Property Rights

[Dr Chiill]

I have thinking about this for a few days and haven't really been able to come to a conclusion on the subject. I was wondering if State Departments of Fish and Wildlife should exist or not. At first I was like, "Get rid of it! It's not the government job!" But then I got to thinking about migratory animals.

Don't get me wrong I am all for property rights, but I was unsure if just because a group of migratory geese decides to land on my property does that give me the right to kill as many as I want as they are MY property. I guess I really have three questions.

Should the government be involved regulation the harvest of fish and wildlife at all?

Are animals that just happen to be on your land for a short period of time your property?

And for example I know that here in Washington there is a species of duck, Harlequin I believe, that has a very low population and they tend to travel all in one group, if they were considered someones property, would and should it be legal for whoever owns them to kill them all?

If I don't make any sense, please feel free to call me on it. Thanks!

[DavidOdden]

But then I got to thinking about migratory animals.

Don't get me wrong I am all for property rights, but I was unsure if just because a group of migratory geese decides to land on my property does that give me the right to kill as many as I want as they are MY property.

Migratory birds then would be a red herring (a migratory fish). The same question would arise with robins. Or anything else that moves.

Should the government be involved regulation the harvest of fish and wildlife at all?

No.

Are animals that just happen to be on your land for a short period of time your property?

No, but if they are unowned, you may make them your property

And for example I know that here in Washington there is a species of duck, Harlequin I believe, that has a very low population and they tend to travel all in one group, if they were considered someones property, would and should it be legal for whoever owns them to kill them all?

[wilicyote]

This is a classic example of why mixing a little government intervention in is a sure way to spoil the whole thing. It is wrong for the same reasons that a mixed economy is wrong. We get to the point where we have a hard time even imagining what it would really be like in a world where the govt. isn't always interfering in everything. It is so pervasive that we don't even see just how it distorts our ability to see clearly.

Also,

It think it is also important to point out that just because someone has the moral right to take a certain action, does not mean that it is his only choice or even that it is his best choice. For instance, why would one want to kill all the migratory birds on one's property, if one is acting in rational i.e. long range self interest? Kinda like a "life boat" question, eh?

[Dr Chiill]

But what if they act irrationally as most people do, especially in Washington? It's not that I'm an environmentalist, I like to hunt, and I would be bothered by a species of animal going extinct.

I understand that if I cared enough I could buy the land and make it a reserve, but this seems sort of unrealistic as I would need to buy nearly every piece of farmland in Western Washington, to truly protect the species.

I mean, I guess I could accept the fact that whatever people choose to do with their property is their choice, as I know it rightly is. It just bothers me because I know that irrational people will destroy something that I value, and that I do not have enough money to protect that value.

I hope this makes sense.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Dr Chiill

[avgleandt]

But what if they act irrationally as most people do, especially in Washington? It's not that I'm an environmentalist, I like to hunt, and I would be bothered by a species of animal going extinct.

I understand that if I cared enough I could buy the land and make it a reserve, but this seems sort of unrealistic as I would need to buy nearly every piece of farmland in Western Washington, to truly protect the species.

I mean, I guess I could accept the fact that whatever people choose to do with their property is their choice, as I know it rightly is. It just bothers me because I know that irrational people will destroy something that I value, and that I do not have enough money to protect that value.

I hope this makes sense.

I think first of all the task of the government regulating that a certain bird can't get killed on someones property is an impossible task. Most people won't shot a bird because they don't have a gun. Then others won't shot a bird because they can just shoo them away with a stick or something. The small number of people who are actually irrational enough to shot animals just because they are on their property will do so if the government makes it illegal or not. And the to make sure they don't do this, or to catch them and punish them with some sort of successfull rate is impossible. The only thing this law would accomplish is set a precendent for further government controls.

[DavidOdden]

But what if they act irrationally as most people do, especially in Washington?

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. First, I dispute the claim that most people act irrationally, second I dispute the claim that Washingtonians are particularly irrational. Given your "what if" presupposition, that makes sense only if we assume that Washingtonians would be likely to seek to destroy the ducks just for the pure pleasure of destroying the ducks. Not even in Eastern Washington is that going to be the case. More likely, the irrationality that would prevail at least among the 206ers would be sacrificing technology to save a duck. That works in favor of the duck, not against.

It's not that I'm an environmentalist, I like to hunt, and I would be bothered by a species of animal going extinct.

Okay, why? Do you really care, and why do you, if the Hood Canal Summer Chum salmon goes extinct? We're not talking about the extinction of all salmon, or all ducks.

