Bolivia enshrines natural world's rights

[Seth]

What sort of prison sentence will a person get for defeating an attack of pneumonia? Will delousing be made illegal?

I've long been thinking about filing an Endangered Species Act lawsuit against the government for it's H. Pestis and Smallpox eradication efforts...

[ScholasticSpastic]

What sort of prison sentence will a person get for defeating an attack of pneumonia? Will delousing be made illegal?

I've long been thinking about filing an Endangered Species Act lawsuit against the government for it's H. Pestis and Smallpox eradication efforts...

Smallpox is a viral infection. As such, it is not alive by current definitions and is not protected under the Endangered Species Act. The bacteria responsible for plague are far too common to bother trying to protect- they're a common infection in the prairie dogs in my neck of the woods.

[Seth]

What sort of prison sentence will a person get for defeating an attack of pneumonia? Will delousing be made illegal?

I've long been thinking about filing an Endangered Species Act lawsuit against the government for it's H. Pestis and Smallpox eradication efforts...

Smallpox is a viral infection. As such, it is not alive by current definitions and is not protected under the Endangered Species Act. The bacteria responsible for plague are far too common to bother trying to protect- they're a common infection in the prairie dogs in my neck of the woods.

Not for long. When they strike a prairie dog colony, it kills the colony in a matter of weeks, with a better than 90 percent kill rate. Besides, the Black Plague bacteria has been reduced in its population density by at least 99.99 percent, and it's in danger of being exterminated entirely, including by the killing of its host, the flea, in prairie dog colonies. Further, it's been all but eradicated in it's historic ranges in Europe.

According to current interpretations of the ESA, it qualifies far more than, for example, the prairie dog, or the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, or indeed the Grey Wolf.

And how about the malaria bacteria? It's been all but eradicated from the US, and it was an endemic disease back before DDT in the South.

[ScholasticSpastic]

According to current interpretations of the ESA, it qualifies far more than, for example, the prairie dog, or the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, or indeed the Grey Wolf.

And how about the malaria bacteria? It's been all but eradicated from the US, and it was an endemic disease back before DDT in the South.

"Prairie dog" is not a species. We have at least three species of prairie dog living around Vernal, Utah. Some of them are doing better than others- and if the locals keep shooting them for sadistic fun at the rate they're going, they'll have brought down the hammer of the ESA upon their own heads. The easiest solution to running afoul of the ESA is: Stop killing the fuckers.

Malaria is not endangered.

[Seth]

According to current interpretations of the ESA, it qualifies far more than, for example, the prairie dog, or the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, or indeed the Grey Wolf.

And how about the malaria bacteria? It's been all but eradicated from the US, and it was an endemic disease back before DDT in the South.

"Prairie dog" is not a species. We have at least three species of prairie dog living around Vernal, Utah. Some of them are doing better than others- and if the locals keep shooting them for sadistic fun at the rate they're going, they'll have brought down the hammer of the ESA upon their own heads. The easiest solution to running afoul of the ESA is: Stop killing the fuckers.

Hey, I kill the little fuckers about twice a year. Hundreds of them. I usually use a .17 HMR Remington rifle that's quite accurate out to about 150 yards. That little 17 grain bullet zips out there at 4000fps and blasts the guts right out of the little fuckers, killing them instantly. I leave them for the eagles to eat.

I have to, otherwise THEY extinct THEMSELVES by eating themselves out of house and home. Only by carefully managing the population in the limited habitat available do I keep a healthy, sustainable population that ISN'T wiped out by plague every ten years or so (as it was back in 1978).

If you want me to stop killing them though, feel free to send me a pasture lease check every month. I charge $5.00 per prairie dog per month, and you can save as many of them as you can afford. PM me and I'll let you know where to send the check. I'll even let you name one and I'll send you a picture with a bio from time to time, just so you can get all warm and fuzzy about your environmental hypocrisy. If you don't, I'll go out tomorrow and kill a prairie dog in your name and send you a picture of the exploded carcass, so you can wallow in guilt for failing to meet your environmental obligations. I'll send you a new picture every month until you either pay up or shut up.

You are aware that YOU are living on prairie dog habitat, right? And that all your daily activities, and the commercial demands that come along with them are the direct, proximate cause of the loss of endangered prairie dog habitat, right? And that people like me, who have preserved ranch land and NOT sold it for development are the ONLY people who are NOT environmental hypocrites because we are the only ones who actually do something to preserve prairie, which is the habitat of the prairie dog, while all the swinging dicks and twats who whine about the "poor prairie dog" don't have a fucking clue what's actually required to conserve the species and just like to wallow in their hypocrisy.

I suggest you immediately go outside with a semi-sharp kitchen knife and slit your belly, allowing your intestines to spill out on the lawn, as penance for your environment-destroying presence in Utah. That's the only moral, ethical and environmentally acceptable thing for you to do. Anything else is cowardice and evasion of your environmental crimes.

I'll send flowers.

The little fuckers are on MY land, so I'll do what I want to them. If the public values them so much, they can negotiate a lease agreement with me to use my property for endangered species habitat, the amount to be based on the law of supply and demand... the greater the demand for MY land as ES habitat, the more I get to charge the public for that use. Or, they can come get the little fuckers and move them somewhere else.

Otherwise, I'll keep right on shooting, shoveling and shutting up. Might use some poison oats or poison gas as well, or perhaps the new "Burrow Blaster" that uses a long wand to inject an explosive mixture of propane gas and air into a burrow that's then detonated by a spark at the end of the wand. Kills the little fuckers instantly and collapses the burrow at the same time, helping to slow recolonization. Buries the evidence too...

