How Could Less Regulation Improve Your Job?

[firefox]

How much would a reduction in regulation and taxation of your business or other occupation improve your income and quality of life?

For me:

1. Student- With more monetary competition and/or a return to the gold/silver standard+no fractional reserve banking, my tuition would become a lot lower, and wouldn't keep increasing every single year due to inflation! Taxation and government regulation of industry makes the supplies and books I buy a lot more expensive as well.

2. Asset Protection Consultant, MPAssetProtection.com/KeepYourAssets.net (http://mpassetprotection.com)- This is a funny case. On one hand, the increased regulation of other industries and the insane legislation/litigation explosion of the last couple of decades has meant that more and more businesses and individuals are looking for ways to protect person and property. On the other hand, the near lack of regulation on the relatively new asset protection industry has meant that we don't have to deal with the IRS, OSHA, or anyone else, except in rare circumstances.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, less regulation could mean a drop in my base pay (not the commission though). Currently being at a public college my tuition would go up with reduced taxes, and lack of funds is the reason I'm there to begin with. My towns pressed for money as it is, so my maintaining my car may become more expensive if they reduce the amount of road repairs they do. And cuts in education funding (the schools are already cash strapped) could mean more drop outs and more kids with nothing to do. There's already been an increase of that in my town over the past few years, and recently kids have started wandering the street going in and out of people yards and damaging a few things. Never had that problem at all until this year. Not sure what the funding of the police department is (though I haven't seen them in my area as much as I used to, so maybe it dropped), but I keep seeing the fire department setting up voluntary tolls on busy streets. I have seen a lot of speed traps lately though.

And, if they cut taxes, and the things they fund, two of my closest family members are screwed. One is a single mother with 3 kids (all bipolar) who need special education, which the state currently pays for. She's also on housing assistance and she's going to night school, both of which the state pays for.

Another one has 4 kids and is on welfare. She's been in and out of an abusive relationship (at one point she fled the state to get away) for the past 8 years and the guy she's with barely even works. She's been in and out of work, between the toll the problems at home take on her and the side effects of medication she's on she isn't really stable enough to hold down jobs as it is. And getting her away from the guy she's with has been futile, whenever she leaves he follows and they get back together.

Most of my family also lives in cities with (at least for massachusetts) high drop out and high crime rates. Cutting funds for services (housing, education, police etc.) will make the lives of those people worse, even if the cut doesn't directly effect them.

Ya, your poll isn't very good if it doesn't allow people to disagree with you.

[firefox]

That's where the 'not much' part comes in. It's an economic fact that these things effect your life. :) BTW, I like your sig image. Have you ever seen the bumper stickers that have the Grateful Dead rainbow bears with AKs? I've been looking for that for years and haven't seen them anywhere! :(

I need to sleep right now, so I'll get back to your post tomorrow.

[bobbylien]

I don't know if this counts but my dads company is currently on the list of minority owned companies, hence we get to bid 10% more on all state jobs.. which adds up quickly when you bid 10million dollar jobs. All he had to do was put the business in my moms name and bam. Gotta love affirmative action! What a joke.. but hey its hard enough competing with all of the crooked companies out there who hire illegal labor for state jobs. All of the corruption I've seen in my year of working over there has just about made me sick.

[AlonzoMourning23]

That's where the 'not much' part comes in. It's an economic fact that these things effect your life. :) BTW, I like your sig image. Have you ever seen the bumper stickers that have the Grateful Dead rainbow bears with AKs? I've been looking for that for years and haven't seen them anywhere! :(

I need to sleep right now, so I'll get back to your post tomorrow.


It's not an economic fact that taxes and regulation are harmful though.

And "not much" would usually indicate a neutral or a positive, but barely, choice. It doesn't really indicate a negative effect.

BTW, I like your sig image. Have you ever seen the bumper stickers that have the Grateful Dead rainbow bears with AKs? I've been looking for that for years and haven't seen them anywhere!

No. Someone just mentioned bear hunting and, since I'm not too fond of hunters, I though it would be funny if we armed bears.

[firefox]

I support gun rights and will be owning one at some point down the road. I don't particularly like hunting either, and wouldn't do it myself. On the other hand, I'm not going to stoop down to the level of passing a law about it.

Back to the topic though. Nearly all modern economists argue that government regulation of markets hinders the economy's efficiency because it (among other things) prevents prices and supply from reaching equilibrium. I've been studying this in college and on my own for several years now. How much economics have you had?

[AlonzoMourning23]

On the other hand, I'm not going to stoop down to the level of passing a law about it.


Well, I wouldn't call passing a law banning bar fights, dog fighting etc. as "stooping down". You can't even use the legal argument of personal property in this case, as could be done with a dog.

This is similar to the abortion issue really. Is the protected being worth protecting and, if it is, to what degree?

Nearly all modern economists argue that government regulation of markets hinders the economy's efficiency because it (among other things) prevents prices and supply from reaching equilibrium. I've been studying this in college and on my own for several years now. How much economics have you had?

I've studied economics in college. I also took a class on economics in the third world.

Your idea of dramatically less regulation, where applied, hasn't worked. They really don't work unless the change is global, with all nations held to the same standard. But, in reality, the developed world refuses to play on an equal field.

Mainstream modern economists generally rely on the premise that humans are rational, and choose the best option. That's a psychological question, and really, the degree suggested by economists anyway, doesn't have much support.

