources, which leads to the rapid destruction of oceanic life as you outlined.
    “Force the normies into taking sides. At the moment they are just like "meh, I am minding my own business" retreating culturally into their private bubbles and "safe-spaces" since they don't understand what is going on. When the actual "us vs them" starts, they will be forced to fight or they'll die.” - Anonymous Poster

  4. #3

    Default

    First we need to find out whether they are good eating. so how about it @oyarde ? Orca steak worth preserving?

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    IMHO There are too many people on this planet producing waste and consuming vital resources, which leads to the rapid destruction of oceanic life as you outlined.
    Yup also MHO, and a fact.

    Edit: Which brings me to an interesting point. Most problems humanity faces, large big problems, are caused by overpopulation. Famine, war, destruction of the natural environment, etc are caused by overpopulation. Things like criminal acts, many of them when looked at carefully can be sourced back to scarcity of sorts caused by overpopulation, I say this carefully as any society will have crimes committed.

    The people who we elect to create a better environment, better known as politicians.. They usually want to increase the population to solve things...

    So yes, a very interesting thought.
    Last edited by luctor-et-emergo; 07-10-2018 at 01:46 PM.
    "I am a bird"

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kona View Post
    I have read the orcas in the Pacific Northwest are somewhat at risk, due to various underlying issues (commercial transport, chinook shortage, etc.). If true, how (or what) would a free society do to preserve them? I'm assuming after a certain distance from shore, the ocean is nobody's property. So unless someone claimed a specific stretch of ocean, it wouldn't be a property rights issue.

    So how would the market figure out how to protect the species, in the absence of charitable contributions?
    First, you assume that they need preserving. Why? Because you like them? Well, then, go get some and preserve them. The curious thing about liberty is that you have to accept that some things will fade away with time. Just because the mountains erode with the winds doesn't mean we need to bend over backwards trying to "preserve" them.

    But to your larger question - yes, you definitely have a tragedy of the commons happening with the oceans. And any time you have that, you will also have heartache and destruction. If the oceans were allowed to be sectioned and owned, the unnatural problems of the commons wouldn't exist.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kona View Post
    I have read the orcas in the Pacific Northwest are somewhat at risk, due to various underlying issues (commercial transport, chinook shortage, etc.). If true, how (or what) would a free society do to preserve them? I'm assuming after a certain distance from shore, the ocean is nobody's property. So unless someone claimed a specific stretch of ocean, it wouldn't be a property rights issue.

    So how would the market figure out how to protect the species, in the absence of charitable contributions?
    There is your answer. You are quickly getting the hang of this libertarian stuff.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    There is your answer. You are quickly getting the hang of this libertarian stuff.
    Cool but for the matter of this discussion, lets elaborate on that, what if someone decides to put a whole lot of money and time into the effective eradication of orcas for financial gain (or pleasure)? (Think about tiger teeth or rhino horns)

    How would a libertarian society handle that.
    "I am a bird"

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    Yup also MHO, and a fact.

    Edit: Which brings me to an interesting point. Most problems humanity faces, large big problems, are caused by overpopulation. Famine, war, destruction of the natural environment, etc are caused by overpopulation. Things like criminal acts, many of them when looked at carefully can be sourced back to scarcity of sorts caused by overpopulation, I say this carefully as any society will have crimes committed.

    The people who we elect to create a better environment, better known as politicians.. They usually want to increase the population to solve things...

    So yes, a very interesting thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Drudge is a traitor to the Leader and the Revolution.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    Cool but for the matter of this discussion, lets elaborate on that, what if someone decides to put a whole lot of money and time into the effective eradication of orcas for financial gain (or pleasure)? (Think about tiger teeth or rhino horns)

    How would a libertarian society handle that.
    Capture a few and breed them in a place like sea world?
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  12. #10

    Default

    What will happen to the orcas when the backup power ceases for the cooling of our spent nuclear rods? Then what? This whole planet is rigged to blow in the right situation. The problem with humans is their lack of long-term planning. It's our Achilles heel. From economics to energy, everything is boom/bust, when it's stripped down to it's raw function.
    Last edited by AuH20; 07-10-2018 at 02:07 PM.
    “Force the normies into taking sides. At the moment they are just like "meh, I am minding my own business" retreating culturally into their private bubbles and "safe-spaces" since they don't understand what is going on. When the actual "us vs them" starts, they will be forced to fight or they'll die.” - Anonymous Poster