Oh, and I'd also like rent, and 30 years of back rent, for the 35 acres under each of the three active or inactive bald eagle nest on my property as compensation for not being able to use that land, or even enter it, during nesting season.

When can I expect your check?

Malaria is not endangered.

The US population segment is...and that's all that matters to the ESA.

[MrJonno]

Natural rights versus legal rights





According to some views, certain rights derive from a deity or Nature
Main article: Natural and legal rights
Natural rights are rights which are derived from nature. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.

Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses throughout history. For example, Jeremy Bentham believed that legal rights were the essence of rights, and he denied the existence of natural rights; whereas Thomas Aquinas held that rights purported by positive law but not grounded in natural law were not properly rights at all, but only a facade or pretense of rights.

From wikipedia this somewhat summarises this discussion, I'm with Jeremey Bentham on this , rights are just another name for codified laws, no laws (and no government) means no rights. The idea that being born gives you a natural right to live self evidently (to me) seems very silly

[Seth]

Natural rights versus legal rights





According to some views, certain rights derive from a deity or Nature
Main article: Natural and legal rights
Natural rights are rights which are derived from nature. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.

Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses throughout history. For example, Jeremy Bentham believed that legal rights were the essence of rights, and he denied the existence of natural rights; whereas Thomas Aquinas held that rights purported by positive law but not grounded in natural law were not properly rights at all, but only a facade or pretense of rights.

From wikipedia this somewhat summarises this discussion, I'm with Jeremey Bentham on this , rights are just another name for codified laws, no laws (and no government) means no rights. The idea that being born gives you a natural right to live self evidently (to me) seems very silly

Why? And what are the natural consequences to the individual when his rights are not inherent and unalienable? If one's rights are a grant of society, then society need not grant any rights, and it need not grant equal rights to everyone. If society is the ultimate arbiter of rights, then we end up with Nazi society refusing to grant basic human rights and dignity to Jews, which permits them to exterminate Jews without any moral taint.

This is one result of the construction you use.

If society is the arbiter of rights, and the Nazi society declares that Jews are not human and are deserving of no respect and may be disposed of as the society dictates, according to your philosophy, the extermination of 12 million Jews in the Nazi ovens was a completely moral and acceptable act, merely because the society "codified laws" to that effect.

Do you see the cognitive disconnect in your philosophy yet?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you had a "natural right" to live, you wouldn't die.

Nature observes no rights.

[Seth]

If you had a "natural right" to live, you wouldn't die.

One has a natural right to pursue life, not a guarantee of obtaining that goal in perpetuity, or at all. Again, a "right" is merely a freedom of action that may be defended against intrusion or interference by another. It's not a statement of policy or an invulnerable shield against such intrusions.

Nature observes no rights.

"Nature" does not exist. Only animate and inanimate objects exist. Animate objects have rights. Inanimate ones do not. Animate objects observe rights through the process of struggling to survive and replicate their DNA for another generation.

[MrJonno]

Why? And what are the natural consequences to the individual when his rights are not inherent and unalienable? If one's rights are a grant of society, then society need not grant any rights, and it need not grant equal rights to everyone. If society is the ultimate arbiter of rights, then we end up with Nazi society refusing to grant basic human rights and dignity to Jews, which permits them to exterminate Jews without any moral taint.

This is one result of the construction you use.

If society is the arbiter of rights, and the Nazi society declares that Jews are not human and are deserving of no respect and may be disposed of as the society dictates, according to your philosophy, the extermination of 12 million Jews in the Nazi ovens was a completely moral and acceptable act, merely because the society "codified laws" to that effect.

Do you see the cognitive disconnect in your philosophy yet?

The Nazi's considered the natural rights of the German people to be able to live in a pure environment free of contaminants which to me shows the evils of 'natural' rights (Seth your first introduction to 'natural' rights may have been the US constitution mine was Mein Kampf). There are only 2 source of rights the majority or the minority (usually a dictator). Both can do terrible things but having more people act as a moderating force tends to reduce this

If the Nazi's have won WW2 exterminating lesser human beings would have seen as a basic right and we would not be having this conversation. It should be noted wanting to live in an environment free of the 'other is actually quite natural but it doesnt make it good or morally right. If anything civilisation is as much about restricting natural desires as it is about supporting them. Children at a very early age learn they can't say whatever they want whenever they want to , it seems some adults forget this lesson

[egbert]

Wanna bet? Refuse to pay your taxes anywhere with sufficient vigor and the government will eventually send armed thugs to take it from you by force. Resist that force with force and they can and will end up killing you. Just ask the fine folks at the compound in Waco about how willing the government is to use deadly force to compel obedience.

Right wingnut "logic" at its finest! You too, can learn to "think" like that from Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh!

It even works for speeding offenses. See, if police try to pull you over for speeding, and at first you refuse to stop, and then you threaten police, and then you act like you're pulling out a weapon, why - they'll shoot you! SEE - the penalty for speeding is death!

Why, when you think about it, ALL minor transgressions of the law in the USA are subject to the death penalty! Yesiree!
Seth - the Idiot's guide to thinking.

[MrJonno]

Even shocking the police can arrest you even if you know you didnt commit a crime but they suspect you did, evil police state!

[egbert]

True, but as I said, rights can be a function of nature as well, although the animals that acknowledge such systems are not capable of intellectualising them.

Natural Law - Don't put a rubber on your willy!

[egbert]

And how about the malaria bacteria? It's been all but eradicated from the US, and it was an endemic disease back before DDT in the South.

Malaria is not endangered.

Stop confusing Seth with facts.....

[MrJonno]

There are actually ethical and scientific issues in making entire organisms extinct even if they are nasty diseases. I believe copies of smallpox are kept just for this reason