Modern economists also don't have a good record of success. And, when they have, a large section of the population became worse. Succesful nations reach a balance. The economy is in charge of more than simply increasing a nations wealth. It also must be established to ensure the improvement of society as a whole. Modern economic theory fails at that. And, without a level playing field, deregulation often ends up failing, with the poorer nations usually on the losing end.

You're big on theory but, lets look at it in practice. Of what I posted, what are your theories going to do? How are they going to benefit those situations? And, do you believe they can even work unless implemently fully? As we all know, nothing is ever done the way it should be, and if your ideas can't withstand that then you need a new one.

[Rider]

Zo wrote- Well, less regulation could mean a drop in my base pay (not the commission though).

If you don't mind me asking, who pays your salary?

Currently being at a public college my tuition would go up with reduced taxes, and lack of funds is the reason I'm there to begin with. My towns pressed for money as it is, so my maintaining my car may become more expensive if they reduce the amount of road repairs they do. And cuts in education funding (the schools are already cash strapped) could mean more drop outs and more kids with nothing to do.

Education funding has exploded in the last few decades while results from the education system have imploded. A tremenous amount of the expenditures are due to federal regulation anyway. I went to school in the 50's and 60's and our facilties were basic, even crude by today's standards, yet we received a superior education.

There's already been an increase of that in my town over the past few years, and recently kids have started wandering the street going in and out of people yards and damaging a few things. Never had that problem at all until this year. Not sure what the funding of the police department is (though I haven't seen them in my area as much as I used to, so maybe it dropped), but I keep seeing the fire department setting up voluntary tolls on busy streets. I have seen a lot of speed traps lately though.

Juvenile delinquency should be handled by parents, but of course in many areas fathers have been replaced by goverrnment.

And, if they cut taxes, and the things they fund, two of my closest family members are screwed. One is a single mother with 3 kids (all bipolar) who need special education, which the state currently pays for. She's also on housing assistance and she's going to night school, both of which the state pays for.

Another one has 4 kids and is on welfare. She's been in and out of an abusive relationship (at one point she fled the state to get away) for the past 8 years and the guy she's with barely even works. She's been in and out of work, between the toll the problems at home take on her and the side effects of medication she's on she isn't really stable enough to hold down jobs as it is. And getting her away from the guy she's with has been futile, whenever she leaves he follows and they get back together.

Most of the disfunction that you speak of here has been caused or exacerbated by the bloated government our taxes fund. In times past the abused woman's husband/boyfriend/partner? would have been straightened out by brothers and fathers, but that doesn't happen any more.

Most of my family also lives in cities with (at least for massachusetts) high drop out and high crime rates. Cutting funds for services (housing, education, police etc.) will make the lives of those people worse, even if the cut doesn't directly effect them.

Once again, cities have vastly increased revenues now that didn't exist in the past, yet drop out and crime rates have risen right along with revenues.

Ya, your poll isn't very good if it doesn't allow people to disagree with you.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Education funding has exploded in the last few decades while results from the education system have imploded. A tremenous amount of the expenditures are due to federal regulation anyway. I went to school in the 50's and 60's and our facilties were basic, even crude by today's standards, yet we received a superior education.

Education funding, as well as attendance, has exploded. No longer is it designed for simply the best and brightest students.

Juvenile delinquency should be handled by parents, but of course in many areas fathers have been replaced by goverrnment.

That's nice and all. My area is almost entirely 2 parent families and is relatively safe. But, your idea is meaningless unless it has practical use. It deals with ideals, not with fixing the way things are. If parents don't, or can't (whatever the case is, and for many its the latter) fix it, then you need a back up plan.

And, if they cut taxes, and the things they fund, two of my closest family members are screwed. One is a single mother with 3 kids (all bipolar) who need special education, which the state currently pays for. She's also on housing assistance and she's going to night school, both of which the state pays for.

Another one has 4 kids and is on welfare. She's been in and out of an abusive relationship (at one point she fled the state to get away) for the past 8 years and the guy she's with barely even works. She's been in and out of work, between the toll the problems at home take on her and the side effects of medication she's on she isn't really stable enough to hold down jobs as it is. And getting her away from the guy she's with has been futile, whenever she leaves he follows and they get back together.

Most of the disfunction that you speak of here has been caused or exacerbated by the bloated government our taxes fund.

Ya, bipolar disorder and abusive lovers are the fault of taxes :rolleyes:.

I'm also not sure what happens if funding is cut for her education and housing. Her kids get the shaft and she was utilizing the services to help make it so they don't.

In times past the abused woman's husband/boyfriend/partner? would have been straightened out by brothers and fathers, but that doesn't happen any more.

Ya, that worked great. I got a great family story from the 60's. This guy impregnated my cousin (she was about 20 at the time), told her parents he didn't love her, and her parents (who grew up during the great depression) still insisted they get married since it was the right thing to do. Flash forward to the late 70's, 2 more kids, plenty of beatings, and at least one incident of where he pulled a gun on her later and they divorced. They would have divorced earlier, but she and her family thought it was immoral. She only left when one of the kids got beaten, something he previously hadn't done.

My father was also beaten by his mothers and mentally abused. The father kept telling him its better that he and his mother stay married, since 2 parents are better for kids than one.

And when my mother was a kid, the next door neighbor used to beat their kid, and would regularly lock him out of the house, even though he wasn't even a teenager.

Domestic abuse used to be a dirty little secret. Doctors often wouldn't report it, not wanting to ruin the family name. The law didn't do much, and the victims (particularly if it was a man) were usually too embarrassed to do anything, if they thought anything even could be done. The only new thing about domestic abuse is that its now reported.

