I am trying to understand the status of wilderness wildlife in a free society from a natural rights perspective. In particular, I am interested in what could have prevented someone from slaughtering all of the buffalo on the great plains for simple sport (I understand that the actual events were more comlicated)..
It would seem that, in a free society, there would be private property, common property, and nonproperty--things not owned by anyone. Common property, such as paths through the wilderness created by many people over time, would be owned by all of their creators and thus none of the owners could do anything that might infringe on the use of that resource by the other owners without their consent.
A common spring or watering hole in the wilderness would classify as non-property in that it was not created by anyone. Thus it would come under the control of no one. What then could stop one user from polluting the spring?
If we view the pollution of the spring by my neighbor as the prevention of my use of the spring, then my neighbor is infringing on my right to liberty. It would seem I would be justified in using force to stop him from polluting the spring. But why?
It would seem that wildlife that live in the wilderness would classify as nonproperty in that noone could lay claim to them until they had appropriated them by usage. Someone who shot and killed all of the buffalo and left them to rot would be preventing me from appropriating unowned property, just as if someone came and set fire to the wild forest that I had hoped to harvest for timber.
Can we view this type of activity as an infringement on my liberty? Am I justifed in using force to stop him?
William Green: I am interested in what could have prevented someone from slaughtering all of the buffalo on the great plains for simple sport (I understand that the actual events were more comlicated)..
I am interested in what could have prevented someone from slaughtering all of the buffalo on the great plains for simple sport (I understand that the actual events were more comlicated)..
Land ownership. When you go hunting do you normally hunt on "no trespassing" areas? Didn't think so.
Thanks for your reply, but I am interested in the question of vast, unappropriated lands, as was the case in the early history of the US or as would be the case if all public lands were returned to the state nonownership.
In addition, I think that even with private land ownership we have the question of whether one can lure wildlife to his property from a nrighbor's to kill them. Wildlife typically range across boundaries of land ownership and so it would seem to be diffiult to say who owns them, if anyone.
William Green:In addition, I think that even with private land ownership we have the question of whether one can lure wildlife to his property from a nrighbor's to kill them. Wildlife typically range across boundaries of land ownership and so it would seem to be diffiult to say who owns them, if anyone.
Do I automatically own anything if it comes onto my land?
Schools are labour camps.
It would not seem so.
Here in Wyoming, we have vast stretches of land. Some are privately owned and some are government owned. It's currently elk season so there are a lot of people out there hunting on public land. Believe me, the private land owners out in the country know it's hunting season. Most of them hate it because it means they'll have random people near or on their land. I don't dare set foot on their land because you might be met with a shotgun if they catch you. And they do check. You can't drive down into a hunting area so you leave your car parked on the road. It gives people an idea of where you are. Anyway, no one's been shot to my knowledge but it is a big deal if you're caught and most people don't risk it.
You don't have to worry about someone killing all the elk. Hunting is difficult. Since it's hunting season there are a large number of hunters out there. This tends to drive the elk away. Even if you find a secluded spot, and it's possible since a few people I know have their "secret" areas, you still might not get one. Last year, it took a friend of mine 7 weeks to shoot one and he'd go out once or twice a week. A lot of people, including me, hunt the whole season and come back empty handed.
It would be possible to kill most of the elk. What if one used poison bait on public or unowned lands or helicopters and snipers, for example. The fundamental question remains--what to do with unowned wildlife and how to prevent its wanton destruction.
Oh another insane wealthy person scenario? All right, why don't we take it one step further and jump carpet bomb an area and then go harvest the elk.
As for poison bait? Many people have their kills butchered so they could eat them. You get a few hundred pounds of meat out of it. I don't think using poison sounds appealing.
I'm trying to answer the fundamental philosophical question. I am not interested in particulars. But in fact, wanton destruction of wildlife has occurred and continues to occur, though on a limited scale.
My question is whether there is any way to prevent this in a free society, in other words, is the use of force legitimate in order ot prevent it.
Perhaps it is not. Maybe the only solution is to "pay off" the potential destroyer. Maybe it is simply a conflict of interests. One man wants to destroy a herd of bison and leave them to rot, another wishes to use them for food. Maybe the only legitimate recourse the second man has is to offer money to the first in exchange for the right to eat the animals. But this seems strange, since the first did not own them in the first place.
Despite the present day unlikeliness of such scenarios, it is useful to examine such questions.
In fact, modern hunting regulations aim to accomplish exactly this goal. It would seem that such regulations are iliigitimate, since they arise from the state. But in the absence of the state, is there any way to prevent the destruction of unowned resources?
If you like, we can use the forest example. Suppose an arsonist intends to set fire to and burn a vast, unowned tract of forest land that I am planning to harvest for timber. Do I have any legitimate way to prevent him from doing so? Must I pay him off, or would I be justified in using force to stop him?
This article gave me an idea (http://mises.org/story/2120).
Maybe the previous usage of a herd of buffalo or of a spring of water could consitute a stake in the ownership of or even the full ownership of that herd or spring. Then the subsequent destruction of it by another user would be an aggression.
Does this make sense? Would this solve the problem of the arson?
Was my post deleted?
William Green:I am trying to understand the status of wilderness wildlife in a free society from a natural rights perspective. In particular, I am interested in what could have prevented someone from slaughtering all of the buffalo on the great plains for simple sport (I understand that the actual events were more comlicated)..
If you kill all the buffalo for sport you starve to death, nature reboot, human being failed due to stupidity :). Likewise letting someone else kill off the food supply or pollute the only water supply is foolish, you should expel that person from the area. Use as much force as required.
William Green:Common property, such as paths through the wilderness created by many people over time, would be owned by all of their creators and thus none of the owners could do anything that might infringe on the use of that resource by the other owners without their consent.
I agree and that any decision to bar new users from the path all the owners must agree. However if this path is the only navigatable path, such as a path through a high mountain pass, to deny passage to anyone is an act of war.
It looks like it was. I don't know why.
if you look at the dense urban areas of many cities....well, most used to be a wilderness like area.
now its lots of concrete asphlat and glass....you may see rats, gulls crows and sparrows where other species used to abound.
people have to live too.
to the extent that people enjoy the the observation and interaction in less human designed habitats then people would set areas aside or recreate natural areas. to some extent governemnts have done this....but i expect early landowners would set aside preserve areas...biltmore estate and some farms near witchita come to mind. a private reserve as fasr as birds go , would proboly yield more birds in a region.
this has been done before.
as for a polluted spring...well, owned land still gets polluted to some extent now. my guess is that private land would lessen the occurence if polluting the spring casued pollution flow downstream/hill.
i have read, but cannot confirm, that governments are the largest polluters by far.
i have read that most of the species that have ever existed have become extinct....so destruction of species is nothing really new on the earths surface.
as for unowned land and killing buffalo for the wantonness of it..sure i guess you could develop your potent poisons back east and somehow begin to shoot or poison or burn the grass of thousands of grazing, migrating buffalo...i guess if your poisons leached into other owned property you could be held responsible for pollution or some such. give it a try and see.