4 ms·

> how does it alienate the property? They won't be able to sell their property; if one can't sell something, it has lost all value. As such, it violates the F

by wtbob 11y ago

> how does it alienate the property? They won't be able to sell their property; if one can't sell something, it has lost all value. As such, it violates the Fifth Amendment. The initiative also enables law enforcement to seize such items without warrants, which violates the Fourth Amendment. > why would they poach them if there is no market for ivory? Because there is, and always will be, a black market for them. And because megafauna such as elephants are pests. Poor farmers would just as soon kill them than see their families starve because their crops have been eaten or trampled. > For example how would you prevent extinction of elephants in the wild? I imagine that elephant ranches would be pretty close to a wild environment. Even were they not, would you rather have elephants go extinct altogether, or survive on ranches?

adamnemecek 11y ago
> They won't be able to sell their property; if one can't sell something, it has lost all value. As such, it violates the Fifth Amendment. It doesn't and you know it so stop bullshitting. The government isn't seizing property, it just makes some antiques worthless. Which, again, is not the same as seizing. And the government has every right to ban or restrict the sales of something. We, as a society, have already accepted this trade off. > Because there is, and always will be, a black market for them. The size of this black market would be a lot smaller. Ivory isn't drugs, people don't "have" to buy ivory, unlike say heroin. What's the size of the black market for Kinder Surprise eggs, another thing that's illegal to sell? It's probably pretty small, because people don't need to buy Kinder Surprise eggs. > And because megafauna such as elephants are pests. Poor farmers would just as soon kill them than see their families starve because their crops have been eaten or trampled. Sure, some farmers kill them and will continue killing them. The question is the magnitude. These farmers aren't killing nowhere near as many elephants are poachers are. > I imagine that elephant ranches would be pretty close to a wild environment. Even were they not, would you rather have elephants go extinct altogether, or survive on ranches? This would lead to extinction of elephants in the wild. > you rather have elephants go extinct altogether, or survive on ranches? Nice false dichotomy. I would rather have them survive in the wild. Which is achievable if there's a global ban on ivory sales.

by wtbob 11y ago

adamnemecek 11y ago

> They won't be able to sell their property; if one can't sell something, it has lost all value. As such, it violates the Fifth Amendment. It doesn't and you know it so stop bullshitting. The government isn't seizing property, it just makes some antiques worthless. Which, again, is not the same as seizing. And the government has every right to ban or restrict the sales of something. We, as a society, have already accepted this trade off. > Because there is, and always will be, a black market for them. The size of this black market would be a lot smaller. Ivory isn't drugs, people don't "have" to buy ivory, unlike say heroin. What's the size of the black market for Kinder Surprise eggs, another thing that's illegal to sell? It's probably pretty small, because people don't need to buy Kinder Surprise eggs. > And because megafauna such as elephants are pests. Poor farmers would just as soon kill them than see their families starve because their crops have been eaten or trampled. Sure, some farmers kill them and will continue killing them. The question is the magnitude. These farmers aren't killing nowhere near as many elephants are poachers are. > I imagine that elephant ranches would be pretty close to a wild environment. Even were they not, would you rather have elephants go extinct altogether, or survive on ranches? This would lead to extinction of elephants in the wild. > you rather have elephants go extinct altogether, or survive on ranches? Nice false dichotomy. I would rather have them survive in the wild. Which is achievable if there's a global ban on ivory sales.