That's not likely to happen. At the very least, even if there is no money to be made in keeping whales alive, there will be organizations like the Sierra Club that will homestead large chunks of the ocean and protect whales that live there. I'll donate $100 right now if there was such a system in place. I'm sure many people would too and a few rich people would donate much more.

I appreciate you made a short answer in the middle of a long post but you've lost me. How does enforcement of property rights prevent extinction if the owner of the whales is killing them off on his own property?

There are several ways you can do it, radio fences, buoys, floating lines.


It's somewhat the same issue with leeching chemicals into the soil. You can do whatever you want until you affect someone else's property.


Radio tags.

You are leaving reality totally behind here but even if all oceans are owned by one person, the still needs to be regulation to ensure that whales are not made extinct.  

It's already been explained to you in as simple of an analogy as can be. Let me try one more time to reach you. If you want to stop the tragedy of the commons, get rid of the commons. If you don't get it then there's no hope for you.

Fail.

From your own link:

We don't need to offer anything.  You are the one who wants to take away intellectual property rights.  Offer something to justify the loss or accept that your position will never be adopted.

In other words, you've got nothing.

Cat and dogs are different too. Are you saying that a dog in my backyard does not suffice as an example of how to address property rights with regard to cats?

Then stop making straw man arguments as if we don't know the difference between whales and dogs...

Congratulations on recognizing that whales, dogs and a pair of pliers are indeed different objects. What does that have to do with ownership? Do you really think those kind of "whales are not pliers, herp derp" arguments get you anywhere?

What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not? I'm not asking about the current laws either before you fall back on that schtick.

You are wasting your time.  This is a guy who doesn't know what a whale is and you propose educating him as to marine conservation.  Even if you devote your life to it, he won't understand.

Yes, a thumb isn't a thumb drive. I'm glad we've gotten that cleared up. Is there any other difference? What does one kind of ownership grant me or imply that another does not?

Could you be less vague?

Why?

Is a prosthetic limb or a wheelchair A or B? Just curious.

Version A of ownership cannot exist without Version B of ownership. They are intertwined, which is why property and person are nearly one and the same in some contexts.

If you must cause harm to stop harm you have either broken even (self-defense). However, in contradistinction to that, if you have initiated it, you have tipped the scales.

I don't see the castration argument as much different. You will, no doubt, save lives. Castration is not life threatening, it is a somewhat temporary inconvenience. If what you are after is "saving" lives, it will do exactly that. There will be fewer deaths by STD's and incidentals (tainted blood supplies, abortions, unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation).

The rebuttal has perfectly valid points given the same logical axioms as regulation.

It's relevant because it calls into question regulatory nuances. The collar represents regulation. I may not have phrased it that way but that's what it implies.

The government could just as easily lop our pointer fingers off because it's the finger most used to pull the trigger on a gun (hence, trigger finger). By doing so, there is a greater likelihood there will be less violent gun crimes. Funny thing is, gun manufacturers and criminals will find another way around given enough persistence.

The examples are numerous.