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

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Homelessness More Lucrative than $150,000/Year Job in SF Bay Area

Most people in the United States long for a $150,000-per-year salary. This makes sense, as the nation's median personal income is roughly 80 percent below that mark. 

It's a lot of money. 

In fact, this income level qualifies for the top 4 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent of the world's population; it is 109 times the global average.

If this is true, how could an unemployed homeless person possibly make more money? Well, the federal, state and local governments: that's how!

Let's take a look at the numbers.

A single Bay-Area Californian earning $150,000 per year pays an effective income tax rate of 32.23 percent: this figure is inclusive of a 7.20-percent effective state income tax (and 9.30-percent marginal rate), an 18.27-percent effective federal income tax (and 24.00-percent marginal rate), and a 6.76-percent effective rate for Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. 



In addition to income taxes, the homeowner incurs an annual mortgage cost amou…

Why Leftism Fails

The precepts of socialism and communism endure palatably insofar as they apply to families and communities linked by the organic bonds of mutual interest. 

By the nature of their character, these precepts sound agreeable to the extent that we embrace them in our own lives within our own respective families and communities. 

Where that mutual interest begins to wane, however, we witness either abuse of — or, alternatively, enslavement to — the system erected to execute those ends. 

Naturally, people desire optimal outcomes. Due to this proclivity, individuals tend to overstate their commitment to idealistic ends. 

Realistically, individuals make tradeoffs, where they express preference (on the margin) for certain applications of their time, labor and capital. 

Due to the enormity of civilization, the infeasibility of meeting and much less caring about every individual, persons must make decisions to optimize the enjoyment of their lives. 

The communist ideal dictates, “To each according to h…