Endangered Species Act Part 2: Inefficient, Ineffective and Unconstitutional
Loading...
Loading...
701
views
Link to this comment:
Share to:
Loading...
- 6:13Endangered Species Act Part 1: Inefficient, ine...by Razela460 views
- 0:29CNN Debate Question (Decision Making)by Razela18,860 views
- 5:05The Zicam Debacle and Homeopathy Loopholeby Razela919 views
- 0:27What's up with Sarah Palin?by Razela1,054 views
- 3:23Welcome to the California DMVby Razela1,130 views
- 0:29Ask The President: Don't Ask Don't Tellby Razela1,080 views
- 4:04Obama's Healthcare Speech: Can you have too man...by Razela1,456 views
- 3:48The Ron Paul Army: A Theory on a Percieved Disc...by Razela20,572 views
- 3:22Re: Tom Tancredo and Illegal Immigrationby Razela44,826 views
- 1:59A Small Favor to Ask AZ Governor Janet Napolitanoby Razela6,267 views
- 0:28My Question for the Democrat Primary Debatesby Razela19,046 views
- 4:38Endangered Species Act Debateby RepJamesPMoran257 views
- 1:28The White House? or the Pink Houseby Razela3,006 views
- 6:37The Endangered Species Act & Agenda 21by MorphCity3,688 views
- 2:46The Endangered Species Act of 1973 - Section 1by nanwidewater1407 views
- 3:02Endangered Species Act of 1973by skazemi1389 views
- 6:17Hope for Endangered Species Act Candidatesby WildEarthGuardians1,587 views
- 2:34The Purpose of the Endangered Species Actby loboLoco64857 views
- 5:11The Ineffective Physician: Non-Motivational App...by MerloLab12,984 views
- 9:39Endangered Species Actby jillmboyce951 views
There's a difference between "fixing" nature and doing what we can to stop screwing it up...
micalekop 11 months ago
Every species lost affects the entire ecosystem, with ripples up and down the food chain. Species are currently becoming extinct at more than 1000 times the natural rate: one more vanishes every twenty minutes. We expect to lose half of the Earth's current biodiversity by 2050. Whether it's convenient or costly isn't the issue: at the top of the food chain, we threaten ourselves by the loss of biodiversity. Protecting species needs to be a real priority, not presented additional obstacles.
WordedRite 2 years ago
I would suggest putting a tax on land that doesn't have endangered species on it, to offset the payments to landowners that do. That would solve the pay-go problem, and in theory, a land tax is efficient, since the land will be there whether you tax it or not.
DClaudeKatz 2 years ago
"Compensation" is a very ambiguous word. They could set a fixed sum which they would pay and which would be much lower than the value of the land. It would still be usurping. The best way, of course, is to issue a bid for saving a certain specie if it's found to be endangered. So that if they want to save a specie X, they would say that anyone with X on their land can offer their land up for protection and name their price. And only those who save the most X per dollar spent would get the money.
docmoriarti 2 years ago
I think I made the commen on the first, but I am going to reiterate my problems here. As you said, it is completely unconstitutional. And, to top it off, humans can't fix nature just because we want to save some birds or rodents or something. We just need to leave nature alone
magnusdammit 2 years ago
i can understand not being able to hunt or capture endangered animals, but you can't up and turn people's private property into wildlife preservations. oh wait, just did...
mychaleg 2 years ago
Bad, bad, bad, bad.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
They could also allow the landowners to apply for some form of status to where the landowners get tax benefits for keeping the part of their land with the endangered species free from development or to where the species is not affected. It could be similar to how they do with landmarks. It could even be done in the way that people with cattle or livestock get certain tax incentives.
Ehav4Ever 2 years ago