The only thing you said which came close to a counter argument was "Ranchers own land". With the beef example, you're assuming the wolves have value worth saving. Also, the wolves are unowned, hence the problem of unowned capital (assuming anyone want's to own them). Likely, they are a liability, hence there is value in destroying them. They have been priced appropriately.
Seriously. Don't you think adding knowledge and educating yourself would make your arguments a little more palatable? Do you really believe the stuff you write?Here's some advice. Please read it carefully:
If you have gaps in your knowledge, then you have to assume that perhaps your view of the world and its systems might be too simple. Here are some key words: trophic cascades, riparian zones, balanced ecosystems, edge effects.
Garrett Hardin specifically said that those such as you misinterpreted his document. If you really want to grasp the content of his material, then study him in depth, and his colleage, Herman Daly.
Which is exactly what I'm telling you; all these social problems result from the concept of common property. The government is one big fat problem of the commons, preventing the price mechanism from allocating scarce resources properly, resulting in environmental pillaging.
The government does create problems. But private property ownership is not, and will never be a complete solution. Also, and as an example, you still haven't addressed anything I said about blue whales.
I'm glad you don't advocate price fixing, but what then do you advocate? If the price of a commodity isn't set by voluntary trade, then by what mechanism would it be accurately priced? If you believe that the market pricing is "inaccurate" then you must be comparing it to something that you believe is accurate. Else how could you make this determination?
The mistake you're making is assuming that a buyer and seller have anyone's interest in mind other than their own. Once you get past that point, and realize that in addition to the buyer and seller, there are other parties involved, both current and future, then you'll be in a better position to see that there is no such thing as an accurate price. And again, it is explained effectively by the likes of Garrett Hardin, Herman Daly, Paul Ehrlich, and others.Let me put it simply. Consider:
Party A (the seller) has a certain set of knowledge about the world, and certain goals. Party B (the buyer) also has a certain set of knowledge about the world, and certain goals. Within this limited microcosm of likely incomplete knowledge, they engage in a transaction, trading goods at a certain price. To them, the price is "accurate". But their transaction has external effects, which translates to external costs to others. These external costs may have no effect on party A and party B, and thus they continue in their transactions, with further external costs to others.
You are a prime example of both party A and party B. Your gaps in knowledge cause you to value transactions which can be executed at a certain price (which you deem to be 'accurate').