In my family there was the cousin I mentioned, and another couple (married right after WW2) who both beat up each other.Â*Â*No one knew the extent of it till it was well underway. No one knows if there were more like that.


color=red]Once again, cities have vastly increased revenues now that didn't exist in the past, yet drop out and crime rates have risen right along with revenues.[/color]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779196.html

Dropouts rates in the 60's were over 25%, 14% in the 70's, 15% in the 80's, and have hovered around 12% in the 90's and 00's.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0625/p02s01-usju.html

Crime dropped every year between 92 and 2002. Boston used to have very dangerous areas. One place, called the "war zone", was almost completely wiped out. All that's left of it is a few prostitutes at night, but they don't bother you. It's no longer a real dangerous area.

[firefox]

Rider- I'm currenly reading a sociology book you may have heard of called "Bowling Lone" by Robert Putnam. The main topic of this book is the concept of "Social Capital" and it's decline in America over the last several decades. Essentially, "social capital" can be thought of as the social institutions, norms, and interpersonal relationships that help individuals and society as a whole operate in a productive and rewarding way.

The relevance to this thread is that in Chapter 19 Putnam describes the turn-arounds in Tupelo, MS and San Jose, CA. In both these cases, the city had begun to decline in terms of the economy, social functions, charity, etc. Both cities were able to reverse this trend and become amazingly successful because leaders in the community took the plunge and decided to lead by example. They created professional organizations, civic groups, etc. that brought people together and helped them better bond and network with each other. As a result, the local town became more vibrant, wealthy, and safe; generally just a much better place to live!

This proves that private enterprise and cooperation can work much better than any government-force solution if people just realize it and get off their lazy butts. Over here in the Seattle area, there are many non-profit (and some for profit) community action groups. There is also a lot of government bureauocracy. Who do you think is more effective on a fraction of the budget? I'll give you a clue: It's not the one that robs Peter to pay Paul.

[Rider]

Zo wrote- Education funding, as well as attendance, has exploded. No longer is it designed for simply the best and brightest students.
The public schools (to my knowledge) have never been for the best and brightest.

That's nice and all. My area is almost entirely 2 parent families and is relatively safe. But, your idea is meaningless unless it has practical use. It deals with ideals, not with fixing the way things are. If parents don't, or can't (whatever the case is, and for many its the latter) fix it, then you need a back up plan.
I really don't think that government can fix things very effectively. While I am not opposed to "safety net" programs, when government tries to handle long term personal problems the unintended consequences sometimes create even greater problems.
For instance, spousal abuse is a problem for the police, not social services. My sister-in-law ran a shelter for abused women for ten years and I got to know some of them and what I will say is that abuse is a thread topic in itself.
And- "Another one has 4 kids and is on welfare."
I really don't mean to be insensitive, but I don't know why my tax dollars should go to support a single mother with 4 kids, unless of course she is a widow.

Ya, that worked great. I got a great family story from the 60's. This guy impregnated my cousin (she was about 20 at the time), told her parents he didn't love her, and her parents (who grew up during the great depression) still insisted they get married since it was the right thing to do. Flash forward to the late 70's, 2 more kids, plenty of beatings, and at least one incident of where he pulled a gun on her later and they divorced. They would have divorced earlier, but she and her family thought it was immoral. She only left when one of the kids got beaten, something he previously hadn't done.

My father was also beaten by his mothers and mentally abused. The father kept telling him its better that he and his mother stay married, since 2 parents are better for kids than one.

And when my mother was a kid, the next door neighbor used to beat their kid, and would regularly lock him out of the house, even though he wasn't even a teenager.

Domestic abuse used to be a dirty little secret. Doctors often wouldn't report it, not wanting to ruin the family name. The law didn't do much, and the victims (particularly if it was a man) were usually too embarrassed to do anything, if they thought anything even could be done. The only new thing about domestic abuse is that its now reported.

In my family there was the cousin I mentioned, and another couple (married right after WW2) who both beat up each other.Â*Â*No one knew the extent of it till it was well underway. No one knows if there were more like that.

Once again at the risk of seeming insensitive, disfunctional families and abuse are the taxpayer's responsibility, how? I doubt that you can show that government money has significantly improved any of this.

My mother came from a broken, disfunctional and abusive family mired in poverty unlike any we know today in this country. At that time welfare was known as "relief" and her parent's were far too proud to take any money from the government or anyone else. Makes you kind of wonder what happened to that kind of attitude.

Dropouts rates in the 60's were over 25%, 14% in the 70's, 15% in the 80's, and have hovered around 12% in the 90's and 00's.

Well, someone's not being honest somewhere if these stats are accurate. I constantly hear of 50% drop out rates in the black and hispanic community. Also, don't forget that jobs for dropouts in 1960 were far more plentiful than now.

[Rider]

Bobbylien wrote-I don't know if this counts but my dads company is currently on the list of minority owned companies, hence we get to bid 10% more on all state jobs.. which adds up quickly when you bid 10million dollar jobs. All he had to do was put the business in my moms name and bam. Gotta love affirmative action! What a joke.. but hey its hard enough competing with all of the crooked companies out there who hire illegal labor for state jobs. All of the corruption I've seen in my year of working over there has just about made me sick.
One of my best friends used to bid on small government projects. These were tiny projects actually that the larger contractors wouldn't even bid on. He made a decent enough living until minority set asides came along.
Minority owned contractors could bid thousands over his bid and still win the contract. Even if their work came in over bid, they were guaranteed a 10% profit. It ran him out of business in one week.
My first job as an engineering tech was at a "minority owned" business. The business was under the name of the boss' wife who was 1/16 Cherokee (yah, I'll bet). He consequently got contracts that he never would have been able to get without that edge.

