Nature Gets Legal Rights

[Paul's Here 0]

It finally happened. The first country in the world, Ecuador, grants rights to nature.

Approximately two-thirds of Ecuador’s population voted ‘yes’ this Autumn, in a historic, national referendum – a result that reflects the vast majority’s hopeful expectation of political change. By an overwhelming margin, the Ecuadorians backed their president, Rafael Correa, in voting for a new progressive constitution – the first in the world to grant Nature the same inalienable rights as human beings.

“I think a lot of eyes will be on Ecuador,” said Mari Margil, associate director of the Community Environmental Legal Defence Fund – the law firm that worked with the members of Ecuador’s Assembly to draft the legal framework. “With this vote, they are leading the way for countries around the world to fundamentally change how we protect Nature.”

---------------

Dr Mario Melo, a lawyer specialising in Environmental Law and an advisor to Fundación Pachamama, explained that the new constitution redefines people’s relationship with Nature. It is not an object to be appropriated and exploited but rather a rights-bearing entity, that should be treated with parity under the law.

“In this sense, the constitution reflects the traditions of the indigenous peoples living in Ecuador, who see Nature as a mother and call her by her proper name, Pachamama,” Dr Mario Melo said.

This new bill for Nature’s ‘right to exist’ offers an alternative paradigm. It clearly acknowledges that all life on Earth is interconnected. It must be protected and respected for the sake of all species – beliefs which have long been obvious to Ecuador’s indigenous peoples.

The constitution provides explicit legal protection for the environment. Says one section: ‘Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has a right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structures, functions and its processes in evolution.’

------------------

Although the government is ultimately responsible for upholding the new laws, in Ecuador, every individual, organisation or community now has the power to represent Nature in the courts and halt any damaging activities.

--------------------

President Correa has already proposed a ban on drilling in the Yasuni National Park. The Ecuadorian government has appealed to the international community to find innovative ways to recompense their country for the estimated 4.6 billion dollars income which will be lost. “We offer to forsake oil revenue for the sake of humanity,” Rafael Correa said, “but we need the international community to share the responsibility, by providing... compensation in recognition of the environmental benefits we will generate for the entire planet.”

The new constitution of 444 articles has been created democratically. It in-corporates proposals put together by the 70,000 citizens, who were present at the Assembly in Montecristi. Along with the rights for Nature, it also contains social reforms, aimed at improving the quality of life for the 38 per cent of Ecuadorians who live below the poverty line.

New provisions guarantee collective rights to water and food, free education for all, increased spending on health, the availability of low-interest micro-loans, building materials for first-time home owners and free seeds for growing crops.

Ecuador’s extension of legal rights for Nature may also represent a wider shift in how humans view their place in the world. The Legal Defence Fund has been fielding calls on the subject from Italy Australia, South Africa and Nepal – also in the throes of its first constitution.

-------------------

Some religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama, have recently declared that caring for Nature is a spiritual duty, while the Catholic Church has incorporated: 'thou shalt not pollute the environment' into its revised list of Seven Deadly Sins.

“We are still on time for our laws to recognise the right of a river to flow and to prohibit actions that will destabilise the Earth’s climate...” said Mr Acosta. “It is time to stop the mad commodification of Nature, as it was in previous years, time to prohibit the buying and selling of human beings.”

No one could put this in fiction. It's too fantastic.

[RayK 0]

No one could put this in fiction. It's too fantastic.

I have another word for their actions, but it is unprintable here.

[JohnRgt 0]

No one could put this in fiction. It's too fantastic.

Please tell me you got this from The Onion.

[realitycheck44 0]

Yeah, could you provide a source for that article?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

It finally happened. The first country in the world, Ecuador, grants rights to nature.

.......(snipage).......

-------------------

Some religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama, have recently declared that caring for Nature is a spiritual duty, while the Catholic Church has incorporated: 'thou shalt not pollute the environment' into its revised list of Seven Deadly Sins.

