simonsays

Lets say that it was owned by a wealthy neighbor who died and left it to his son who did not value the forest at all. This was a mistake on his part as he thought he knew his son but he did not. Remember that this forest is a top value, and that everyone in the community including the father expected the son to preserve it, and everyone was shocked when they realised that they did not know the son at all.

If I value a forest as one of my top values (e.g. I have very happy childhood memories of it, I also like taking picnics in it, etc.), then when a logging company comes to log the trees then I will become very unhappy. One solution, would be to band together with other local people and protest the logging, with the long term aim of having the forest become public property so that it may always be enjoyed and will never be felled. However, this solution is not compatible with Objectivism. The best solution that an Objectivist would recommend is to raise enough cash to buy the land from the logging company before any trees are felled. Suppose that I try this solution but the local people do not raise enough funds. Am I to lie down and accept the loss of one of my top values?