I understand that if I cared enough I could buy the land and make it a reserve, but this seems sort of unrealistic as I would need to buy nearly every piece of farmland in Western Washington, to truly protect the species.

I don't see the reason to believe that at all. What you're basically saying is that the existence of man is entirely incompatible with the existence of ducks, and that's just not true. If you want to preserve the duck, keep them contained on a duck ranch.

It just bothers me because I know that irrational people will destroy something that I value, and that I do not have enough money to protect that value.

Nobody is irrationally destroying anything. You may not agree with their reasons. Some people like those damn seals, which deserve to be shot. The metric of how much you actually value something is, what are you willing to trade for it? Apparently you don't value the duck enough to create a duck preserve. (Not the jam, the ranch). Should the government then enforce your whims? Well, one of my whims is killing those Olympic goats, for well-known reasons. I admit they are amusing. Some people, apparently, have other whims and want them protected, not harvested. So whose whims will be enforced by the state? Solution: the property owner's.

[Jake_Ellison]

I mean, I guess I could accept the fact that whatever people choose to do with their property is their choice, as I know it rightly is. It just bothers me because I know that irrational people will destroy something that I value, and that I do not have enough money to protect that value.

Here's a rule of thumb you can go by: in a free society reason wins over irrationality. So, as long as killing all the ducks in Washington State is irrational, it's not going to happen.

Let me expand:

If the land-owners value the ducks more than the land without ducks, they won't bother the ducks. On the other hand, if the land-owners value the land the ducks are using more than they value the ducks, there are still two options:

1. Other (rational, and therefor productive: rational people in a free society know that being productive is the way to obtain what you want-what you "value") people value the ducks even more than what the value of the duck-free land would be, in which case they will be willing to pay these landowners more money for their land (and the ducks in them) than the land is worth. In this case, the landowners will sell the land, and the ducks are safe.

2. No one productive(rational) enough values the ducks more than they value the money the land would cost to buy. In which case, the ducks will die, and it is rational that they die. What is irrational is that people who aren't productive enough (because they aren't rational enough to fully understand that being productive is the way to get what you value) are allowed to instead just take what they value from other, more rational (and therefor more productive) people. In this case, the property right to these lands is being taken by force from the rightful owners by useless politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists.

[Dr Chiill]

You guys are right, but I'm just curious as to what makes you think most people are rational? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just curious. I am pretty sure that most people I know act irrationally.

[Jake_Ellison]

You guys are right, but I'm just curious as to what makes you think most people are rational? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just curious. I am pretty sure that most people I know act irrationally.

I don't think most people are as rational as they would be in a free society. For one, a free society wouldn't be possible without a large base of supporters (politically), and second, many people would have to become more rational to thrive.

I do know for a fact that everyone has the capacity to be rational.

[Mr. Wynand]

You guys are right, but I'm just curious as to what makes you think most people are rational? I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just curious. I am pretty sure that most people I know act irrationally.

As many of us have seen almost everyone rationalizes what they don't understand, especially with philosophy. Other aspects of their lives are extremely rational. For example Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller were the richest men ever and acquired this wealth through intelligence and hard work i.e. acting rationally, but both men believed in god and thought that they had a debt to pay to their fellow man.

[DavidOdden]

I am pretty sure that most people I know act irrationally.

I doubt that this is true, and I invite you to pay very close attention to the people that you know, to see what they actually and characteristically do. If I were being ungenerous, I would say that you are acting irrationally (by claiming that most people you know act irrationally). But I don't believe that your conclusion -- which I still say is not a fully valid integration of the facts that you are aware of -- is an indication that you are characteristically irrational, I believe that you have not focused as much as you could on the actual facts. I believe you are letting certain facts overwhelm other facts, so that you simply do not notice rational acts when you see them.

I would not be surprised if you did know some people who are, in fact, characteristically irrational -- those who systematically reject logic in reaching conclusions, who do as a matter of course rely on emotions as a post hoc guide to tell them what the proper conclusion is in a particular circumstance. Those sorts of people tend to die early, because they refuse to believe that rat poison or heroin are bad for them, that they will suffer various severe consequences for theft, or who deny that the law of gravity is actually enforced.

I would accept a claim that most people you know could use some serious work on their reasoning and focusing skills, because they strongly tend to make unjustified logical leaps and to not fully integrate what they know -- not seeing that they already know why the conclusion is false. A rational man may not immediately understand that his proposed action will probably lead to his death, but only an irrational man will persist in pursuing that course of action, once his attention has been fully directed at this consequence.

In other words, being dumb isn't the same as being irrational.

[Dr Chiill]

You're right. I think I was confusing terms, but now I get it. Thanks.