“We are still on time for our laws to recognise the right of a river to flow and to prohibit actions that will destabilise the Earth’s climate...” said Mr Acosta. “It is time to stop the mad commodification of Nature, as it was in previous years, time to prohibit the buying and selling of human beings.”

No one could put this in fiction. It's too fantastic.

This is hardly new. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis. This rights business is just the likely next step.

This nonsense can be back dated to the 1960's and the works of James Lovelock and with a stretch back to the Greek Pagans. Please see the myth of Gaia. How many of you have used the term "Mother Nature" at some time in your lives?

In 1979 Lovelock summarized his hypothesis that the earth was, in effect, a living thing in his book -Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth-. Lovelock chose the name "Gaia" for his hypothesis at the suggestion of the author William Golding ("Lord of the Flies"). The name produced a meme which has united the neo-pagan ecological extremists. Not that they needed all that much help mind you. Rachel Carson founded the modern eco-crazy-insane movement with her famous book -The Silent Spring-.

I will bet many of you thought that Idol Worship and Paganism was dead. Not so. It is Alive and Ill here at the close of the year 2008. Excuse me now, I must go sacrifice a goat to the Earth Mother... [sarcasim, not to be taken literally].

ruveyn

[Paul's Here 0]

Sorry, I forgot to put in the link to the article: Ecuador’s Historic Vote

[ewv 0]

Western journalists are promoting the new social controls in Ecuador as a serious moral ideal:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...0,7811640.story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...or.conservation

[styg50 0]

This is at once as believable as unbelievable.

I don't mean to undercut the significance of what Ecuador is doing here, but it seems to me that there is an upside (is that the word I am looking for?) to all of this. As Ayn Rand stated in "Anatomy of a Compromise":

When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side;when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

In order to win, the rational side of any controversy requires that its goals be understood: it has nothing to hide, since reality is its ally. The irrational side has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals. Fog, murk, and blindness are not the tools of reason; they are the only tools of irrationality.

While the viro's ultimate goals are still being evaded, I think they have made a major error in institutionalizing conflicting rights for nature and man. Man's rights are consonant with reality, while 'nature's rights' are an utter contradiction. In practice, they will fail to realize their goal, and will need to find a way to return to the current status quo of claiming man's rights explicitly while granting nature's rights implicitly. The nature of what they are trying to accomplish demands that they keep it a secret, even from themselves, if need be.

An opportunity may exist here, to expose some of the deeper layers of viro motivation. I really think they have made a mistake in showing their cards.

[Stussy88 0]

I wonder if the Prez would only accept the $4.6B if it was ethically sourced? Because if not then he's simply asking someone else to "destroy the environment" (his terms) by proxy. If so, then he may have a long wait for $4.6B from fair-trade coffee and the like.

Inconsistency in the green position ~ who'd have thought it...

[bborg 0]

While the viro's ultimate goals are still being evaded, I think they have made a major error in institutionalizing conflicting rights for nature and man. Man's rights are consonant with reality, while 'nature's rights' are an utter contradiction. In practice, they will fail to realize their goal, and will need to find a way to return to the current status quo of claiming man's rights explicitly while granting nature's rights implicitly. The nature of what they are trying to accomplish demands that they keep it a secret, even from themselves, if need be.

An opportunity may exist here, to expose some of the deeper layers of viro motivation. I really think they have made a mistake in showing their cards.

Their real goal is not to protect nature. Only the feebleminded really believe that man can exist without exploiting his environment in some degree. The real goal is not to erect some kind of "green friendly" society, but to finally gain total power over the market, and without having to explicitly reject private property. It's a fascist model of socialism, preserving the illusion of capitalism presided over by a "well-meaning" government body. It's an easier pill to swallow than communism, and environmentalism is so popular now hardly anybody would object.

