Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: What should be done with the Endangered Species Act
It sounds as if you are being very lockstep and rigid in your thinking.
You are being unwilling to see that environmentalist are a good thing, and not anti-capitalist. And most environmentalist USE facts - science - to base their opinions/judgements on. You, on the other hand, are using a belief, the worship of capitalism, as the basis of your judgements/opinions.
You apparently are not aware of the direction the environment was headed in, pushed by unrestrained capitalism, before environmentalists stepped in. But hey, you don't have to thank us for your clean air/water - just realize that you have it because of us.
Except when they ignore or dismiss facts and science that doesn't agree with their worldview.
Lets just say you have a number of base assumptions that I disagree with.
I just said, and I stick with it, that I wish the ESA had more respect for private property rights. It wouldn't bother me if WalMart was forced to move their supercenter to save a frog. I am more concerned about the little guy farmer or land owner that gets trampled on in these type of regulations and Federal hegemony.
I understand we will probably not agree on this Jon but you asked the question and I answered it.
Any type of quality of life type items you can think of.
Air travel, household goods, cars, microwave ovens, shoes, eye glasses, seafood and other food choices, long distance telephone, package shipping, cell phones, basic medical procedures, otc medical drugs, home ownership.
Most things get cheaper and more available due to capitalism and competition.
I just said, and I stick with it, that I wish the ESA had more respect for private property rights. It wouldn't bother me if WalMart was forced to move their supercenter to save a frog. I am more concerned about the little guy farmer or land owner that gets trampled on in these type of regulations and Federal hegemony.
I understand we will probably not agree on this Jon but you asked the question and I answered it.
I guess you won't respond to me as I am unreasonable but had you bothered to ask I think you would find that I am also concerned over the effects on the 'little guys'.
What triggers the negative resposes is when you then add on the emotion laden comments about a federal hegemony. If you want a reasonable dialogue leave off these comments and you might be surprised at the responses.
I think a lot of us would like a little bit more 'libertarinism' as opposed to the fundementalist conservatism that is currently being rammed down our throats.
you still havn't asnwered my question about comapine being required to pay more realistic fees for use of land we [the people] own. Seems this would be a libertarian objective, we own it they want to use you and should pay accordingly.
Any type of quality of life type items you can think of.
Air travel, household goods, cars, microwave ovens, shoes, eye glasses, seafood and other food choices, long distance telephone, package shipping, cell phones, basic medical procedures, otc medical drugs, home ownership.
Most things get cheaper and more available due to capitalism and competition.
Yes they do, it's unrestrained capitalism that is a problem
I guess you won't respond to me as I am unreasonable but had you bothered to ask I think you would find that I am also concerned over the effects on the 'little guys'.
What triggers the negative resposes is when you then add on the emotion laden comments about a federal hegemony. If you want a reasonable dialogue leave off these comments and you might be surprised at the responses.
I think a lot of us would like a little bit more 'libertarinism' as opposed to the fundementalist conservatism that is currently being rammed down our throats.
you still havn't asnwered my question about comapine being required to pay more realistic fees for use of land we [the people] own. Seems this would be a libertarian objective, we own it they want to use you and should pay accordingly.
Ok I'll bite.
What makes you think I am being emotional? Because you had an emotional reaction to the word hegemony?
Is there something in the definition of that word that doesn't fit?
Our difference of opinion( as well as mine with Jon) seems to be that you (and him and Rivercard) see the Federal Government as some kind of benevolent defender of the "little guy" or the environment. When from my point of view it is a defender and lapdog of big business that restricts competition, capitalism, and individual freedom for the benefit of those same corporations and other interests. Democrats and Republican are no different just the other interests vary slightly.
It is true I am not in the mainstream of political thought these days.
"Only a few prefer liberty - the majority seek nothing more than kind masters"
It seems the "mainstream" prefer the kind master of the Federal government to the harsh reality of individual liberty, federalism, and private property.
And on the public land issue I think the government should get out of it all together. Higher fees are great until the corporations just pass along higher fees to the consumer. Once again it hurts the little guy.
I was using the example of two companies whose approach to logging was dramatictly different.
I know logging compaines do [now they are forced to] replant, but in the past they did not.
The contrast is the Candadian company in the article had been logging/replanting/growing/logging on the SAME land for decades. In the US they historicly have logged and moved on. Now they replant then move on.
My other point was that they don't own the land [unlike the Candians in question] and they don't pay a realistic fee for logging.
Nidan, You're view of how logging in America works is outdated and no longer true.
What makes you think I am being emotional? Because you had an emotional reaction to the word hegemony?
This is part of our mutual communication problem, you complety misunderstood my comment.
