Political Crossfire Forums

[Wolverine]

I can see the reasoning behind the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it is important to preserve the environment to the best we can, without going to the extreme and depriving people of their rights.

The ESA gives the government too much power to regulate your private property. The government should not have the ability to cut you off of using your property just because their is an endangered species on that property. It is your property, not the peoples, not the governments.

Such laws just encourage people to shoot and bury the species, if the feds see the endangered species on your property they will cut you off. So why not shoot the little buzzard before that happens? I know if I owned a large piece of land I would "lessen" the presence of an endangered species so I would be able to maintain the use of that land.
If there was not a danger of such a thing happening, I would leave the endangered wildlife alone.

The ESA simply gives too much power to the government.

[George W Bush]

I'm not sure how the act imposes on your private property.

Why not post a blurb from the act designating this.

I'm sure you'll get more responses.

[Demonic Spoon]

George W Bush wrote: I'm not sure how the act imposes on your private property.

Why not post a blurb from the act designating this.

I'm sure you'll get more responses.

Simple. You buy a piece of property, then you find an endangered species living there. You're f****d,because you can't build on that property, and noone will buy the property because *gasp* they can't build on it either.

[George W Bush]

in that case, its not your property at that point.

i would think that if it was the governments, they can do what they want with it.

[Wolverine]

They do what DS described to your property. That you payed for, and you are still paying the property taxes.

[micfranklin]

I think I already posted this on another thread, but I'm gonna say it anyway. I'm all for protecting endangered animals and such, but if it were me I'd also want every bit of my private property. Now if I was doing something stupid like hunting whooping cranes, which are endangered birds, on my property, then the government has every right to regulate my property. Of course, this is only an example.

[Demonic Spoon]

George W Bush wrote: in that case, its not your property at that point.

i would think that if it was the governments, they can do what they want with it.

glad we agree that it's theft of property by the government. You support that?

[Leon Czolgosz]

I'd have no problem stompoing a endangered slug, shooting a dodo bird, or whatever to prevent the govt. from preventing me from doing what I want on my property

[George W Bush]

Demonic Spoon wrote: George W Bush wrote: in that case, its not your property at that point.

i would think that if it was the governments, they can do what they want with it.

glad we agree that it's theft of property by the government. You support that?

its your property, theres gotta be a compromise the government should attempt before imposing their will on whats yours.

but, i'm sure this falls under eminent domain - to be preemptive, theres no support from me with eminent domain. Its a law created by pompous businessmen who want to make money.

but getting back to Endangered species, the government should move the animals to a better location for their well being because as you can tell from a post above mine, theres people who dont respect science and the evolution of life.

[Leon Czolgosz]

survival of the fittest isn't evolution :confused:

[George W Bush]

Leon Czolgosz wrote: survival of the fittest isn't evolution :confused:

You tarzan, go find jane.

no, were not apes anymore. at least, not some of us.

[ieatfood]

well its complicated

maybe the actions you take on your property affects other peoples property
so if you pollute a stream and the stream goes into someone else's back yard, you have affected them and the govt has a right to stop you, even though it is your stream.

similarly, if you decide to kill all your cranes but the cranes eat beatles and that causes a beatle infestation which damages your neighbor's crops, your actions have now affected other peoples' property. And the govt has a right to step in and reguate you.

[Leon Czolgosz]

George W Bush wrote: Leon Czolgosz wrote: survival of the fittest isn't evolution :confused:

You tarzan, go find jane.

no, were not apes anymore. at least, not some of us.

We're doing fine without dinosaurs...

[Wolverine]

George W Bush wrote:
its your property, theres gotta be a compromise the government should attempt before imposing their will on whats yours.

but, i'm sure this falls under eminent domain - to be preemptive, theres no support from me with eminent domain. Its a law created by pompous businessmen who want to make money.
Quote: Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Quote: but getting back to Endangered species, the government should move the animals to a better location for their well being because as you can tell from a post above mine, theres people who dont respect science and the evolution of life.
I agree.

Move em' or I'll shoot em'.

[Wolverine]

ieatfood wrote: well its complicated

maybe the actions you take on your property affects other peoples property
so if you pollute a stream and the stream goes into someone else's back yard, you have affected them and the govt has a right to stop you, even though it is your stream.

similarly, if you decide to kill all your cranes but the cranes eat beatles and that causes a beatle infestation which damages your neighbor's crops, your actions have now affected other peoples' property. And the govt has a right to step in and reguate you.
Well, hunting should be regulated, hunting is not a right.
All I am saying is that the government does not have a right to prevent you from using your property.

[Leon Czolgosz]

isn't there something that prevents people from 'just moving them"?

[ieatfood]

Leon Czolgosz wrote: isn't there something that prevents people from 'just moving them"?

you cant just move an entire ecosystem

[ieatfood]

Wolverine wrote: ieatfood wrote: well its complicated

maybe the actions you take on your property affects other peoples property
so if you pollute a stream and the stream goes into someone else's back yard, you have affected them and the govt has a right to stop you, even though it is your stream.

similarly, if you decide to kill all your cranes but the cranes eat beatles and that causes a beatle infestation which damages your neighbor's crops, your actions have now affected other peoples' property. And the govt has a right to step in and reguate you.
Well, hunting should be regulated, hunting is not a right.
All I am saying is that the government does not have a right to prevent you from using your property.

thats contradictory
if you own the land, then everything on the land is your property, including the animals

and if the government has no right in regulating your property, then what right does it have in preventing you from hunting?

In reality, no right is absolute and certainly property rights aren't absolute. The government certainly has a right to regulate private property. The very concept of taxation is a violation of property rights. Taxation is nothing more than the government stealing from you. If the govt has the right to do that, certainly it has the right to prevent you from killing certain animals.

[Wolverine]

ieatfood wrote:

thats contradictory
if you own the land, then everything on the land is your property, including the animals

and if the government has no right in regulating your property, then what right does it have in preventing you from hunting?
You cannot own wildlife.

Quote: In reality, no right is absolute and certainly property rights aren't absolute. The government certainly has a right to regulate private property. The very concept of taxation is a violation of property rights. Taxation is nothing more than the government stealing from you. If the govt has the right to do that, certainly it has the right to prevent you from killing certain animals.
As long as you are paying the unconstitutional taxes you call the shots. The government does not have the right to kick you off because of some worthless bird.

[ieatfood]

Wolverine wrote:
You cannot own wildlife.

in my back yard are earthworms.

I own my back yard
therefore, I own those earthworms
so yes, I can own wildlife.
Wolverine wrote:
Quote: In reality, no right is absolute and certainly property rights aren't absolute. The government certainly has a right to regulate private property. The very concept of taxation is a violation of property rights. Taxation is nothing more than the government stealing from you. If the govt has the right to do that, certainly it has the right to prevent you from killing certain animals.
As long as you are paying the unconstitutional taxes you call the shots. The government does not have the right to kick you off because of some worthless bird.
so you're saying that the government can take my money but it cannot take my land

is there something fundamentally different between land and money? In my eyes, both land and money are property. And property is property. If the government has a right to take my money under certain limited circumstances, it also has the right to take my land under certain limited circumstances.