Ayn Rand Institute's Neo Nazi Forestry web page!

Langrrr Langrrr at aol.com
Mon Oct 30 14:43:09 EST 2000

In article <39FDBAA2.F3CE3D0B at tc.umn.edu>,
  Paul Bramscher <brams006 at tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> Langrrr wrote:
> > > The environment and individual do not equate.
> >
> > Completely and utterly wrong.  I urge you to read, "Liberty,
> > and Property", a collection of essays edited by Jonathan Adler.
> The individual and environment equate only when three conditions are
> (1) The individual is immortal (nobody else has to inherit his
> -- or lack therof)

Wrong, as evidenced by countless individuals who have performed
excellent stewardship on their properties.

> (2) When no other living creature or inorganic material
> is allowed to pass in or out of his property, spatially.  That is, it
is an
> island universe, an ecosystem utterly separated from the outside
world and

Wrong, as evidenced by the countless individuals who have worked hard
to attract species to their property.

> (3) If you dispense with all kinds of ethics: animal rights,
> extinction, etc. for that imaginery, isolated, ecosystem.  In a
sense, the
> land is a restricted bubble, both in terms of space and time, an
> and whatever is done -- or not done -- has no impact on anything else.

Wrong, as evidenced by man's milleniums long "experiment" with the
domestication of animals and plants for food.

> The problem is that #1 is obviously untrue, #2 clashes with any
> definition of an ecosystem and #3 presents moral/ethical dilemas.

Actually, the problem is that all three premises are inherently flawed.

> The upshot is that, since our ecosystem is by nature a shared entity,
> stewardship therefore must be shared.

Riddle me this, Mr. Bramscher.  Is man, or is man not, an animal which
is part of an ecosystem?

>   It is obviously shared by the simple
> act of death: whatever you THINK is your private property will be
> away from you when you cease, and it becomes somebody else's problem.

I see - so the concept of the "will" escapes you?  Codicils?  Land

But of course they would - perhaps you are not aware that the
inheritance tax has been one of the more environmentally destructive
forces at work in the United States, precisely because it does force
heirs to sell land to pay for them?

I offer up my grandfather as proof of the incorrectness of your
assertion.  He labored long and hard for the proper stewardship of his
piece of property, and he did it not only for his pleasure but for the
legacy that would remain long after his death.

> That's the time component.  The spatial component is more difficult
> Libertarians to comprehend, but it recognizes modern understanding of
> integrated ecosystem, in which no part can be partitioned off -- poor
> management causes an effect on the rest of the system.
> I find a Libertarian's approach to the environment to be carnivorous:
> mine by right, I'll take it, do as I please with it, and to hell with
> whatever anyone else says.
> If only the world were so large and our lives immortal!

And I find the statists' approach to the environment to be
annihilative.  We'll take what's yours regardless of your need or
record, and fail to live up to their management responsbilities because
they haven't the proper resources or incentive to do so.

You'll note that the worst environmental degradation has always
occurred in media that are not solely owned - national forests in the
United States and Russia, oil spills, air pollution.

And yet what's your answer?  More of the same!

 - Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others).  Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
 or entities.  He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list