Ernie gets probation

[chefjeff]

That's interesting. Would Elephants stop being hunted if they were the property of a private organization? that's interesting, but I doubt it. How would these rights be enforced? Farm animals are concentrated and easily protected, Elephants are not. Would private security drive off poachers? Would police? The ivory market would still exist, hence the incentive to poach would still exist. The fact that the Elephants would be "owned" by xyz.inc wouldn't change that. Or are you saying Elephants should be raised for Ivory privately? (Is that economically viable? Ivory prices would probably go so far through the roof as to be impractical. You have to raise an elephant to harvest it's ivory one time. What's the cost & return on that? Seems to me if it were viable, people would be doing it already.)

I think you kind of made my point at the end of your post. When you pointed out that property has the protection on the law. So what's the difference then? How do you punish people who violate the law (stealing somebody's else's Ivory?). With fines and jail and so forth. It would be no different. You prosecute offenders, which is exactly what is happening.

(Edit: About there not being a "victim" to be made whole. Consider a person who kills a hermit, with no friends or family. Someone who was totally off grid in every sense, including social. Is that person still guilty of murder? Of course, the fact that there is no victim to be made whole (and there isn't), doesn't matter. What matter is "was there a victim" in the first place.)

Now you're asking the right questions.

With modern tech, that all becomes easier and cheaper and makes the business an attractive and profitable thing. The whales have the same problem, most fishes do, too. With satellite tech, drones, etc. such things are very doable.

Law is a big subject, probably beyond this thread. It's been discussed many times in npr. Basically, law is discovered by judges. The current situation in elephant countries is no one owns the stock, everyone does. That is the old tragedy of the commons. Clickt for more on why it never works, and doesn't work for elephants now. Some countries have forms of partial ownership and those have fewer problems of extinction but could still be improved by real property ownership.

The answer to your last one about the hermit is the perp gives up his life. There is no other way in this case, is there? The victim at least RIP and those left living know the incentives for murder are less than before.

Utopia isn't one of the options.


Jeff Livingston

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

No, I didn't read that anywhere. But being it was direct proceeds from the act in which he was arrested and convicted it is considered I'll gotten gains and I can't imagine them not taking it - especially the Feds. So much money / property is seized each year it would blow your mind.

So, basically conjecture and speculation on your part, and not based on actual facts.

 

[bbb]

i am sure ernie will be glad to put this behind him
glad to learn no jail time

 

[Straightpool_99]

Now you're asking the right questions.

With modern tech, that all becomes easier and cheaper and makes the business an attractive and profitable thing. The whales have the same problem, most fishes do, too. With satellite tech, drones, etc. such things are very doable.

Law is a big subject, probably beyond this thread. It's been discussed many times in npr. Basically, law is discovered by judges. The current situation in elephant countries is no one owns the stock, everyone does. That is the old tragedy of the commons. Clickt for more on why it never works, and doesn't work for elephants now. Some countries have forms of partial ownership and those have fewer problems of extinction but could still be improved by real property ownership.


The answer to your last one about the hermit is the perp gives up his life. There is no other way in this case, is there? The victim at least RIP and those left living know the incentives for murder are less than before.

Utopia isn't one of the options.


Jeff Livingston

If Elephants were private property, they would be dog food in two years.

Some things are worth preserving, even at an economic loss. Companies care only about profits.

 

[JoeyInCali]

If Elephants were private property, they would be dog food in two years.

Some things are worth preserving, even at an economic loss. Companies care only about profits.

Do they grow that big in two years ?
I don't how efficiently they can be farmed and slaughtered for dog food.
They will be too expensive for dog food, I think.

Domesticated animals like water buffalo are useful in farming.
Elephants have been used for farming and logging of course.
But, in general, they really have no function for man.
Even the African villagers kill them b/c they're really of no use to them.
And they compete for land.
Their best use was expensive hunting trophies.

People mention their population decline often.
But, I really don't know how 2 million or so more of elephants living in the wild now. That is a lot of elephants in a continent that is suffering a ton from global warming.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Do we know that Ernie didn't get (or had to return) the money he received from the buyers? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just don't remember that being out there.

Good question.

The transaction had been completed long before the arrest, so unless Ernie just left the money laying around in his shop, they didn't get it.

And, btw, that money was not ill-gotten. Ernie sold those cues legally.

 

[alstl]

You feel the function of government is to "fix things" and "make lives better"? I feel you will always be disappointed. :wink:



Anyway, I am glad to see some reasonable resolution in this case. :thumbup:





.

I see three options. Push, pull or get out of the way.

1 - Government gets out of the way and lets people make their own lives better.

2 - Government makes people's lives better.

3 - Government makes people's lives worse.

I see a lot of #3 in what happened to Ernie.

