[sdduuuude]

deleted

[sdduuuude]

deleted

[sdduuuude]

deleted

[sdduuuude]

deleted

[sdduuuude]

[quote=PithecanthropusErectus]I get it; we can buy shares in the rain forest and save it in its natural state, or plant a tree in israel or whatever…but i don’t know, i don’t think divvying up the world with proeprty rights is going to make us all great stewards of the earth. [/quote]

Will NOT defining property rights make us all great stewards of the earth ?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=PithecanthropusErectus]I get it; we can buy shares in the rain forest and save it in its natural state, or plant a tree in israel or whatever…but i don’t know, i don’t think divvying up the world with proeprty rights is going to make us all great stewards of the earth. [/quote]

Will NOT defining property rights make us all great stewards of the earth ?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=PithecanthropusErectus]I get it; we can buy shares in the rain forest and save it in its natural state, or plant a tree in israel or whatever…but i don’t know, i don’t think divvying up the world with proeprty rights is going to make us all great stewards of the earth. [/quote]

Will NOT defining property rights make us all great stewards of the earth ?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=PithecanthropusErectus]I get it; we can buy shares in the rain forest and save it in its natural state, or plant a tree in israel or whatever…but i don’t know, i don’t think divvying up the world with proeprty rights is going to make us all great stewards of the earth. [/quote]

Will NOT defining property rights make us all great stewards of the earth ?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=PithecanthropusErectus]I get it; we can buy shares in the rain forest and save it in its natural state, or plant a tree in israel or whatever…but i don’t know, i don’t think divvying up the world with proeprty rights is going to make us all great stewards of the earth. [/quote]

Will NOT defining property rights make us all great stewards of the earth ?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredycat]Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own?[/quote]

I strongly object to the concept that defining property rights implies an endgame of “consume, own, destroy, profit.”

Indeed, defining property rights allows those who wish to preserve resources to do so by purchasing them, holding them, and nurturing them. But, you have to do it yourself. You can’t go running to the government to do it, as you do now.

And they’ll F*&^ it up anyway, and put it in the hands of BP.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredycat]Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own?[/quote]

I strongly object to the concept that defining property rights implies an endgame of “consume, own, destroy, profit.”

Indeed, defining property rights allows those who wish to preserve resources to do so by purchasing them, holding them, and nurturing them. But, you have to do it yourself. You can’t go running to the government to do it, as you do now.

And they’ll F*&^ it up anyway, and put it in the hands of BP.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredycat]Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own?[/quote]

I strongly object to the concept that defining property rights implies an endgame of “consume, own, destroy, profit.”

Indeed, defining property rights allows those who wish to preserve resources to do so by purchasing them, holding them, and nurturing them. But, you have to do it yourself. You can’t go running to the government to do it, as you do now.

And they’ll F*&^ it up anyway, and put it in the hands of BP.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredycat]Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own?[/quote]

I strongly object to the concept that defining property rights implies an endgame of “consume, own, destroy, profit.”

Indeed, defining property rights allows those who wish to preserve resources to do so by purchasing them, holding them, and nurturing them. But, you have to do it yourself. You can’t go running to the government to do it, as you do now.

And they’ll F*&^ it up anyway, and put it in the hands of BP.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredycat]Can you imagine a future where the endgame of consume, own, destroy, profit is seen as being as insane as the idea that some people were property others got to own?[/quote]

I strongly object to the concept that defining property rights implies an endgame of “consume, own, destroy, profit.”

Indeed, defining property rights allows those who wish to preserve resources to do so by purchasing them, holding them, and nurturing them. But, you have to do it yourself. You can’t go running to the government to do it, as you do now.

And they’ll F*&^ it up anyway, and put it in the hands of BP.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=scaredycat]snipped: “Sorry. Slavery does not and cannot appear in a “free market” by definition. A “free market” being one where you are free from others infringing upon your personal and propety rights.”

but, uhh, slaves were property….
[/quote]

Slaves were defined as property by the government. That doesn’t make them property.

If you want to think that slavery can exist in a free market, you go right ahead.

[Author]

Posts