Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Individualist environmentalism

Rate this topic


Tabernac

Recommended Posts

hello there!

I'm wondering what some of you folks might think of some of my ideas and experiences, from an objectivist standpoint.

I'm an exploration geologist who works on remote mineral projects - my job often brings me into contact with environmental legislation, but I find the natural world fascinating and I value it for that reason.

Where I am currently working, our work is being monitored for its potential impacts on a migrating animal that exists in this area. Where would something such as herds/flocks of migrating animals fit into objectivist viewpoints on property rights? Would it be possible for a person/group to own the rights to such a phenomenon, notably since they may naturally migrate across land owned by others? And, if this was currently the case, would/should they have the right to monitor our exploration program to check for negative impacts on the animals?

In addition, as I've said I greatly value the natural world for the enjoyment it brings me and for the fulfilment of my scientific curiosity. In the world today, not only are there National Parks and other natural areas which are protected communally, but there are also private agencies which hold land for conservation purposes - I guess ultimately for the enjoyment of their members and other like-minded folk. I assume the former is repulsive from an objectivist standpoint, but the latter is acceptable? If there is ever conflict between a private conservation body and development of mineral deposits, would you advocate a legal framework that values one more than the other, or simply one that purely values the property rights only?

thanks for any replies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guiding principle is that of property rights, in any disagreements over material value, between humans. In some cases, the issues can get pretty complicated, but they can always be sorted out through a consistent application of property rights.

In the case of migrating animals, they would be the property of conservationist groups, who would buy the land needed to facilitate their existence as wild animals (or pay other land owners to accommodate the animals on a voluntary basis), to whatever extent it is necessary to do so.

As for the instances when these animals wonder onto someone else's land, conservationist groups would either have to agree to pay for any damage they may cause, or forfeit their property rights over the animals which cause that damage.

There would also be instances in which there wouldn't be enough economic will or resources to protect a migrating species or sub-species. In that case, the right answer would not be for the government to step in at the expense of property rights. The right answer would be to let economics take its course. This is simply an application of a more general principle: if people don't care enough about accomplishing something to work and pay for it voluntarily, then no one has the right to force them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...