[Rider]

Firefox- Sounds like a good read. The concept of social capital puts me in mind of one of my "crotchity old fart" theories.
I believe that one of the major causes of decline in our neighborhoods is air conditioning. Now-- hear me out, OK?
When I was growing up, air conditioning existed somewhere because I had heard of it, but I never saw it at anyone's house. And I saw the inside of a lot of people's homes because all of the neighborhood kids mixed, mingled and played at everyone's home and all points in between. It was too hot in the summer time to stay indoors so every one was usually outside in the yard or on the front porch (remember those?). How many homes built now have a functional front porch? Everyone on the street new everyone else. All the adults looked after all of the kids and if you got caught being naughty, Billy's grandma might just whip your butt as well as his. She wasn't worried about a lawsuit or CPS; YOU were worried that your Mom and Dad would find out and whip your butt, too.
ThenÂ*Â*came air conditioning. The neighborhoods now are collections of sealed boxes. Everyone stays inside and minds their own business. Of course now with Mom working the neighborhood is a ghost town after 8 am. And when evening arrives and it's hot, everyone is indoors in cool comfort.
Neighborhood gone.

[Mayberry]

Someone just mentioned bear hunting and, since I'm not too fond of hunters, I though it would be funny if we armed bears. Like it or not, hunters are some of the most active conservationists there are. They also perform necessary culling and keep wildlife populations in check. We'd be overrun with skinny deer down here if it weren't for hunters, hell I can see 6 out the window right now, and they look nice and healthy, so I guess it's all working out o.k. I am strictly against poaching though, poachers should be jailed. And hey, venison is delicious! (Here peta peta peta:P) Now as far as my job goes, less regulation would be wonderful! I work for the state, and it takes half a day and a stack of paper to buy something. And I agree with bobbylein, the "minority" owned business thing is a crock. We have to buy from "historically underutilized businesses" when at all possible, and have to submit supporting documentation with every purchase. The state would save millions if we could just get what we need from the cheapest supplier.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Like it or not, hunters are some of the most active conservationists there are. They also perform necessary culling and keep wildlife populations in check.

Much of which would not be required if we hadn't hunted their predators to extinction, at least regionally, or close to it. They did a better job too, as their predators generally targeted the smallest and weakest, we prefer the bigger and stronger ones.

And hunters often become an issue whenever an animal becomes endangered, often by hunting to begin with.

Hunters are much more active in preserving areas, and less active in preserving the species themselves. As long as something is still available to shoot that is.

They have their uses. I never denied that. But there are better ways to deal with it, such as reintroducing native predators and increasing education on wildlife.

[firefox]

Sorry to say this, Alonzo, but he's right. Take Ted Nugent for example. If you kill everything off, you can't hunt later can you? It's not sustainable. Also it's imparative that one truly own one's own land. If logging companies, etc. owned thier own land rather than just getting it leased from a state or the feds, they would be financially responsible for their damage, and would not be able to sell or improve it as no one would want anything to do with it.

Cycle, I think this may be a factor in some areas/climates. Another thing might be video games and TV, but not to an incredibly huge extent. When I was little, it seemed like kids played a lot more (this is only 10-15 years ago mind you!). TV and video games did exist at this time though so this has to be one factor out of many.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sorry to say this, Alonzo, but he's right. Take Ted Nugent for example. If you kill everything off, you can't hunt later can you? It's not sustainable.

And as we have seen with massive overfishing, hunting to extinction of animals in many areas (some of which are being reintroduced) etc. Some notorious cases involved the extinction of passenger pigeons (a quarter million were killed by hunters in one day which was the final blow, and hunters knew they were attacking the last wild flock, their population is belived to once have been larger than any other bird species in the world until hunting wiped them out), the extinction of wolves in much of the u.s., and the wiping out of wild turkeys in new england (they were only reintroduced maybe 10 or 15 years ago). When something becomes endangered, many hunters want to get the rare animal.

You can wipe out wolves and you'll still have plenty of bears, moose and deer to shoot. Wipe out bears and you still have plenty of deers and moose. Hunting does not require a healthy ecosystem, it only requires one or a few large animals to survive.

Also it's imparative that one truly own one's own land. If logging companies, etc. owned thier own land rather than just getting it leased from a state or the feds, they would be financially responsible for their damage, and would not be able to sell or improve it as no one would want anything to do with it.

If you flatten a forest, fill in wetlands etc. and convert it to commercial or residential use you can sell it. If you cut down a forest and then sell the wood and the land, or allow building on it, you can make much more profit than leaving it alone. Sure tourism would suffer in some areas (say yellowstone), but the owners of the land could benefit more from other things. The surrounding community benefits more from tourism in those case than the land owner themselves would.

Your argument is absurd, idealism that is not supported anywhere in the world.

