Comments on: Hunting ferals

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:52:05 +0000

I think all I can really say is to refer back to my comment @ #56. I think that is succinct.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:20:42 +0000

When Bob Brown says taxpayers should pay to protect endangered species is he more objective than when Paul Keating says taxpayers should pay to build an asthetic capital city? I’d say that both are expressing subjective views about what taxpayers ought to pay for. I don’t think the ecological choice is less subjetive than the asthetic choice.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:49:11 +0000

You’re talking about an individual.

It is rational to allow individuals to be subjective, but not Governments.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:11:16 +0000

Is buying an ecological car less subjective than buying an asthetic car? I’d say that prefering ecological over asthetic is very subjective.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:52:55 +0000

“Mark – what (why) is ecological more important than asthetic.”

It isn’t subjective.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:22:41 +0000

Mark – what is ecological more important than asthetic. And as an aside I’d like to say that concern about old growth forests is more asthetic than ecological. A 40 year old forest isn’t terribly different in ecological terms to a 400 year old forest.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:34:07 +0000

I’m still against Government mandated blanket rules for natural resource management which have only aesthetic and no ecological validity, particularly those that go beyond State owned property and it is valid to call them socialist directives as the resource areas and species are being manged bu central directive and generally have an economic value (particularly if the eradication is not justified) which is being ignored for “social” or other purposes.

I admit though it is rare and the limit as to what socialism is, but it is still a valid term where it occurs.

JC was wrong about brumbies but inadvertently right about deer which David L brought up.

John calls it Statism, but the vague connection between the Statism, socialism and resources is important.

In Australia, it drives a lot more than policies on biodiversity. It even leads to well meaning social democrat policies perversely locking out native titleholders out of using their own resources effectively to get out of generational poverty.

Is that *just* Statism or socialism as well?

By: Yobbo

Yobbo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:49:32 +0000

Terje, if you are a football player the AFL might as well be the government. And they absolutely control the means of production and the resources. Ask Ben Cousins or John Elliot.

But like I said it’s not a big deal because people don’t go hungry if AFL teams are held back by socialism. They do go hungry when it is applied to national economies though.

By: conrad

conrad — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:50:32 +0000

“The world would be a more boring place if all there was were rabbits, foxes and mosquitoes.”

Mosquito fascist.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:47:50 +0000

The AFL salary cap is not socialism. It’s a business policy decision. You may not like it and it may have flaws and cause problems but it isn’t socialism. Next you guys will start claiming that writing with your left hand or catching the bus is socialism. This is as bad as the left wingers that characterise all wars, political corruption and third world poverty as right wing plots. Please lift your game.