mises.org — At the age of 70 John Rapanos has finally ended his 18-year battle with state and federal environmental regulators, and has come out on the winning end. He faced a conviction of 63 months in a federal penitentiary and approximately $13 million dollars in civil and criminal penalties. It all began when Mr. Rapanos decided to start moving some sand.
Jul 18, 2006 View in Crawl 4
geekeeJul 18, 2006
The army corp of engineers have destroyed vast amounts of wildlife habitats building dams, much of the time for no good reason (pork barrel spending and beuracracy). The govt. isn't any better at limiting environmental impact than private citizens.
smooveJul 19, 2006
"lets say someone bought a plot of land that had part of the Colorado River running right through it. Certain protections should be made to make sure the river isn't obstructed."He certainly can't obstruct the river, but that's implicit in property rights: by damming it, he's infringing the property rights of everyone who owns property downriver.But when you talk about "damaging an ecosystem" on his property, there are a couple of problems. First, an ecosystem entirely contained in his property is unlikely, unless this is a mighty honking big piece of property--but more importantly, how do you figure that the presence of snail darters, say, makes the property no longer his? If my pet spleef turns out to be the last living spleef on earth, does that make it no longer mine and give someone the right to come confiscate him? I warn you, my spleef bites anyone who tries to handle him other than me.
jerbakerJul 19, 2006
> But more importantly, how do you figure that the presence of snail darters,> say, makes the property no longer his?I don't think anyone suggests that it is no longer his. Nobody can do anything they want on their property. Try getting permission to detonate a nuclear weapon on your property to test the theory. Why can't you do that? Well, because it would make everyone around you have a really bad day. Same goes for destroying critical habitat. You are creating a negative impact that extends beyond your property. Just because some of the habitat is located on your property does not mean you can do what you want with it anytime you wish.
Closed AccountJul 19, 2006
ScruffyDo you understand how property rights and freedom are tied together? From your comments, you are a socialist plain and simple. Your examples, such as I can't detonate a nuclear bomb on my property are asinine. The reason you shouldn't be allowed to is it violates the property rights of others, not because some pinhead arbitrarily zoned your property for some specific 'centrally planned' use.