 

[Mr. Bond]

That's interesting. Would Elephants stop being hunted if they were the property of a private organization? that's interesting, but I doubt it. How would these rights be enforced? Farm animals are concentrated and easily protected, Elephants are not. Would private security drive off poachers? Would police? The ivory market would still exist, hence the incentive to poach would still exist. The fact that the Elephants would be "owned" by xyz.inc wouldn't change that. Or are you saying Elephants should be raised for Ivory privately? (Is that economically viable? Ivory prices would probably go so far through the roof as to be impractical. You have to raise an elephant to harvest it's ivory one time. What's the cost & return on that? Seems to me if it were viable, people would be doing it already.)

I think you kind of made my point at the end of your post. When you pointed out that property has the protection on the law. So what's the difference then? How do you punish people who violate the law (stealing somebody's else's Ivory?). With fines and jail and so forth. It would be no different. You prosecute offenders, which is exactly what is happening.

As it is now, nobody actually profits from the protection of elephants.

If someone owned a herd, and maintained it at a suitable population (as is done with buffalo and alligators etc), they would have every reason to protect it, as a source of income or a return on their investment.

Fruit farmers, nut farmers, agave farmers all have to invest in crops that require thousands of acres and a dozen years to mature. It's not a new concept to invest in a long term strategy. And, poaching is not a new problem.

By the way, speaking of money, did you know that over 898 million dollars will have been wasted on bumper stickers and tv ads by the time the election is over.
"Save the Elephants" means nothing to the very people who have the power and money to physically do something about it.

 

[PoolBum]

Notice that no one is being prosecuted for harvesting cow leather for cue tips and notice there are millions upon millions of cattle, with more coming everyday to replace those used for food and stuff. That's because cows are owned, have a market, and those who own and trade are protected by the law, not abused by it. Big difference and THE difference.

Jeff Livingston

You do realize that it's the welfare of the actual elephants affected by the ivory market that matters and not just whether or not the species as a whole still exists, right?

Look at how the cows who are "owned" by us are treated.

 

[Mr. Bond]

*as it is now, nobody but the law enforcement agencies and court system, profits from the protection of elephants

 

[flyrv9]

So he knew it was wrong and against the law. He did it anyway, he got caught and made a deal. Just another lowlife with a few less $!

 

[Mr. Bond]

So he knew it was wrong and against the law. He did it anyway, he got caught and made a deal. Just another lowlife with a few less $!

Correction: He knew what someone else was going to do was wrong, and didn't call the authorities.


If you are suggesting that Ernie is a lowlife, I find that highly offensive.

 

[chefjeff]

If Elephants were private property, they would be dog food in two years.

Some things are worth preserving, even at an economic loss. Companies care only about profits.

Of course businesses care about profits. No margin, no mission.

But I don't wish to crap on this thread, beings it is about a pool business owner who just went through the govt. wringer, so if you want to talk about profits, start a thread in the npr section and we can discuss it there.

Meanwhile, I've suggested in npr for posters to read the short economic classic, Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. I'm suggesting it to you now.


Jeff Livingston

 

[jasonlaus]

So he knew it was wrong and against the law. He did it anyway, he got caught and made a deal. Just another lowlife with a few less $!

What is wrong with you?

 

[chefjeff]

You do realize that it's the welfare of the actual elephants affected by the ivory market that matters and not just whether or not the species as a whole still exists, right?

Look at how the cows who are "owned" by us are treated.

Yep,. They're killed by the thousands everyday for stuff and for food. Yet, the species never runs out.

I live in Iowa, the biggest hog producing state. There are constant arguments here about their treatment. Consumers who care about that buy meat mostly from the non-confinement producers, at an increased cost, because they value that more than the extra cost. But they're killed for their meat and for other stuff.

Value is subjective and freedom allows choice of value. But those choices are impossible without property rights as paramount.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Again, and this is paramount, there are no victims from Ernie's actions.

That is THE point of justice, making any victims as whole as possible.


And the corollary, if Ernie initiated no harm on others, why was HE harmed, that is, why did the govt violate real law and harm Ernie? (someone answered that in a recent post in this thread). And how could Ernie, or the rest of us who are concerned, ever achieve justice from that crime? The only way that wouldn't bankrupt him and us is through exposure of the dishonest process he was forced to go through, and that is what this thread and others like it are doing to help.


Jeff Livingston

 

[ibuycues]

So he knew it was wrong and against the law. He did it anyway, he got caught and made a deal. Just another lowlife with a few less $!

I hope the pain is not intense.
I assume you must have slipped and hit your head on a rock to make such an offensive post.
Try not posting so soon after falling.

Will Prout

 

[chefjeff]

So he knew it was wrong and against the law. He did it anyway, he got caught and made a deal. Just another lowlife with a few less $!

You're equating 'wrong' with 'against the law.'

What if the law is wrong and the prosecutors knew it? Now who are the lowlifes?

Jeff Livingston

 

[flyrv9]

Ok, so you all are offended. Works for me.

 

[CJH]

*as it is now, nobody but the law enforcement agencies and court system, profits from the protection of elephants

In other words, the government.