I didn't say/mean you were being emotional. What I meant was the bulk of your post was resonable [being reasonable does not require I agree with it]. then you added that last comment. This does generate an [emotional] reaction, which then makes it hard to discuss the rest of you post.
That ending jab is an example of maybe why I react badly to some of your positions. The rest of the post was fine, the last jab appears designed to piss me off. Does this make sense ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirChaz
Is there something in the definition of that word that doesn't fit?
Yes, the wordaccording to the dctionaryI looked it up in implies a domination by the Feds. I don't see the federal government dominating us, even GW and his fundementalist buddies will lose an election sooner or later. So how can it be domination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirChaz
Our difference of opinion( as well as mine with Jon) seems to be that you (and him and Rivercard) see the Federal Government as some kind of benevolent defender of the "little guy" or the environment. When from my point of view it is a defender and lapdog of big business that restricts competition, capitalism, and individual freedom for the benefit of those same corporations and other interests. Democrats and Republican are no different just the other interests vary slightly.
I can't speak for Jon but I certainly don't see the Feds as the defender of the little guy. In fact I largely agree with you when you say it is the defender of big business.
It's only when you go further in that statement we even disagree and even the not by much. I suspect we only disagree on captilaism vs unrestricted capitalism.
Funny how we agree on this isn't it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirChaz
It seems the "mainstream" prefer the kind master of the Federal government to the harsh reality of individual liberty, federalism, and private property.
Like I already said, I mostly agree with you, just I wouldn't go as far as you would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirChaz
And on the public land issue I think the government should get out of it all together. Higher fees are great until the corporations just pass along higher fees to the consumer. Once again it hurts the little guy
This has noting to do with government involvement. we the people own that land. Currently the low cost of using it goes to the shareholders of the companies.
As we own it, we should ge a better return on it which could be used in many ways. One of which could be tax reductions. The point is that it is capitalism, what we have right now is corporate welfare.
High fes might also encourage cororations to be more effcient if they want our dollar. Isn't that how capitalism works ? Right now they have no incentive as we esentialy give it to them.
Nidan, You're view of how logging in America works is outdated and no longer true.
Maybe, maybe not but that is sure how mining and catle grazing work.
We had all sorts of grief here recently when an envirnental goup wanted to do exactly what Chaz suggested, ie create a desert wildlife preserve. What caused all the grief ws they didn't petition the state or congress they just bid for the land usage rights.
I think the cattle ranchers got it stopped. If freedom and capitalism are such a good idea,why shouldn't an enviromental group have has much right to bid for land use rights as cattle ranchers ? That way we get the best bid for the rights.
That seem like responsible environmentlism to me, buy/rent land and leave it to nature. Had they been allowed to win the bidding why should they not be allowed to then not use the land, teir money their choice.
I was using the example of two companies whose approach to logging was dramatictly different.
I know logging compaines do [now they are forced to] replant, but in the past they did not.
The contrast is the Candadian company in the article had been logging/replanting/growing/logging on the SAME land for decades. In the US they historicly have logged and moved on. Now they replant then move on.
My other point was that they don't own the land [unlike the Candians in question] and they don't pay a realistic fee for logging.
Agreed.
__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain
Maybe, maybe not but that is sure how mining and catle grazing work.
We had all sorts of grief here recently when an envirnental goup wanted to do exactly what Chaz suggested, ie create a desert wildlife preserve. What caused all the grief ws they didn't petition the state or congress they just bid for the land usage rights.
I think the cattle ranchers got it stopped. If freedom and capitalism are such a good idea,why shouldn't an enviromental group have has much right to bid for land use rights as cattle ranchers ? That way we get the best bid for the rights.
That seem like responsible environmentlism to me, buy/rent land and leave it to nature. Had they been allowed to win the bidding why should they not be allowed to then not use the land, teir money their choice.
I don't have time right now to detail the logging proceedures but, I wholeheartedly agree with letting the highest bidder win the rights.
Is there any way to put someone on ignore for just one board?
Personally I have no problem with you Ian but I can't talk to you on this board.
Suns, Cards, or other trivial matters are fine. I enjoyed meeting you and Jo at the tailgate but my past experience shows me you have little respect for opinions that differ from your own.
I have yet to find you interested in honest dialog on these issues. In my view you are far too "my way or the highway" when the purpose here is exchanging views.
This thread is not about global warming or religious extremists.
I understand you don't see it but "environmentalism" has become a cover for collectivists, socialists, and anti-capitalists. People have been talking about how humans will destroy the planet and the cause a doomsday for centuries.
No, not all self described environmentalists fall into this catagory but the "movement" I am very wary of.
GO
Linear Mode
