Should the government invest in the preservation of endangered species?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Beats welfare but the answer is still no

[DownWithTheLeft]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

[DownWithTheLeft]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

The whole point is that no individual person or organization will see it to be in their own benefit to preserve the area; that's the very definition of the Tragedy of the Commons. Therefore, the government has to step in and do it themselves. Your ideological commitment to hating the government doesn't serve you well here.

There is no reason the government cannot sanction a private organization to do it, I'm sure there are non-profit organizations that want to help animals

[DownWithTheLeft]

Hey DWTL, do you know what Tragedy of the Commons is?
Again, you're acting like a 16 year old with your senseless post.

That point was not senseless, there is no reason the government should fund, sanction a private organization to do it, perhaps, but not funded by the government.  Government funding = waste

The whole point is that no individual person or organization will see it to be in their own benefit to preserve the area; that's the very definition of the Tragedy of the Commons. Therefore, the government has to step in and do it themselves. Your ideological commitment to hating the government doesn't serve you well here.

There is no reason the government cannot sanction a private organization to do it, I'm sure there are non-profit organizations that want to help animals

This isn't just stupid liberals with no knowledge of economics; even theoretical economists say that the free market will not solve problems relating to the overuse of rival non-excludable resources such as wild animals.

How is a non-profit organization going to stop the extinction of a species?  Phone up a company and ask them to please stop killing the animals?

One of the main things that government can do that individuals can't is ensuring that a group of people arrive at the optimal outcome for everyone when each person acting in their own self-interest will not reach that outcome (and there are such situations, which you would learn in the most basic microeconomics class).

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

[DownWithTheLeft]

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

What powers?  The powers of regulation and law enforcement?  Because if that happened, that private organization would become the new government and would cease to be a private organization underneath the government.  You'd still have a government regulating the industry to stop the extinction of a species; it just wouldn't be a democratic government anymore.

Why is it a tautology in your mind that government = bad?  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that sometimes government can accomplish things that individuals acting alone cannot?

Sometimes, like controlling abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and police departments the government can be helpful.  This, however, is not one of those times.

[DownWithTheLeft]

There is no reason the government could not bestow their powers on an outsourced private organization

What powers?  The powers of regulation and law enforcement?  Because if that happened, that private organization would become the new government and would cease to be a private organization underneath the government.  You'd still have a government regulating the industry to stop the extinction of a species; it just wouldn't be a democratic government anymore.

Why is it a tautology in your mind that government = bad?  Why is it so hard to accept the fact that sometimes government can accomplish things that individuals acting alone cannot?

Sometimes, like controlling abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and police departments the government can be helpful.  This, however, is not one of those times.

Why?

Because there is absolutley no reason why we need to protect these animals, people should be free to hunt what they want.  If people want to protect them they can petition the government to get some kind of power to stop it.  I don't want my taxpayers dollars going into discouraging hunting

[DownWithTheLeft]

Because there is absolutley no reason why we need to protect these animals, people should be free to hunt what they want.  If people want to protect them they can petition the government to get some kind of power to stop it.  I don't want my taxpayers dollars going into discouraging hunting

Go ask a biologist how useless animals are.  You will get enlightened on how ridiculously complicated ecosystems can be and how the sizable reduction (not even the extinction) of even one single species can have drastic, far-reaching consequences (by way of removing the natural predator of another species, for example) that have tons of ramifications that directly affect humans.

What happens if overfishing was allowed to continue indefinitely until there were no fish left in the sea?  Then what?  Do you have any idea how vitally important they are to the global ecosystem, not even mentioning how important they are to many economies?  Just as no man is an island, neither is any animal an island, either - everything that is done to any species on the planet has consequences affecting all of the others.  It's not doing it solely for the animals' sake; it's doing it because not doing it will negatively affect humans, too.

I still fail to see why a private organization sanctioned by the government could not do the same thing, we outsource everything else

[DownWithTheLeft]

Because there is absolutley no reason why we need to protect these animals, people should be free to hunt what they want.  If people want to protect them they can petition the government to get some kind of power to stop it.  I don't want my taxpayers dollars going into discouraging hunting

Go ask a biologist how useless animals are.  You will get enlightened on how ridiculously complicated ecosystems can be and how the sizable reduction (not even the extinction) of even one single species can have drastic, far-reaching consequences (by way of removing the natural predator of another species, for example) that have tons of ramifications that directly affect humans.

What happens if overfishing was allowed to continue indefinitely until there were no fish left in the sea?  Then what?  Do you have any idea how vitally important they are to the global ecosystem, not even mentioning how important they are to many economies?  Just as no man is an island, neither is any animal an island, either - everything that is done to any species on the planet has consequences affecting all of the others.  It's not doing it solely for the animals' sake; it's doing it because not doing it will negatively affect humans, too.

I still fail to see why a private organization sanctioned by the government could not do the same thing, we outsource everything else

What would a private organization do that would be different from what the government would do?

Funded by private donations rather than tax dollars

[DownWithTheLeft]

Funded by private donations rather than tax dollars

You don't really understand how this government thing works, do you?

Yes, I do, and I understand that we need to cut funding and that the cost of bureacracy adds up.  I don't know how you guys do it up their in Canada though

[DownWithTheLeft]

Funded by private donations rather than tax dollars

You don't really understand how this government thing works, do you?

Yes, I do, and I understand that we need to cut funding and that the cost of bureacracy adds up.  I don't know how you guys do it up their in Canada though

Why not support government outsourcing absolutely everything to private organizations, then?  Surely private organizations can control abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, et cetera.

I would not trust private organizations to run those things, I personally (and I see where the disagreement lies) think a private organization could handle this task.  Marriage must be run by the government and involves little cost if any to the government.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Funded by private donations rather than tax dollars

You don't really understand how this government thing works, do you?

Yes, I do, and I understand that we need to cut funding and that the cost of bureacracy adds up.  I don't know how you guys do it up their in Canada though

Why not support government outsourcing absolutely everything to private organizations, then?  Surely private organizations can control abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, et cetera.

I would not trust private organizations to run those things, I personally (and I see where the disagreement lies) think a private organization could handle this task.  Marriage must be run by the government and involves little cost if any to the government.

Wow.

Great rebuttle

[DownWithTheLeft]

How is a private organization going to save the panda if the government refuses to pass a law making it illegal to hunt pandas?

The government can pass the law but pass the cost of enforcing it off to others.

[DownWithTheLeft]

How is a private organization going to save the panda if the government refuses to pass a law making it illegal to hunt pandas?

The government can pass the law but pass the cost of enforcing it off to others.

You want to privatize law enforcement?  WTF?

Law enforcement if where talking about endangered species, I'm not advocating actual police being privitized.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Law enforcement if where talking about endangered species, I'm not advocating actual police being privitized.

Why make the distinction?  Why bother even passing a law if you have no idea of knowing whether it will be enforced?

That enlies a fundmental difference of our view of society, I am of the opinion that not all organizations are out to screw everyone while you seem to be.