Should the government invest in the preservation of endangered species?

[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

[Gabu]

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?

[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

[Хahar 🤔]

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

The government can prosecute people, and will never run out of funding. Thhe good arguments have already been made.

[MasterJedi]

Definitly

[Gabu]

Funded by private donations rather than tax dollars

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

[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

[Gabu]

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.

[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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[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

[Ban my account ffs!]

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

Why should I post a lengthy rebuttal?  What you've posted here already says a lot about your character and your knowledge of government.

[Gabu]

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.

You would not trust private organizations to regulate flag burning, but you would trust private organizations to regulate the entire global ecosystem?

[Ebowed]

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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

Because it's a national resource - are you advocating that we privatise the DNR, national and state parks too?

[tik 🪀✨]

Yes, just as the government should invest in the eradication of invading, foreign species.

[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.

[Ebowed]

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?

[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.

[Ebowed]

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?

[Verily]

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.

How you be certain that the law will then be enforced? If private contractors are enforcing the law, who forces them to enforce the law? You've surrendered the government's ability to do so in the name of ideology.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

Well then where DO you draw the line?  If you privatize this, do you privatize the DNR and keeping people from poaching?  DNR officials DO carry guns, so now you are talking about getting privatized security guards to keep poachers out - that's a dangerous road to privatizing the police force.

[Gabu]

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.

How in the world is enforcement of this law any different from enforcement of any other law?  The government passes a law, and then it enforces it.  If the government does not enforce a law, the law is worthless.

This seems like a completely arbitrary distinction made purely on the grounds of "I feel like it" with no attempt at consistency of any kind.

[Gustaf]

I don't know if this is what DWTL is saying but the government does not do everything it decrees to happen by itself. For instance, if the government decides that children are to get public education they may not build the school buildings themselves but contract it out to some private company. And so on. Of course, enforcing laws by violence has to be made by the state to uphold its monopoly on violence, one of the corner-stones of civilization.

As regards the question, I'd say it depends. If there is some point to it other than saving an endangered species or if there is some public interest and people ready to pay for it, I guess. Otherwise, I don't think there is a point to saving species for its own sake. The aforementioned Tragedy of the Commons only become relevant if we're talking about edible fishes running out due to over-fishing, etc not concerning pandas or other completely irrelevant species.