Skip to main content

Poaching and Hunting: A Distinction With Only A Rhetorical Difference

Poaching, definitionally distinct from hunting only by the artificial and abstract regulatory provisions of in-vogue parliamentary or congressional councils, strikes a largely-moral chord with its sponsors while piquing a less-prominent ecological interest in others. A cursory investigation into the history of poaching reveals a very sentimental or monopolistic refrain, whereby general assembly routinely ruled in favor of immediate public commercial or fiscal interest or its delusional counterpart of overtly-romanticized political expedience, a human anthology well-documented throughout the Oyster Wars, the Bering Sea Anti-Poaching Operations, the countless modern episodes of counterintuitive, destructive "ivory-crushing" protests, and the contemporary occasions of fines and imprisonment stemming from relatively modest, and might one dare describe it as "human" or "animalistic," demonstrations of innate survival strategy. 

 The major distinctions across the spectrum of relevance, as far as the deaths of specific species may be concerned, seem to each time embody still-human, still-myopic interests, as we will surely seldom observe an instance of protest against the killing of spiders, insects, or free-range cattle, let alone the measurable and frequent disposal of less-animate, less-relatable species and the systematic processing of the goods which appear gracefully on the shelves at Kroger then eventually romantically at the candle-lit table for two at dinner with a complementary garnish and decadent glass of cabernet. 

 Upon one's conclusion that one's behavior, here an act of survival optimization, warrants a sentence of imprisonment or fine, he or she concomitantly concludes his or her findings with a rough estimation of the value of the subject's actions, hereby effectively pricing the behavior out of the realm of morality and however-marginally yet potentially significantly mitigating its social repercussions. Pricing the supposed transgression transfers the behavior from the social forum to the market forum, condemning posterity, however far removed from this precedent, to a distorted value system built upon imprecise, incomplete, and inflexible standards of coercion and priced behavior, potentially permanently altering the course of human intuition and sensitivity to the subjects of innate survival strategy, the inherent qualities of human liberty, and the perils of systemic infringement thereupon and vestigial applications where these axiom-laden provisions are sure to further entrap and outlaw mere human behavior and out-of-vogue, supposedly uncivilized modes of survival.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod
2 comments
Read more

Death by Socialism

“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better". That is the title of an article from the World Economic Forum in November of 2016. The title is essentially socialism in a nutshell: no private property, no self-ownership, and no privacy, but somehow, they contend, life will be better.  This is the budding trend in America, away from freedom and capitalism in favor of government and socialism; and the data bear this out. Decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, socialism has reemerged as ungracefully as bellbottom jeans in the classroom and the collective conscience.  According to a 2015 Reason-Rupe survey, 53 percent of Americans under 30 admit to having a favorable view of socialism. Likewise, a 2016 Gallup poll found that an astounding 69 percent of millennials say they would be willing to vote for a “socialist” candidate for president. For comparison's sake, roughly a third of their parents'
1 comment
Read more

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes
Post a Comment
Read more