[Mayberry]

And as we have seen with massive overfishing Due to commercial fishermen, largely from foreign countries, not sportsmen, many of whom catch and release. Most billfish tournaments have gone to catch and release, as well as the Redfish Cup. hunting to extinction of animals in many areas A practice from ages ago which is no longer legal, or supported by hunters. Some notorious cases involved the extinction of passenger pigeons (a quarter million were killed by hunters in one day which was the final blow, and hunters knew they were attacking the last wild flock Again, ages ago. When something becomes endangered, many hunters want to get the rare animal.
This is an extremely small portion of the hunting population, usually wealthy men compensating for lack of something.....Hunting does not require a healthy ecosystem Ah, but it does. Here in Texas at least, land owners go to great lengths to ensure a healthy ecosystem, and work closely with Texas Parks and Wildlife to develop healthy management strategies for the land and the wildlife. Hunting and fishing seasons and bag limits are strictly enforced, by land owners and game wardens. It's in everyone's best interest, and most of us realize that. If you flatten a forest, fill in wetlands etc. and convert it to commercial or residential use you can sell it Of course this is a possibility, but again one only needs to look to Texas where most of the land is privately owned. There are literally millions of acres of pristine land here that are managed by private individuals successfully. Many even have (Oh NO!) OIL WELLS on them, or are currently drilling, with no ill effects to the native species. Consider that where I work at the northern edge of the King Ranch, we have 34 acres of rearing ponds for fish production, next door is the University of Texas' oil spill research facility, AEP's Barney Davis power plant, and Texas A&M's aquaculture research facility. Amongst all this industry is an extremely healthy population of deer, rabbits, wild turkey, coyotes, wild pigs, raccoons, bobcats, 'possums, birds, and all manner of wildlife. Hell, Barney Davis' cooling lake is one of the best fishing holes around, and the outflow from the lake is the only thing keeping the Oso Bay alive. Oso Bay is naturally fed only by Oso Creek, which has almost zero inflow most of the year (it's pretty dry down here) Industry and wildlife can co-exist if done properly, and nowadays most everyone knows what the right thing to do is. There will always be those who won't do the right thing, and they will get caught and be punished.

[firefox]

Isn't it true that Houston doesn't have zoning laws?

[AlonzoMourning23]

And as we have seen with massive overfishing Due to commercial fishermen, largely from foreign countries, not sportsmen, many of whom catch and release. Most billfish tournaments have gone to catch and release, as well as the Redfish Cup. hunting to extinction of animals in many areas A practice from ages ago which is no longer legal, or supported by hunters. Some notorious cases involved the extinction of passenger pigeons (a quarter million were killed by hunters in one day which was the final blow, and hunters knew they were attacking the last wild flock Again, ages ago. When something becomes endangered, many hunters want to get the rare animal.
This is an extremely small portion of the hunting population, usually wealthy men compensating for lack of something.....Hunting does not require a healthy ecosystem Ah, but it does. Here in Texas at least, land owners go to great lengths to ensure a healthy ecosystem, and work closely with Texas Parks and Wildlife to develop healthy management strategies for the land and the wildlife. Hunting and fishing seasons and bag limits are strictly enforced, by land owners and game wardens. It's in everyone's best interest, and most of us realize that. If you flatten a forest, fill in wetlands etc. and convert it to commercial or residential use you can sell it Of course this is a possibility, but again one only needs to look to Texas where most of the land is privately owned. There are literally millions of acres of pristine land here that are managed by private individuals successfully. Many even have (Oh NO!) OIL WELLS on them, or are currently drilling, with no ill effects to the native species. Consider that where I work at the northern edge of the King Ranch, we have 34 acres of rearing ponds for fish production, next door is the University of Texas' oil spill research facility, AEP's Barney Davis power plant, and Texas A&M's aquaculture research facility. Amongst all this industry is an extremely healthy population of deer, rabbits, wild turkey, coyotes, wild pigs, raccoons, bobcats, 'possums, birds, and all manner of wildlife. Hell, Barney Davis' cooling lake is one of the best fishing holes around, and the outflow from the lake is the only thing keeping the Oso Bay alive. Oso Bay is naturally fed only by Oso Creek, which has almost zero inflow most of the year (it's pretty dry down here) Industry and wildlife can co-exist if done properly, and nowadays most everyone knows what the right thing to do is. There will always be those who won't do the right thing, and they will get caught and be punished.


Habitat destruction, fragmentation and degradation as well as the introduction and spread of invasive or non-native species are the leading threats to species habitat and biodiversity.

As of August 2002, 161 species were on the State's endangered or threatened list. The number of Texas species included on the federal endangered list totaled 100. * All of the Texas species on the federal endangered list are included on the state's list, but the state endangered list includes species that are not recognized as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Â*Â*
Extinction of animal species in Texas has increased dramatically since the turn of the century. Prior to 1900, three species were known to have disappeared. Between 1901 and 1958, four species are known to have disappeared. From 1959 to the present, 10 species have disappeared. Of these 17 species, six are globally extinct. The loss of species is directly related to the loss of wildlife habitat.
The Fish and Wildlife Service report shows that of 63 endangered plants and animals in Texas for which it had information, 39 percent (25 species) are declining and 24 percent (15 species) are stable or improving. The status of the remaining 37 percent (24 species) could not be determined due to lack of information.*
As of 2002, the number of plants on the state's endangered list was 28, all of these are included on the federal list. In 2002, four Texas plant species were candidates for federal listing. The extinction rate of plant species in Texas is difficult to ascertain. The survival of plant species has become of public concern only recently, and inventories are limited. Environmental Defense's analysis of the Fish and Wildlife Service's 1994 report to Congress (the latest report available) concluded that despite protection afforded plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act, federally listed endangered plants and animals in Texas continue to decline.*

http://www.texasep.org/html/wld/wld_3pna.html

A Texas Parks and Wildlife Deparment report entitled Endangered Resources: Annual Status Report identified the following habitat losses in Texas:

all but a fraction of the prairies of central and coastal Texas have been converted to farmland, and as a result the Attwater's Prairie Chicken is on the brink of extinction and Texas Prairie Dawn, a plant of the coastal prairies, is now rare
river bottom hardwood forests in Texas have been reduced from 16 to 6 million acres and longleaf pine forests have nearly all been cut-over. As a result of these changes, Texas Trailing Phlox and many other plants are rare, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is gone from Texas, and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker is threatened with the same fate
the original grasslands of South Texas have been lost to brush invasion, the grassland-dependent Aplomado Falcon disappeared from Texas, the Slender Rush-Pea is endangered, and the South Texas Ambrosia has become rare
sub-tropical woodlands of the Rio Grande Valley have been converted to farmlands and citrus plantations, resulting in near-extinction of the Ocelot in Texas and increasing rarity for many plants, such as the Texas Ayenia
ground water pumping in West Texas and dam construction throughout the state have modified springs and rivers so that species such as the Amistad Gambusia and Phantom Shiner are extinct, and many other species, such as the Puzzle Sunflower, are rare
urbanization and land clearing in Central Texas have destroyed and fragmented woodland habitat of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler, along with several rare plants.*

http://www.texasep.org/html/wld/wld_4hab.html

I don't see much to suggest your way is working. Texas has more biodiversity than other states, its size and the lack of development in many areas play a role. But those things change for the worse as time progresses.

Strong environmental protections, and the restriction of access to many areas, does more to protect the environment and species long term. Hunting, private ownership of these lands, and development of these lands is not beneficial for that end. Especially when compared with preservation of those areas, enforcement of pollution regulations, and reintroduction of native species that were wiped out in the region.

There is support in many areas for such programs. Banning hunting is an ideal, but not a realistic goal. The suggestions I made are realistic things that have the support of many and, to varying degrees, have been done in many areas. It's about reinforcing and strengthening policies that already have support in many areas, and working to increase support in areas where they're unpopular.

[firefox]

Have you ever owned your own land or participated in sport hunting/fishing before? If not, this sounds like an area you're not very qualified to speak about, yes? :D

[AlonzoMourning23]

I've never killed someone, but I can speak of the effect murder has on society. And a rape victim is usually not a rapist as well, yet they can speak of the effect rapists have on society. You don't make someone commit homicide, or have an abortion, before talking about such things. The suggestion that you must be personally participate in a side to determine whether that side is harmful is absurd when discussing issues that are not just personal matters. And, personal experience with hunting does not aid in wildlife preservation, outside of creating a relationship with hunters to get them to do what you want.

Participating in it doesn't provide any insight into the level of harm huntinh as a whole causes, if anything personal experience may bias ones ability to view the collective effect. The same holds true for owning land. What I do or do not do with my land has nothing to do with the effect of having all, or almost all, of land in private hands. No individuals behavior can be taken as representative as a nations behavior.

My family has about 15-20 acres of land up in vermont (though only about 4 or 5 is useable). If that is representative of the nation, then there's no oil drilling, no logging etc. The only thing that happens on our land is hunting, and that only happens because A) we're not there year round to control it and B) some of the more juvenile hunters have been known to damage the property of people who put up no hunting signs.

[firefox]

So you do understand that private property is important and valueble. What we have here is a disconnect in scale. How abstracted does the situation have to be from the personal level to qualify as a "necessary evil" for the "benefit of society", at least as you or Person X sees it?

The core of the matter can be illustrated by this series of questions:

1. Is it ok if I steal from, oppress, or demand undue allegiance from you, or vice versa?
2. Is it ok if myself and a group of my friends decide to come to your house, beat you up, and steal your valuables?
3. Is it ok, then, that a much larger gang of thugs does the same thing, but do it wearing official uniforms and badges?

Again, violence and coersion are reprehensible at the interpersonal level. At what point is it OK for this behavior to be carried out? A hundred people? A thousand? Three hundred million? As you can see, the logic doesn't work, and anyone with some sense in the head and feeling in the heart knows that numbers and might don't make right.

This is the position I come from, and I would guess you would too if you throught about it for a minute. Clarity is key :).

[AlonzoMourning23]

So you do understand that private property is important and valueble. What we have here is a disconnect in scale. How abstracted does the situation have to be from the personal level to qualify as a "necessary evil" for the "benefit of society", at least as you or Person X sees it?

The core of the matter can be illustrated by this series of questions:

1. Is it ok if I steal from, oppress, or demand undue allegiance from you, or vice versa?
2. Is it ok if myself and a group of my friends decide to come to your house, beat you up, and steal your valuables?
3. Is it ok, then, that a much larger gang of thugs does the same thing, but do it wearing official uniforms and badges?

Again, violence and coersion are reprehensible at the interpersonal level. At what point is it OK for this behavior to be carried out? A hundred people? A thousand? Three hundred million? As you can see, the logic doesn't work, and anyone with some sense in the head and feeling in the heart knows that numbers and might don't make right.

This is the position I come from, and I would guess you would too if you throught about it for a minute. Clarity is key :).


Ah, the old "If you only thought rationally you'd agree with me". It says more about ones inability to comprehend that someone can reasonably disagree than anything else.

I don't even know what having thugs beat up people has to do with having laws to protect the environment and wildlife.