Also, it's true that they will not be able to fully enforce this law, because it would destroy the economy. They know that! Instead, they will use it to gain more leverage over businessmen. Remember in Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden learns that the laws were never meant to be followed! They don't want you innocent, they want you guilty so they can "make a deal". It would do them no good to throw all the producers in jail, but hold the threat over their heads and they'll have them on strings.

[styg50 0]

While the viro's ultimate goals are still being evaded, I think they have made a major error in institutionalizing conflicting rights for nature and man. Man's rights are consonant with reality, while 'nature's rights' are an utter contradiction. In practice, they will fail to realize their goal, and will need to find a way to return to the current status quo of claiming man's rights explicitly while granting nature's rights implicitly. The nature of what they are trying to accomplish demands that they keep it a secret, even from themselves, if need be.

An opportunity may exist here, to expose some of the deeper layers of viro motivation. I really think they have made a mistake in showing their cards.

Their real goal is not to protect nature. Only the feebleminded really believe that man can exist without exploiting his environment in some degree. The real goal is not to erect some kind of "green friendly" society, but to finally gain total power over the market, and without having to explicitly reject private property. It's a fascist model of socialism, preserving the illusion of capitalism presided over by a "well-meaning" government body. It's an easier pill to swallow than communism, and environmentalism is so popular now hardly anybody would object.

Also, it's true that they will not be able to fully enforce this law, because it would destroy the economy. They know that! Instead, they will use it to gain more leverage over businessmen. Remember in Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden learns that the laws were never meant to be followed! They don't want you innocent, they want you guilty so they can "make a deal". It would do them no good to throw all the producers in jail, but hold the threat over their heads and they'll have them on strings.

I am pretty sure we are in agreement on this issue, but I would like to clarify.

The point I was making was that the threat held over the heads of producers is more effective when it is unspoken, and just hinted at, in the periphery of a producer's vision. By institutionalizing this small part of the viro's ideas, it and its results are now more out in the open then they were before. That can only benefit the rational people who are the victims of these machinations.

Any time a tool or weapon can get into the hands of the rational producers, I think it is a good thing. The failure of Constitutionally granted Rights for Nature is (will be) a weapon. Those who will wield it most effectively will be the ones who point out from the beginning that not only will it not work, but why it won't work.

As to the the position the producers are in, they, like Rearden, now have more information to act on. Institutionalizing viro ethics creates facts that producers can figure out, instead of the whims of politicians. The whims will still be there, but they will now have a foundation in law that can be studied by even those with no philosophical background. It is their choice to be a victim, and they inform their choices with whatever facts they can find.

If nothing else, this is another opportunity to correctly identify what the meaning of 'rights' is, and how applying them to nature contradicts the concept of rights altogether. Where I live in Alaska there are a lot of producers at the beginning of the chain of production (loggers, miners, etc.). They are almost universally supportive of proper individual rights, but unable to explain why economic rights like the right to a job aren't ok. And the issue is just abstract enough that they can't focus easily, and certainly don't make themselves commonly available to somone who can help explain it to them. But "nature's rights" is an issue which they will take the time to try and understand, since it directly affects them. That is an opportunity for a dialog of values which will help them understand the principle of rights that they are grappling with. The FACT that these new rights are being granted is the fact upon which the dialog can be based. Before now the issue was simply too abstract for the average, chronically busy producer. But this is getting a bit ahead of myself...

I only wanted to clarify that I agree with what you are saying in regards to what the ultimate goals of the viros are, but that I think they have made a mistake in their methods for obtaining those goals. Short term things may not change, or may even get worse, but long term I think they are undercutting the base of producers they intend to victimize. Ecuador has endorsed slavery, and humanity has a history of rejecting that idea when it, and the concept of man's rights, is made explicit.

[bborg 0]

The point I was making was that the threat held over the heads of producers is more effective when it is unspoken, and just hinted at, in the periphery of a producer's vision.

