Fake Black Slave Owner Kamala Harris(D) pushes GUN CONTROL with a LIE
https://twitchy.com/artistangie/2023/07/19/kamala-makes-false-claim-about-leading-cause-of-child-death-n2385559
Fake Black Slave Owner Kamala Harris(D) is an absolute reptile with a forked tongue

Fuckin reptile 🐸
https://rumble.com/v16i2e9-fuckin-reptile-.html

The Conservation Question
By Gerald P. O'Driscoll, Jr.
retrieved from The Libertarian Forum, VOLUME IV, NO. 4 APRIL, 1972

During a fight over "saving" a cluster of redwoods, Ronald Reagan is reported to have remarked that "If you've seen one, you've seen them all." Needless to say, the good governor was roundly berated for his callousness. Yet there was some truth in what the governor had to say. One wonders whether the more extreme (consistent?) members of the conservation lobby would have us save every last tree, plant, and repulsive reptile from extinction, no matter what the cost. There is some question whether the early American colonists would have ever gotten off the boats if there had been an incipient Sierra Club in the 17th century. After all, to have felled a tree, or killed a turkey would have been to upset the ecology of the continent. All the other species and creatures of the earth are supposed to be permitted to run loose, preying on their natural enemies, consuming natural resources, etc., but man is supposed to recriminate about what he does in order to survive, and sometimes, advance his standard of living. Nature, too, destroys, but this is often overlooked in all the blather from conservationists. In fact, man is, in one important respect, at a disadvantage vis à vis other animals; he does not possess instincts to insure his survival. Man must rely on his reason, and his ability to conquer natural forces in order to survive. There is no question that in the process man destroys forests, fouls streams, and, yes, exterminates whole species of other animals. So what? Species have disappeared quite independently of any action by man, as have forests. We are constantly reminded by ecologists that man is part of nature, yet when he does what every other species does - grow and expand at the expense of other species - his actions are condemned as unharmonic with, and destructive of nature. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite. It is in man's nature to control and subdue what are termed "natural forces," to build "artificial" dwelling places, precisely because, if he does not, man will not survive. Like it or not, there is a struggle in nature for the world's scarce resources, and if men do not use their unique talents, these resources will go to the ants and elephants. Then, surely, there will be a return to pristine nature; no man, however, will be there to appreciate it. Lest we forget, the business of man is man, and this does not necessarily imply that either the number or the comfort of seals and alligators should be maximized.

Of course, my quip about the early colonists was silly. There were no conservationists among the colonists for a very good reason. People who have to confront nature on a day to day basis are not given to waxing eloquent about the joys of same. The sunrise on a desert may be beautiful to the middle class urban dweller, but it spells frost and ruin to the citrus grower. A winter scene in the Rockies makes for a beautiful Christmas card, but it means starving cattle for the rancher. Nature is beautiful to those who can choose the conditions in which they wish to confront it, and who have a place to retreat to after they have dabbled in pioneer life.

It should also be noted that the original motive of conservation was to preserve natural resources for future growth of the economy. It was feared that too fast a depletion of the nation's resources would lead to economic stagnation and decline, and that for a variety of reasons, it was doubted that the market could effictively allocate these resources over time. Most conservationists would agree that this is not the problem anymore. The demonstrated ability of technology to advance faster than resources are depleted has obviated any need for guardianship over the earth's resources in order to prevent economic stagnation. Indeed, today's conservationists seem to desire economic stagnation! And there in lies the difference between the "old" and "new" conservationism. Today, conservation is seen as providing for the present and future amenities associated with unspoiled natural environments, for which the market (again) is alleged to fail to make adequate provision.¹

But "amenities" associated with contact with the natural environment are hardly to be compared with the need to conserve natural resources in order to insure the continued growth of a complex economy. Nor does what is known as the "irreproducibility" argument stand up to scrutiny. There are some wonders, such as the Grand Canyon, which must be kept, or be lost forever (though, again, this fact does not, of and by itself, prove that they should be preserved). But such is the exception. For most, contact with nature means a visit to a state park, a drive through the country, or a picnic on a scenic overlook. But such assets are reproducible, and, in fact, have been growing steadily as state parks and other public and private facilities have grown to meet increasing demand.²

Some economists have argued that such amenities are so-called "collective consumption goods", and must, therefore, be provided by the government. Besides the fact that the conclusion doesn't even follow given the collective good assumption, the assumption is wrong. We do not see much private investment in the saving of threatened scenic wonders (though the fact we see any should at least give pause to the conservationists), because as long as there is a reasonable hope of governmental action to supply desired services, the consumer-conservationist will be well-advised to put his money into lobbying aimed at obtaining the desired services "free," or at well below cost, rather than into purchasing a private supply. To take Professor Robinson's example, suppose a group of wealthy individuals started a "Cadillac for the people" organization, and contributed $1,000 each to lobby to get the government to supply Cadillacs at $2,000 each. If the lobbying were successful, it would have proved a bargain. If the supply of Cadillacs dried up as a result, it would not prove that Cadillacs are a common consumption good which cannot be supplied by the market. It would only serve io prove anew that when something is sold at a price below the market-clearing price, demand will exceed supply.³