  13. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    First we need to find out whether they are good eating. so how about it @oyarde ? Orca steak worth preserving?
    No , not very good , but your first clue is wealthy white men keep them as pets in a big pool . That is often the first indicator they are not tasty . They do not have an extra large , expensive chicken aviary for viewing by the children for example.
    Do something Danke

  14. #12

    Default

    It is a dilemma. I had the same question about the redwoods in California. In a purely capitalist society, those trees would have been chopped down for wood and profit. It's not just the tragedy of the commons, either. Simple question about humans plundering natural resources.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  15. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    Cool but for the matter of this discussion, lets elaborate on that, what if someone decides to put a whole lot of money and time into the effective eradication of orcas for financial gain (or pleasure)? (Think about tiger teeth or rhino horns)

    How would a libertarian society handle that.
    A better question would be, how would one protect animals like the blue whale which one cannot hold in captivity? That I do not know. I would say orgs like Green peace but I can imagine that even such a group would have a hard time protecting anything without some form of govt protection.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  16. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Reduce population growth with an emphasis on a meritocracy and personal responsibility. IMHO There are too many people on this planet producing waste and consuming vital resources, which leads to the rapid destruction of oceanic life as you outlined.
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post

    Most problems humanity faces, large big problems, are caused by overpopulation. Famine, war, destruction of the natural environment, etc are caused by overpopulation.
    Well...... Communists believe that stuff. Ted Turner says things like that.

    Since when does overpopulation cause famines in a capitalist society? Poor people are fat in capitalist countries. Are there a lot of starving people in Hong Kong? Capitalism creates a horn of plenty. Capitalists tend to believe that humans are the ultimate resource. Human ingenuity solves problems.

    There are no vital resources are humans are eliminating. People have said we were going to run out of oil 100 years ago. Anything that is worth saving will either be saved through charity or through the market. If orcas have value someone will capture them and breed them. Otherwise, why are they so special? Most species go extinct.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 07-10-2018 at 03:43 PM.

  17. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    It is a dilemma. I had the same question about the redwoods in California. In a purely capitalist society, those trees would have been chopped down for wood and profit. It's not just the tragedy of the commons, either. Simple question about humans plundering natural resources.
    Isn't that good? There are more trees now in the United States than there were a 100 years.

    If there is a profit to be made, it means those trees have value and are furthering humanity. I don't know anything about those trees but maybe chopping them down is their best use.

  18. #16

    Default

    I'd ride one armed with a .50 caliber machine gun and a duffle bag of M72's!
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Well...... Communists believe that stuff. Ted Turner says things like that.

    Since when does overpopulation cause famines in a capitalist society? Poor people are fat in capitalist countries. Are there a lot of starving people in Hong Kong? Capitalism creates a horn of plenty. Capitalists tend to believe that humans are the ultimate resource. Human ingenuity solves problems.

    There are no vital resources are humans are eliminating. People have said we were going to run out of oil 100 years ago. Anything that is worth saving will either be saved through charity or through the market. If orcas have value someone will capture them and breed them. Otherwise, why are they so special? Most species go extinct.
    Socialism and ill-conceived charity have created population growth among those groups where it is least advantageous and restricted the creation and natural distribution of wealth that would fix the problem.

    In a free and natural society population wouldn't be a problem.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kona View Post
    So how would the market figure out how to protect the species, in the absence of charitable contributions?
    Throw the liberals overboard?
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  22. #19

    Default

    Seriously, a libertarian solution is to find out why populations are dwindling. Clearly a lot of ocean life is gone due to overfishing, mainly by the Japanese. Japan has almost no arable land. If a way could be found to help it find inexpensive food sources the demand for fish would drop enough for the ocean populations to regulate themselves.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  23. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    Seriously, a libertarian solution is to find out why populations are dwindling. Clearly a lot of ocean life is gone due to overfishing, mainly by the Japanese. Japan has almost no arable land. If a way could be found to help it find inexpensive food sources the demand for fish would drop enough for the ocean populations to regulate themselves.
    Another point is this, even the japanese would want to conserve the fish population because if the over fish, there wont be any fishes for them to eat. Essentially its in the Japanese self interest not to bring their fish delicacy to extinction.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  24. #21

    Default

    you would be able to secure funding or pay for it yourself and protect your own little pod without forcing anyone else to participate in it, or steal other people's money to pay for it...I believe they call that a win-win

    Please tell me why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).

    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide


    ^THAT^

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  25. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Well...... Communists believe that stuff. Ted Turner says things like that.