It can’t be unspoken if it’s to be effective. Otherwise property owners will simply ignore the wishes of policymakers, if they believe those wishes are optional. What has to be true, and what is still true in the situation as described in the article, is that the premises of the policy remain unnamed. You can make a law (or a constitution), but you can’t say you made it to gain more power, or because you hate man. You can say that you’re doing it to “protect the environment” (provided you have brainwashed everyone into accepting your definition of “the environment” and that its protection is a value), but you can’t say the corollary of this, that man has no right to exist. You have to fool people into believing that ultimately this is good for them, even if they are too dumb or short-sighted or “selfish” to see it. You can’t come out and say it will hurt the economy or the country’s standard of living, that it will cause suffering, but you can say that the good of everyone requires individual sacrifices, dishonestly implying that in the end these aren’t really sacrifices but rational trade-offs. And I could go on.

I agree that going so far as to give nature explicit rights is a risky move, but they are not explicitly abolishing private property, even if that is the effect. The US has been practicing this kind of maneuver for nearly a century, in the form of welfare and all sorts of ridiculous social programs and subsidies. It’s just that for the most part it allows businesses to make their own decisions. I don’t know about the situation in Ecuador, but if this motion was approved by 2/3 of the population, then it wasn’t really that radical an idea. It’s the same premise of our own policies, but they’re further down the road.

[styg50 0]

The point I was making was that the threat held over the heads of producers is more effective when it is unspoken, and just hinted at, in the periphery of a producer's vision.

It can’t be unspoken if it’s to be effective. Otherwise property owners will simply ignore the wishes of policymakers, if they believe those wishes are optional. What has to be true, and what is still true in the situation as described in the article, is that the premises of the policy remain unnamed.

Yes, I definitely misspoke, not once but twice! I did not mean to say that the threat itself was what was being evaded, but the premise behind the threat. Thank you for clarifying the statement.

However I do stand by the assessment that the premises are less hidden now then they were before the adoption of Nature's Rights on a national scale. Right now when I am told that I can't build on a tideflat, I am told that it is because I don't have a permit, and then I get checked through a number of different agencies, out of which a handful will point towards some natural entity or other that is protected by recent, usually temporally limited, laws. If I am persistent there will be cracks through which to sneak my permit, the same cracks that were meant to redistribute wealth in the overall scheme. The laws themselves are difficult to understand, spread over innumerous sources, hard to reference and in indirect contradiction to the the constitutions of both the state of Alaska and the United States. The premise at work, altruism, is deftly hidden beneath layers and layers of actual, insignificant facts, in the forms of permits, beaureacrats, surveys and critters.

If Nature's Rights are instituted, that all changes. Just like before I can't build on the tideflat, under threat of force (the threat is unchanged), but this time there is no question of permits, surveys or critters. I just can't build, period. The reason is unadulterated altruism, and I see no way that they can hide that fact, while maintaining Nature's Rights. If I am the type of person who produces things, and who makes a good victim for the altruists, the case against my destroyers should be much clearer than before, even if I had never heard of Ayn Rand.

In practice, I think they will have to delimit the scope of Nature's Rights, or else they will have to completely misdefine and misrepresent them, making them ineffective. If they consistently uphold the principle of Nature's Rights, production (as far as it is regulated, such as Ecuadorian production in this example) will simply cease. Raw materials will stop being harvested, food may stop being cultivated. This could be kept afloat artifically for awhile, with "out of area" victims (I believe the article called for a loan to Ecuador), but if kept up, that strategy leads to war. (In which case I will indulge and imagine a liberated 1/3 of the Ecuador population.) To avoid the cessation of production, the more likely strategy would be to apply Nature's Rights selectively, through wealth distribution and favoritism, but this is also a short term solution, and is eventually self-defeating. A variant of this strategy, is to misdefine the application of Nature's Rights, either from the get-go, or the second the politicians run into tough sledding. This would be along the lines of defining some things as Nature, and other things as man-made, while ignoring the connection between the two. Again, it would be self-defeating, though it may have some staying power. Any producer who fell under the sway would be unable to produce for long, with no ability to judge the metaphysical status of their product, though some producers could potentially labor under that contradiction for sometime before defeat.

As you say, it is risky for them to do this. I'm sure they wish we weren't watching them. Seeing them in this position reminds me of the time when I was little, and I wanted to help burn the weeds off the field in the spring. I had my own reasons for wanting to burn the weeds (just like the viros have their own reasons for wanting to "protect the environment"), partly because I thought the clean field with the fresh green shoots of grass looked very trim and neat after the burn, but mostly because I thought the flamethrower we used was pretty cool. (I am sure the viros think that government controls are pretty "cool" too). I wasn't allowed to help, because I was too small to wield the torch successfully, but I went out after everyone had gone in and figured I would finish off the last part of the field. (Turns out they didn't finish for a reason, as I would soon find out.) Long story short, some strong wind gusts and a few hours later we were short a chicken coop and half of the corral fence. I had to rebuild the fence all by myself as punishment, and thankfully the chicken coop was no loss, as it hadn't been used in years, but I really felt like a fool after that. I think about myself getting that flamethrower lit up, and than I think about the viros and their victorious grasping of a fundamental "principle." Fools with tools, which they should just leave to people who can handle them.

I think they are playing with fire.

[ewv 0]

I think they are playing with fire.

Mon, 1 Mar 2010

WITH HUMANS FACING FIRE DANGER, JUDGES WORRY ABOUT ELK

In May 2005, the U.S. Forest Service completed its evaluation of the risk of wildfire and insect loss to approximately 44,000 acres in the Smith Creek/Shields River area of the Gallatin National Forest, north of Livingston, Montana. The Forest Service concluded that there was a high risk of wildfire in the area, which, coupled with limited access, formed unsafe conditions for the public, including residents who live on private property within the national forest, and firefighters. In addition, Park County’s Wildfire Protection Plan, completed in the spring of 2006, identified the Smith Creek area as a priority "wildland-urban interface area" at high risk from wildfire and thus a priority for fuels reduction projects. In response, the Forest Service developed­with comments from adjacent private homeowners and state, county, and local officials and groups­the "Smith Creek Vegetation Treatment Project" in order to address the dangerous fuel buildups and mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfire and its potentially devastating impacts on human beings.

The Forest Service project would reduce fuel loads on a maximum of 1,110 acres, in 10 separate units, by thinning medium- and large-diameter green conifers, selectively harvesting insect- or disease-damaged conifers, cutting small-diameter conifers, slashing trees that encroach into meadows or aspen stands, prescribed burning in meadows and the understory of treated stands, and piling and removing or burning downed woody debris. In addition, a local, quasi-governmental association was formed to provide grant monies to local landowners to conduct fuels reduction projects on their private lands.

In July 2008, after unsuccessful administrative appeals of the Forest Service plan, two environmental groups and a summer resident of the area sued the Forest Service alleging that the plan violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as the National Forest Management Act (NFMA); given the importance of the project, a Montana federal district court set an expedited briefing schedule. Then, in mid-August 2008, full-time residents and local property owners, Janet and Ronald Hartman of Wilsall, Montana, intervened in the case.

In late October 2008, the district court ruled for the Forest Service and the Hartmans on all claims except one, regarding the mapping of key elk habitat; that matter was remanded to the Forest Service. Meanwhile, the Forest Service was enjoined from beginning the project. By the following fall, the Forest Service had completed its mapping; therefore, on October 8, 2009, the district court ruled that the Forest Service could proceed with the Smith Creek Vegetation Project, portions of which would occur during the winter season, that is, between November 1 and April 30. Before the project could begin, however, the environmental groups appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit barred its implementation.