In your mind the individual can essentially do what they want with the land they own. But land is not like a phone. I buy it, for myself, not anyone else. It does not necessarily ever need to go beyond my ownership. Land is not like that. If I pollute on my land, that effects the surrounding environment and wildlife. Land, in societies that believe in outright ownership of land, is transferable. It was owned by others before me, and will be owned by others after me. In societies that do not believe in outright ownership, or believe in communal ownership, the land belongs to a large amount of people. Either way, the effect of what I do, and the community does, with their land has effects well beyond the immediate, and well beyond the individual or group. In many cases the effect is predominately on the surrounding environment and wildlife, but not always.

People should have a right to do anything, as long as they are the only ones affected. When the effect goes beyond the individual and to unwilling participants, be it other humans, other animals, or the environment as a whole, people should no longer have that same right. Their rights need to be restricted to protect the rights of other beings.

Your argument has little concern for overal society, non human animals or the environment, and does little good to protect the future for all organisms, both human and non human animals.

The land my family owns in vermont, if I were to take that land and cut down the part of the forest that's on my property and sell it for development (assuming that all of it is useable), not only does that have long term effects on the environment, it also revokes the right of anything else that was living in that forest to their home. And, when enough people do that, species can no longer survive in those areas, as simply moving is no longer an option.

[Mayberry]

People should have a right to do anything, as long as they are the only ones affected. When the effect goes beyond the individual and to unwilling participants, be it other humans, other animals, or the environment as a whole, people should no longer have that same right. Their rights need to be restricted to protect the rights of other beings.
Every single thing you do affects someone or something else. You ate food today. That food was grown or raised on land that was once something's habitat. I assume you have lights on, or at least your computer is powered up. The electricity is being generated on land that was once habitat for something, or by a river that still is habitat. So should we stop eating and turning the lights on? And who makes that decision? You? Tell me what to do with MY land? I don't think so. Intelligent beings will strike a balance between using the land and preserving it. I believe the general population in this country has come to the realization that you can't just rape the land, and are learning how to best utilize it while preserving it at the same time. There will always be the moron who dumps trash or what have you on his property, and when he gets caught, he'll have to clean it up or face the consequences.

[firefox]

I think what he means is negatively affect (?) I'm not completely sure though.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Every single thing you do affects someone or something else. You ate food today. That food was grown or raised on land that was once something's habitat. I assume you have lights on, or at least your computer is powered up. The electricity is being generated on land that was once habitat for something, or by a river that still is habitat. So should we stop eating and turning the lights on?

Sometimes these discussions are mind numbing. Nowhere did I call for that. But there is necessary and excessive. Now the boundry of what is necessary may differ depending on personal opinion, but food is clearly necessary and energy, while not "necessary" is close enough. But, the process of going about that, needs restrictions. The wasting of energy, the means of obtaining energy, the methods used for farming, butchering etc. all need to be regulated to protect the organisms invovled (human and other animals) and the environment as a whole.

And who makes that decision? You? Tell me what to do with MY land? I don't think so.

Who decides what should become law or not? I think a bunch of things should be legal that aren't, and a bunch of things should be illegal that are legal. The decision on what is and is not permissible is made daily.

And your land effects much more than you. That's why it needs regulation.

Intelligent beings will strike a balance between using the land and preserving it. I believe the general population in this country has come to the realization that you can't just rape the land, and are learning how to best utilize it while preserving it at the same time. There will always be the moron who dumps trash or what have you on his property, and when he gets caught, he'll have to clean it up or face the consequences.


Well, I think we disagree there. But, either way, I don't want to sit around and wait for people to be informed, or try to convince "intelligent people" (considering they're always going to view things differently, I hate assuming a certain political belief is the domain of intelligence) of the necessity for something that needs immediate attention. Some things are important and need regulation, or even banning, not a roll of the dice. We do that with health codes, drugs, medication, immigration, employment etc. We do not want to leave all those issues completely unregulated (no limitations, taxes, etc.). This is in the same vain.

And, as we saw even with BP, which is considered the "green" oil company, with the corroded pipes. When it comes down to safety and protection vs. money, money will win out in many cases. Large corporations, and individuals as well, are going to take the most profitable route more often than not. That often isn't the best method in the long run for people as a whole.

[firefox]

BP, et al don't own their land. They just rent it from a government, and thus they don't have an incentive to maintain it, as I've stated prevously. On the other hand, logging companies like National Paper, who own their own land do keep it sustainable. Check out NP's private forest in GA. They let people camp, etc. on it for a small fee as long as they keep it nice. If you mess it up and they catch you, you get billed for the damages.

[AlonzoMourning23]

BP owns their pipes though and they have every incentive to maintain them since if they don't work properly they don't generate revenue. Yet the immediate gain outweighed long term risks. And it wasn't about land, it was about maintaining what they own.

And, as for NP's forest, camping is not an argument. And camping itself can be harmful, particularly if there are lots of campers and the area is modified to accomodate them. And, what is beneficial to NP is not always beneficial to wildlife in the area.

Show me how NP's logging maintains, let alone improves, biodiversity in the area. And if their logging does not harm biodiversity, can you even begin to argue that logging companies that own the land they're on do not cause any harm to wildlife or the environment?

The best solution for wildlife preservation is keeping the land in government hands so they cannot be used for any industrial purpose. And logging needs to be heavily monitored and restricted to minimize harm caused by destroying wildlife habitats.

[firefox]

Right, because our current system works *so* well right? Why is it that most of the logging has taken place since the establishment of national parks/forests and not before? Technology wasn't the only factor here.