    Since when does overpopulation cause famines in a capitalist society? Poor people are fat in capitalist countries. Are there a lot of starving people in Hong Kong? Capitalism creates a horn of plenty. Capitalists tend to believe that humans are the ultimate resource. Human ingenuity solves problems.

    There are no vital resources are humans are eliminating. People have said we were going to run out of oil 100 years ago. Anything that is worth saving will either be saved through charity or through the market. If orcas have value someone will capture them and breed them. Otherwise, why are they so special? Most species go extinct.
    The masses are both a danger to our environment as well as our personal liberty. I wasn't always in the Malthusian camp, until recently. Technology has refined the modern oligarchical state to such a degree that the multitudes can maintain the status quo, by continuing the endless misuse of resources and capital. They need to just die off naturally as opposed to some murder program or eugenic initiative.


    Imagine what the US would look like without Medicare, Medicaid and a host of other useless programs, which are delaying the inevitable?
    Last edited by AuH20; 07-10-2018 at 05:29 PM.
    “Force the normies into taking sides. At the moment they are just like "meh, I am minding my own business" retreating culturally into their private bubbles and "safe-spaces" since they don't understand what is going on. When the actual "us vs them" starts, they will be forced to fight or they'll die.” - Anonymous Poster

  26. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Another point is this, even the japanese would want to conserve the fish population because if the over fish, there wont be any fishes for them to eat. Essentially its in the Japanese self interest not to bring their fish delicacy to extinction.
    They overfish everywhere. Somalia had a very sustainable life as a fishing culture until the Japanese overfished the area and depleted the population.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  27. #24
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,322
    Join Date
    May 2007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kona View Post
    I have read the orcas in the Pacific Northwest are somewhat at risk, due to various underlying issues (commercial transport, chinook shortage, etc.). If true, how (or what) would a free society do to preserve them? I'm assuming after a certain distance from shore, the ocean is nobody's property. So unless someone claimed a specific stretch of ocean, it wouldn't be a property rights issue.

    So how would the market figure out how to protect the species, in the absence of charitable contributions?
    To answer, it's of value to examine how it's down now. This is a framework that can apply for many similar situations...

    1. There is some identification of a problem. Scientist / researchers ID that some human behavior is causing a long term issue.
    2. There is campaign to grow awareness of the problem, people debate the research and the real impact of the issue.
    3. Coalitions are built to set a policy to fix the problem.
    4. Laws get past, people get notified.
    5. Funds are used to enforce the law.
    6. Forced is used to make violators comply with the law.
    7. If too many people disagree with the law a war of sorts breaks out.

    Here's a similar framework for a free society:
    1. (same)
    2. (same)
    3. Coalitions are built to draft a public decree to address the problem.
    4. The decree is made public, and people get notified.
    5. People that feel strongly about the decree fund the enforcement of the decree.
    6. (same)
    7. (same)

    Some key differences...
    In a non-free society a powerful few can make laws that have strong opposition.
    In a non-free society you are forced to fund enforcement of laws that you disagree with.

    A common argument against the free society approach is that powerful warlord could take control. This is true, but it's no different than a state based approach where the will of powerful states can crush the opposition of the weak/poor. This happens all the time. The key difference in this case is that it's harder to oppose a corrupt state.

    In the end, it all comes down to a few key points:
    - Government power structures will be more powerful than a power structure that people can easily opt out of.
    - The bigger power structures you create the more desirable it will be for someone to corrupt it. Power leads to corruption.
    - People have to seek knowledge to make informed decisions.
    - People have to learn to get along and make compromises where others feel strongly on something.
    - People have to show compassion to others.

    Consider a case where some people are "over" consuming a resource, but it's needed to feed families. Stepping in and forcing them to stop becomes a bad solution without working making sure their families are feed as a better long-term plan is worked out. Knowledge. Compromise. Compassion. Basic human traits that don't require a state.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    I'd ride one armed with a .50 caliber machine gun and a duffle bag of M72's!
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.



Similar Threads

  1. Books with a libertarian society
    By Dissent in forum Books & Literature
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-23-2014, 11:22 AM
  2. PETA Sues SeaWorld for Violating Orcas' Constitutional Rights
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-28-2011, 08:39 PM
  3. Success in a Libertarian society
    By eugenekop in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 05:16 PM
  4. Would a libertarian society be conservative?
    By denison in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 08:29 PM
  5. Replies: 93
    Last Post: 11-05-2008, 08:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •