Talk:Privatization of wildlife

	This Environmentalism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): It contains unsourced statements

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Reverting edits by IP

I noticed several libertarianism related articles in this site are extremely biased. This article in its present form is almost nonsensical. How you can say private enterprise in whaling almost resulted in the extinction of some whale species? Remember though whaling is a private effort, the ocean itself is not a private property. This is why when a corporation in engaged in whaling, it does not feel the necessity to "fill up the gap" or institute an effort so that the number of whales hunted can be replaced within a few days. For example in a private dairy farm, when a certain number of cows are killed, that specific number of cows are also grown within a few months or so. If you compare a private dairy farm to whaling, you will see the far is a private property and the cow is the prey, while in case of whaling the ocean is not private property, but the whale is the prey. Since ocean is not a private property, the corporations feel no responsibility for whatever happened to the ocean after whaling. This problem could be solved by privatizing the oceans. This is a broader but related argument. You need to understand this libertarian logic. Privatization of ocean may be a radical idea in socialist/liberal POV, but not in libertarian POV.

I think the edits by the IP in this article are valid. For example in the Arguments against privatization section the first point is "see the case of the whales". This is a logical fallacy, see my argument above.

• Private markets have a long-term history of destroying species, not preserving them - another example of logical fallacy. Give some examples that private markets have a long-term history of destroying species. Even if a construction company destroyed forest for construction purpose, it should be noted the forest was not a private property, thus the company did not have any responsibility for the forest.

• Tourism might be more of a threat to their habitats than a help to their survival - fallacious. Government owned forests also encourage tourism. Tourism, if handled in proper and scientific way, is not harmful to forest. If tourism in government owned forests is not harmful, then why are you applying this logic to private forests?

• I don't understand the last point.

• Is there a market to protect marginal, "uninteresting" species, such as insects which are vital to maintaining habitats but not especially interesting to look at? - yes, when private owner of forest will understand his cultivated species cannot survie without certain "uninteresting" species, he/she will encourage the growth of the later.

Finally what is the problem with Randal O’Toole's logic? I think the wording by the IP was better. Steve (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow this is my first encounter of this article. I was unaware wildlife belong to anyone in order to privatise it. I can tell you what is wrong with the Toole's idea, if kept in a farm like a chicken it is not really much of a tiger any more, just a big cat. Beside cows and chickens have short breeding cycles that make them ideal for farming, do you know how often tigers are born in captivity? Once-in-a-fucking-never. That is why the cute tiger cubs are on the news when they are born 200km away a) they are cute, b) it is rear enough of an event to be interesting. - π 07:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, even if the breeding time of a tiger is much longer than that of chicken, tiger is a much expensive animal. The tiger products will be much more expensive than the chicken products which will mitigate the effect of the long time. I want to point out another two fallacies I found in this article:

• In the Arguments for privatization section, the first point is Privatization will encourage private owners to protect their "private property" or the wildlife from poachers. This will save threatened species. Someone added after this like the wolves that kill and eat their cattle. Don't you think this is a fallacious analogy? How are you comparing a private property owner to a wolf? And when the cattle became the property of wolves?

• The second point is Government has failed to prevent wildfire. Someone added after it Private landowners haven't, either. Is there any private forest in the US? No. And if the answer is no, then how you are saying private owners also failed?

I must have to say don't fill the article with a bunch fallacious arguments only because you disagree with the libertarian point of view. Steve (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point on the tigers, they rarely breed, even with several breeding pairs there has been little success, it will always be cheaper to hunt for tiger. By legalising tiger products for farming you will encourage more black market products, because it is not immediate apparent which is legal and what is not, at the moment ownership of any tiger product is an offence and so no need to establish its origin in order to obtain a prosecution. This will lead to a decrease in wild tiger numbers, as prosecution for possessing illegal tiger products will be hard to establish.

How do you propose we stop fires? Not really a valid point either way, fire services will protect property, either private or public. - π 09:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Is there any private forest in the US? No." Isn't that a bit sweeping? While much forest is owned by the D of I (and then leased to paper companies...), there is plenty of private forested land, in large and small tracts. And I still claim that the proposed "solution" ignores the 99.99% of species that aren't "interesting" or obviously "useful" in some way. Like the example above of the wolves. If teh King's wolves are killing the King's deer, the King will likely institute a wolf extermination program. ħuman 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Other options

By the way, there are other ways of saving species such as wolves that involve neither privatization nor government regulation. For instance, private organizations interested in saving wolves can help fund compensation to farmers whose livestock are eaten by the wolves.[1] Privatization is only part of the libertarian solution to environmental issues; another part is removing enough restrictions from the economy that it can grow to the point where people are rich enough that they can afford to be environmentally friendly. Richer countries in general tend to have cleaner environments; compare, for instance, the air quality in U.S. cities to that of Mexico City. Tisane (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Essay space?

This is an incoherent battle ground at best as an article - David Gerard (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be such a bad idea. Ultimately, the anti-privatization people are going to lose the argument, so if someone wants to keep it anti-privatization, we might as well move it to essay space. Tisane (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh shut up DG. ħuman 06:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive cut

I have cut most of the crap from this article as it was really going no where. I have left in the main points presented by Libertarians and a few of the main reasons against such a plan. - π 00:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Moo and swansdown

Do [2] and [3] count as privatized wildlife? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)