Last month, after legal briefing, the appeal was argued before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The environmental groups argued that the Forest Service plan did not provide sufficient "elk hiding cover" and must be enjoined. The Hartmans responded that the plan was needed to "slow down the rate of spread" of a catastrophic fire to "buy [them] the time" to escape with their lives when such a fire begins. At that point, one judge, asserting that the court must "balance equities," asked "how severe is the danger to life," "what’s the actual danger of death," and "what’s the number of people who have been killed" by these fires? When the Hartmans argued that the equities favored the people, not the elk, the judge did admit that "the elk are doing very well," but, countered another judge, with more cover there "may be even more" elk.

Not surprising, given the nature of the Ninth Circuit (the most frequently reversed federal appeals court in the country) and the questions from the judges, the panel barred implementation of the Forest Service plan. Still deep in winter in southern Montana, the Hartmans and their neighbors now dread the approach of yet another fire season.

[ewv 0]

It finally happened. The first country in the world, Ecuador, grants rights to nature.

Approximately two-thirds of Ecuador's population voted 'yes' this Autumn, in a historic, national referendum – a result that reflects the vast majority's hopeful expectation of political change. By an overwhelming margin, the Ecuadorians backed their president, Rafael Correa, in voting for a new progressive constitution – the first in the world to grant Nature the same inalienable rights as human beings.....

This new bill for Nature's 'right to exist' offers an alternative paradigm. It clearly acknowledges that all life on Earth is interconnected. It must be protected and respected for the sake of all species – beliefs which have long been obvious to Ecuador's indigenous peoples.

The constitution provides explicit legal protection for the environment. Says one section: 'Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has a right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structures, functions and its processes in evolution.'...

Some religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dalai Lama, have recently declared that caring for Nature is a spiritual duty, while the Catholic Church has incorporated: 'thou shalt not pollute the environment' into its revised list of Seven Deadly Sins...

No one could put this in fiction. It's too fantastic.

A followup brought to you by eco-collectivists who can't think in concepts and hope you won't either:

The New Zealand Herald:

"Agreement entitles Whanganui River to legal identity"

by Kate Shuttleworth Aug 30, 2012

The Whanganui River will become an legal entity and have a legal voice under a preliminary agreement signed between Whanganui River iwi and the Crown tonight.

This is the first time a river has been given a legal identity.

A spokesman for the Minister of Treaty Negotiations said Whanganui River will be recognised as a person when it comes to the law - "in the same way a company is, which will give it rights and interests"...

An eventual settlement will also include monetary compensation for historical claims...

From Triple Pundit

"If Corporations Are People, Then Why Not Rivers?"

by R Siegel, Sept. 12, 2012

The Whanganui, New Zealand’s third longest river, was determined, in a landmark decision, to be a person, “in the same way a company is, which will give it rights and interests.” This should put to rest a longstanding dispute between the indigenous Maori iwi (group) of the Whanganui and the government.

The settlement establishes the river as a protected entity that both the government and the iwi will oversee.

“Today’s agreement recognizes the status of the river as Te Awa Tupua (an integrated, living whole) and the inextricable relationship of iwi with the river,” said Christopher Finlayson, New Zealand’s Minister for Treaty for Waitangi Negotiations. Waitangi is the historical treaty, signed in 1840, that defined the relationship between the newly formed government and the Maori people.

The new agreement means that, in essence, when it comes to the law, the river will be treated as a person. There is another side to the agreement as well.

“Whanganui Iwi also recognize the value others place on the river and wanted to ensure that all stakeholders and the river community as a whole are actively engaged in developing the long-term future of the river and ensuring its well-being.”

This might seem to us to be at some crazy extreme end of the spectrum that runs between man and nature. But, if it is, then the other extreme would have to be the world that we live in, the world where a corporation, which is, in fact, really nothing more than an idea, is also considered a person.

As David Suzuki says in Tom Shadyac’s excellent film, I Am (which can be seen in its entirety here), “If you read the Wall Street Journal, they treat the market and the economy as if they were some thing. Wait a minute; the market is not some natural force of nature. We created the damn thing. And I believe that part of our problem now is the separation of humanity from the natural world, and the sense that the economy is the most important thing in our lives.”