The old conservationism did not stand on solid grounds, either. The allocation of natural resources over time is one with any other capital problem. To conserve means to postpone use of a resource - to consume less today in order to consume more tomorrow. It is a matter of less now, more later. To follow the famous dictum of Gifford Pinchot that "conservation means the greatest good of the greatest number, and that for the longest time," would be to never use resources at all. What we can do, however, is to maximize the value of our natural resources. But, this the free market does as it does in maximizing the value of any asset over time.⁴

Moreover, it must be emphasized that to conserve or postpone the use of one resource usually involves depleting or accelerating the use of another resource. Resources are substitutes for one another. If coal, for instance, is conserved for heating purposes, more oil will have to be used. Conserving all resources would be literally impossible, without a drastic lowering of the standard of living, if not the extinction, of the human race. Again, we get back to what seems to be the logical end of conservationism, old or new, the impoverishment or destruction of the human species.

To say that the market doesn't save enough resources for the future is to express an unsupported value judgment about how well people should be off now relative to those who live in the future. Why should people in the future have a special claim on the people who live now? Either the conservationist is saying that the future does have a claim on the present, or that the market does not allocate properly over time. Neither has ever been successfully argued.

All this is not to say that there is no truth in what "ecologists" have to say. However, the observed "pollution" problem stems from the government's laxity in enforcing the ordinary law of torts against industrial polluters. By lowering the cost of "pollution-intensive" production, the government has, in effect, encouraged pollution, and the growth of pollution producing industries at the expense of non polluting industries. Air and water pollution involve poisoning people.

There is an elementary property rights problem involved - the right of people to their lives and property. As usual, the government isn't doing what a policing agency should be doing, and is doing what is shouldn't. There are hopeful signs that pollution law will take a new turn, recognizing a principle that would be the cornerstone of any libertarian legal code: that people shall not be deprived of their persons or property without due process.




1. On the differences between the old and new conservationism, see Warren C. Robinson, "A Critical Note on the New Conservationism," Land Economics, XLV, No. 4 (November, 1969), 45-56.

2. For a statistical mathematical argument that at least one state government (California) has actually supplied fewer parks and campgrounds than would be supplied on the free market, see Gordon Brown, Jr., "Pricing Seasonal Recreation Services," Western Economic Journal, IX, No. 2 (June, 1971), 218-25.

3. It is often assumed that the federally operated recreation network is redistributive. Lower income groups by and large receive no benefit from such services. The 1959 study of Wilderness Areas in California found that the average income of wilderness campers was over $10,000 compared to a U. S. average annual income of about $6,000 (think of all the expensive, specific capital required for camping). To the extent that taxes from lower income groups support the National Parks and Forests, it is these groups who are subsidizing upper middle class consumers of "amenities."

4. For an excellent article on this problem, see Scott Gordon, "Economics and the Conservation Question," Journal of Law and Economics, I (October, 1958), 110-21.

14 Apr 2022
Indian Police Arrest 4 Men Accused of ‘Gang Raping’ Bengal Monitor Lizard

LISTEN TO STORY_____________2:41

Police in western India’s Maharashtra state recently arrested four men for allegedly “gang-raping” a Bengal monitor lizard, the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported on Thursday, noting an official for the Maharashtra Forest Department confirmed the group’s arrest on Wednesday.

The incident allegedly took place inside Maharashtra’s Sahyadri Tiger Reserve and “came to light days after the four accused were booked for illegally entering Chandoli National Park, which is part of the reserve, with one of them carrying a gun for hunting,” a spokesman for the Maharashtra Forest Department told reporters on April 13.

Local police originally detained the four men on March 31 for illegally entering the state forest when their alleged crime of bestiality was discovered.

“During the investigation, the forest officials found that the accused had allegedly raped a Bengal monitor lizard. Their act was also recorded in a mobile phone of one of the accused persons,” an unnamed Maharashtra Forest official told PTI on April 13.

“We have recovered all the related evidence from the accused and they were granted forest department custody initially, but are out on bail now,” the official added.

“The four accused have been booked under various sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,” Nanasaheb Ladkat, the field director of the Sahyadri Tiger Reserve, told reporters on April 13.

India Today magazine described Maharashtra forest officials on April 14 as “perplexed” by the “abhorrent crime” and reported that they “will take up the matter with the Indian Penal Court” to determine appropriate charges against the suspects.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code states that “anyone who voluntarily commits intercourse with an animal ‘shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The Indian Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 designates the Bengal monitor lizard as a “reserved” or protected species. The reptile can grow “up to five and a half feet long and weigh almost 16 pounds,” according to the news website NextShark.

If the suspects are convicted of harming a Bengal monitor lizard according to India’s Wildlife Act, they “could be charged with seven years of imprisonment” according to India Today.

PTI identified the accused men on April 14 as “Sandeep Tukaram Pawar, Mangesh Kamtekar, Akshay Kamtekar and Ramesh Ghag.”

https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2022/04/14/indian-police-arrest-4-men-accused-gang-raping-bengal-monitor-lizard/

Xinhua - New marine reptile in dinosaur's age identified in south China:

http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0408/c90000-10081476.html

#MarineReptile #Reptile #Fossil #Guangxi #Ichthyosaurs #Mesozoic #BaisesaurusRobustus #Paleontology