Violence and destruction are always the response
In what has to be the most telling example of the desire of government to use violence as its primary means to any end, officials in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Maryland and Ontario, Canada, have destroyed over 20 million ash trees in an attempt to slow the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer.
The larvae of this voracious Asian pest – first identified in the US in 2002 – tunnel through the softwood just under the bark, cutting off the tree's supply of water. The result, the tree dies in about five years.
The tree dies. Nothing else happens. The ash borer does not harm humans, nor does it harm other plants or animals. Yet, once the pest is found in the odd tree, all trees within a wide area are marked for destruction. Once more, when government finds an ash borer in any tree, it cuts all trees to the ground. In many cases, mandating the destruction of trees on private property.
An infestation found in some trees near a local mall resulted in the destruction of 16,000 ash trees - 16,000!. I have to assume that the Emerald Ash Borer is envious of it's competing, and more destructive, partner - government.
So, what takes the foreign pest five years to achieve, government performs in a matter of days or weeks. Where the borer may infect certain trees within a radius around the infested tree, slowly robbing them of life, government destroys all ash trees, infected or not.
Does this even make sense? I am to fear the ash borer as it may destroy local ash trees when I should be fearing government since it changes the may destroy into a will destroy. Luckily, the lack of federal funds is currently limiting the wrath of government in Ohio, as local cities have to fund their own tree removal efforts – estimated at $250 per tree.
Keep in mind that trees can be treated as a preventative measure prior to infestation. So, private property owners have the means to decide for themselves whether or not they desire protecting their individual trees. Unless, of course, someone finds the pest in a tree within their area, then the property owners' right to decide is pushed aside for a supposed public good.
Comments (8)
Reminds me of the great grapefruit holocaust in Florida a few years back...
Published: May 20, 2007 1:47 AM
So I guess the idea here is to stop the spread, that you have to destroy many trees in order to save many others? That's the idea? If so, it's the same thinking behind war: kill and kill to save lives later, bomb and bomb to insure the peace, and so it is with global warming: shut down civilization in order to save it. Government is so good at destroying but not at thinking through changing contingencies or seeing 2nd level effects of first level actions.
Published: May 20, 2007 6:31 AM
Of course the, nudge nudge, implication here is can a Libertarian society round up and quaratine diseased folk or is that a blatant intrusion of the sick individual's personal space? Decisions. Decisions. :P
Published: May 20, 2007 9:45 AM
Dear Jim,
As a forestry graduate with many years of practical experience,and as a Master of Horticulture with many years experience,and as an economist in the classical liberalism tradition I confirm the absurdity of these arbitrary acts of intervention and I pronounce them to be immoral. I am not speaking in terms of relative morality but rather in terms of the ethics of the divine economy which is now clearly defined in my new book: ETHICS of the Divine Economy!
With warm regards,
Bruce Koerber
Published: May 20, 2007 4:28 PM
This is ridiculous. It is like saying that all Republicans must be shot because Bush is a prick.
Published: May 21, 2007 4:35 AM
Hmmmmmmmm ? . . .
Published: May 21, 2007 5:00 AM
Now if there was a virus that only infected government employees, then the government would...
Published: May 21, 2007 10:29 AM
[Can a] Libertarian society round up and quaratine diseased folk or is that a blatant intrusion of the sick individual's personal space?
Your question is loaded. Saying "Libertarian society" implies collectivist decision-making, ipso facto generating a contradiction - a libertarian society would NOT round up other people since all decisions would be made at the individual level.
Published: May 23, 2007 12:07 AM