Balance. This is all about balance. Calling a river a person is certainly no more crazy than calling a corporation one. Native Americans have a word for a type of mental illness called Wetiko, named after a cannibalistic mythical creature that “takes and consumes without giving anything back, continually draining and impoverishing the planet of resources.”...

New Zealand’s legal action was not a first. Back in 2008, the government of Ecuador passed a law giving rights of personhood to tropical forests, islands, rivers and air. According to the law, “Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights.” That inalienable part sounds familiar...

[PhilO 0]

As insane as their wording sounds, I wonder if the practical effect/intention is simply to make clear the property rights status of the river.

[Paul's Here 0]

As insane as their wording sounds, I wonder if the practical effect/intention is simply to make clear the property rights status of the river.

Yes. It owns the upstream water that cannot be siphoned off for drinking.

[ewv 0]

As insane as their wording sounds, I wonder if the practical effect/intention is simply to make clear the property rights status of the river.

Yes. It owns the upstream water that cannot be siphoned off for drinking.

Which is only a facetiously metaphorical use of the term "property rights". They are inherently collectivists in the most primitive form of tribalism, based on a mystical view of reality that precludes property rights (or any rights of the individual) because they regard nature as an intrinsic value superseding any human values or possible rights.

In this case they regard their tribalism as including being part of nature -- not in the rational sense that man is part of nature like everything else and therefore has his own nature he must live in accordance with (using his rational mind to change his environment for the purposes of his own life), but as the opposite: a mystical sublimation of man to non-human nature.

Their notion of the 'rights of nature' is a floating abstraction having nothing to do with rights as a moral sanction of freedom of action in a social context. It is the viro-religious equivalent of 'rights' as government enforced entitlements, in this case the entitlement of the river corridor itself to not be disturbed by humans in any significant way or be regarded as a human 'commodity' precisely because of the 'intrinsic value' of nature in itself, which is now to be enforced by government.

What is or is not regarded as 'significant' change do to humans in entirely subjective, as any such religious notion of intrinsic value and what to do about it. Thus the tribal claims to use the river corridor for their own purposes as specified by their own 'traditions' and nothing else. This entire mystical, tribalist, sublimation of man to nature mentality is their eco-collectivism. That kind of political control and the motivations for it couldn't be farther away from the concept of property rights.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

It finally happened. The first country in the world, Ecuador, grants rights to nature.

When I read this, the first thing I did was to go out and abuse my lawn.

ruveyn

[Paul's Here 0]

It finally happened. The first country in the world, Ecuador, grants rights to nature.

When I read this, the first thing I did was to go out and abuse my lawn.

ruveyn

I don't want to know wat that entailed. (ha!)

[ewv 0]

It finally happened. The first country in the world, Ecuador, grants rights to nature.

When I read this, the first thing I did was to go out and abuse my lawn.

That is ok. Lawns have no rights because they are artificial as man-made. Viros hate golf courses. Only weeds have rights. Gaia help you if you abused the weeds.

[PhilO 0]

This entire mystical, tribalist, sublimation of man to nature mentality is their eco-collectivism. That kind of political control and the motivations for it couldn't be farther away from the concept of property rights.

You're right, of course. There's no point in trying to find even a sliver of sanity in any of it. Sometimes it's difficult for me to grasp that there's no limit to insanity and it can always get worse.

[ewv 0]

This entire mystical, tribalist, sublimation of man to nature mentality is their eco-collectivism. That kind of political control and the motivations for it couldn't be farther away from the concept of property rights.

You're right, of course. There's no point in trying to find even a sliver of sanity in any of it. Sometimes it's difficult for me to grasp that there's no limit to insanity and it can always get worse.

I remember you doing that when over optimistically thought that Obama would be no worse than a mere unmitigated disaster. Hope you've learned your lesson that there was to be no such even sliver of sanity!