This one first. It is a matter of historical record that humans have extirpated numerous species by various means, both direct and indirect: passenger pigeons, scrub oxen, dodo birds, various western antelope, dozens of native grasses, and pretty soon the American Elm. The recent phytopthora infestation that arrived on European rhododendrons may destroy every riparian hardwood tree species on the West Coast... Clearly we do have the power to extirpate species.
Most species extirpations were the result of direct efforts to kill them, whether for food, plumage, sport, or as pests. Are you saying that those who did the killing are not responsible for that? Further extinctions were derived incidentally by those wishing to make a product cheaper, the impact of whose business activities crossed their property lines. Are they responsible for that? If people chose to market services to the public re-establishing endangered species, do you think that this is not a legitimate business?
Lets say you own a factory and it has a sewer pipe dumping an effluent into the river. Are you accountable for that effluent when it crosses the property line? What if you destroy the value of private property with it? What if that valued property is somebody's endangered species management business?
, and I am compelled to resist with all resources available, any movement, plan, or agenda that has as it's basis the idea that we do.
You would resist the voluntary efforts to preserve these plants and animals too? (You did say "any plan.") Perhaps you mean that you would resist such a plan if it were instituted by coersion. That's fine, but why should people be compelled to abandon their use of their property by virtue of your use of yours? How do you propose to resolve such disputes without government developing an interest in managing that contest?
- Either you have similar motives, or you do not, and that was all that I was looking for. - OK?
If all you are seeking is to validate your existing opinion, please don't read my book. The fascists of the world would need you more to continue justifying their regulatory hegemony.
I have been subjected to the same subjective 'school teacher talk' that you have, but I find most of it decidedly lacking in the area of objective documentation of those assertions.
The recent phytopthora infestation that arrived on European rhododendrons may destroy every riparian hardwood tree species on the West Coast...
It may, or it may not, but Phytopthora is not man's creation, and it could wage it's attack through natural means too, which would have a similar result.
"Clearly we do have the power to extirpate species. "
Clearly you have that opinion anyway, but I question whether it is based solely on objective observation.
" If people chose to market services to the public re-establishing endangered species, do you think that this is not a legitimate business?"
It would be perfectly legitimate to market to individuals or groups willing to do business with them, but it is not legitimate for government to compell me to pay for it. That would be a clear violation of separation of church and state. ( I don't pay tithes to the catholic church, or the mormon church through taxes, do I?)
"Lets say you own a factory and it has a sewer pipe dumping an effluent into the river. Are you accountable for that effluent when it crosses the property line?"
You Bet!
" What if you destroy the value of private property with it?"
Then it is a Tort, to be settled by the constitutionally created courts.
"You would resist the voluntary efforts to preserve these plants and animals too?"
Not if I'm not compelled by law to pay for it.
" why should people be compelled to abandon their use of their property by virtue of your use of yours?"
They should not.
" How do you propose to resolve such disputes..." As I stated above, that was the original intended purpose of our courts.
"If all you are seeking is to validate your existing opinion, please don't read my book. The fascists of the world would need you more to continue justifying their regulatory hegemony."
I find that sarcastic, and fail to see how it adds to this discussion. - I was hoping that you would provide motivation to read your book, both to myself, and to others lurking here. :-)