For a more detailed analysis of this topic and many others, I suggest checking out the book Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Healing/) by Mary J. Ruwart. If you are "of the left", this is the introductory book for you!

[AlonzoMourning23]

Right, because our current system works *so* well right? Why is it that most of the logging has taken place since the establishment of national parks/forests and not before? Technology wasn't the only factor here.

Ya, I also wonder why I always have migraines on days I take advil. Maybe I should stop taking advil?

It has something to do with the demand for paper and wood products, farmland and the huge increase in development. That's what happens when the population skyrockets from about 30 million (when the first national park was established) to over 270 million, and massive projects become capable with improved technology. And concern for the environment has not been strong for much of that time.

Businesses will do what is beneficial to them. When an area becomes populated then developers want to utilize that land for development. You can keep them out, or lose the land to development.

For a more detailed analysis of this topic and many others, I suggest checking out the book Healing Our World (http://www.ruwart.com/Pages/Healing/) by Mary J. Ruwart. If you are "of the left", this is the introductory book for you!


I don't make your argument for you. You need to argue it yourself.

From what I have read Libertarianism is the most idealistic of the political viewpoints. You yourself seem extremely idealistic. It's generally well intentioned, but just not practical. It cannot point to where such extreme principles have been effective. And to attempt such policies on issues such as the environment is extremely dangerous. Removing regulations on the environment has no history of success, poaching, overhunting, pollution, habitat destruction etc. have all been worse, when compared to the demand for land at the time, without such restrictions. The risk of such moves is massive, the payoff is small. And I see no reason that there will be any payoff.

The idea that giving national parks, forests, wildlife reserves, etc. to private people and companies will benefit them is absurd. They will protect them when they can profit from tourism, from logging and the like. When they are useful, or when they have no reason to use them in other ways. Those things are problematic for wildlife as it is. But when profit dictates the development of that land, then that's the course that will be taken.

There is nothing to be gained by gained by placing forests and wildlife reserves into private hands. The more forests and wildlife reserves are relatively free (or as close as can be expected) of human interference the better for them. A corporation is not going to find a benefit in keeping a forest free of development and any form of exploitation. If a corporation has a choice of building a shopping mall or leaving a forest alone, profit will normally favor the shopping mall and so will the decision.Â*Â*

edit: I always forget words.

[piratemonkey]

he idea that giving national parks, forests, wildlife reserves, etc. to private people and companies will benefit them is absurd. They will protect them when they can profit from tourism, from logging and the like. When they are useful, or when they have no reason to use them in other ways. Those things are problematic for wildlife as it is. But when profit dictates the development of that land, then that's the course that will be taken.

This is exactly correct and is borne out by example.

E.g. Look at Cambodia's handling of the Ankor Wat complex.Â*Â*It's the largest religious complex in the world today and it was built >600 years ago.Â*Â*It's an incredible experience to see it.

Cambodia farmed out control of the world historic treasure to an oil company.Â*Â*Since then, almost weekly, the guards are bribed and people walk away with artifacts.Â*Â*An 8 foot statue in front of the largest temple was stolen only a month before I was there.

Firefox, your ideas are good in theory, but when we look at specific times when your ideas were tried, they are shown not to work.

[firefox]

The work in real life. Look at the examples I and Mayberry have given. For another perspective, check out these short essays by Dr. Mary Ruwart:

1: http://www.ruwart.com/environ.lpn.wpd.html (On environmental protection [in two short parts])
2: http://www.ruwart.com/environ.lpn.wpd.html (On solving global warming, etc. [same as above])

Check it out, and let me know what your thoughts are. If you're not at least partially convinced (I think you will be), let me know.

[AlonzoMourning23]

For one, your argument is that all land should be privately owned. The points argument by those articles only addresses land that is already in use. That's a big difference.

Second, its simplistic and, in some cases, incorrect. One thing I noticed is tt mentions elephants in Zimbabwe. Well, control of the land was not handed over to individuals. Elephants were seen as a nuisance and dangerous, certainly nothing to stop people from killing. Well the government involved locals in the decision making on issues of conservation, and gave them a share of the profit that was produced from the species, such as through tourism.

They did not hand over land for private groups to do whatever they wanted. In fact, in this case, the groups would be cut off from the revenue if they continued to harm them or allow harm to come to them in significant numbers. They did not hand over authority to solve a non existent problem (ie. an unused section of forests).

Another difference was, in Zimbabwe, effective policing was not possible. Due to funds, corruption etc. that conditions are not the same in the u.s.

Also, regulation dropped a little later, and the sale of ivory was allowed. Elephant poaching surged: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/531949.stm

[firefox]

From the article:

"Rather bizarrely, Zimbabwe is suggesting that this upsurge in poaching is being organised by animal rights groups to strengthen their argument that the ivory trade should be banned once more."

That wouldn't be the first time. Think PETA freaks in Germany and the ferret problem they now have there. They also kill chickens periodically.

"Since it began the sales, Zimbabwe's Government has not commented on how many elephants have been killed by poachers."

Poaching is the illegal killing of some animal. If they are YOUR livestock, and you decide to bump them off, that's your choice. That said, this is not typically done, in that country or in India, where elephants are used as pack animals and sturdy work(elephants).

I trust that the more reasonable lurkers on this thread are seeing the light on this important issue. I don't expect to change your mind overnight, Alonzo, nor do I honestly care. The purpose of the debate is to enrich the thinking of the audiance. :)