City Commissioner Dan Saltzman recently said that he wants to stop people from cutting down trees, even their own, stating that “trees have rights.”
This type of lunacy is one of the reasons I hate politics in Portland. The lunatics are running the asylum, and for some reason keep getting re-elected, even the ones who waste over 40 million dollars on a failed water bureau software system. A nice summary of some of the goofballs we have running the city can be found here.
This of course is pure idolatry. Elevating nature to the level of humans is naturalism, and needs to be flatly condemned. Nature cannot be elevated in importance without diminishing human rights, and frankly all our civil liberties have been abused enough without debasing people for the sake of a tree.
The whackjobs live in Switzerland too.
By: Joshua on April 17, 2008
at 3:59 pm
I guess he is finally admitting that plant life now has more rights than an unborn human.
Most of the cities in the Metro area have a tree preservation plan. It is only time that we lose our rights to do as we wish to our own property to these radical socialists.
By: Andy from Beaverton on April 17, 2008
at 4:59 pm
I have to ask: do you believe that corporations should have rights, as well?
By: Bryson Nitta on April 17, 2008
at 6:25 pm
This is the link I was trying to give. It is a document from Switzerland titled “The dignity of living beings with regard to plants” – http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf
By: Joshua on April 18, 2008
at 1:10 am
Thanks for the link, Joshua. I’ll check it out.
By: berencamlost on April 18, 2008
at 7:52 am
Bryson, are you serious? Why would you not want corporations to not have rights? Do you even know what one is? Should non-profit corporations not have rights as well?
Corporations should and do have rights. A corporation is a juristic person. This world would be a turd world if corporations did not have rights. I don’t know why anyone would not want corporations not to have rights, unless you believe all corporations are evil.
I would love to know why you think such an entity should not have rights?
By: Andy from Beaverton on April 18, 2008
at 8:16 am
Bryson,
I see where your question is heading. Here is my brief answer.
Corporations, as constructs of sentient beings, do not deserve “human” rights, though some degree of sane protections should be granted, for the sake of the people who own them. But if it’s a choice between the life of a corporation or a human, bye bye corporation. Human life and dignity is far more important.
Now, given that, trees can have some protections for the sake of the people who own them as well, whether they are private owned or government owned. And we should be sensible about how we treat nature in general, as good stewards of this earth.
But trees and plants are not sentient beings (and neither are corporations for that matter), and should never be put on the same level as people, EVER! That type of thinking drives some people in the environmental movement and is disastrous, as the price paid for raising nature up to the level of man is human rights and human dignity. As any idolatry (humanism, naturalism, statism), the end product is dehumanizing people by elevating something else. The only thing that doesn’t dehumanize us when raised above us is God, as He already exists above us and we gain our value and existence from Him.
By: berencamlost on April 18, 2008
at 8:20 am
Andy,
I would say that corporations do need protections, but I would not put them on the same level as human beings. Corporations are ultimately property, and they do a lot of good for society, as they provide goods and services and employ millions.
The distinction I made, though, about property rights versus human rights is important. If we begin treating corporations as individuals with human rights, then we are in for a world of hurt. If a choice comes between individual rights and corporate rights, and the two are viewed identically, then the corporations will win every time, as they provide the greatest value to society.
I am for property rights, and as such corporations deserve rights as the property that they are. No one should be able to vandalize my house, no one should be able to vandalize or deface a corporation. Both result in loss of value for the owner, and we should have protections against that. Now, it could easily be argued with what I said that trees should have rights as well, given that corporations have rights, but only as property. Some moron chopping down a tree in my yard deserves to be punished and pay restitution. But, if I cut down my own tree, it is mine to do with as I please. If a lumber company buys the timber rights from a piece of land, then they have every right to cut them all down and harvest them. They don’t have the right to cut down anyone’s trees arbitrarily. And that’s the real difference.
The issue with this story that ticked me off is that here is a politician kissing up to the radical environmentalist crowd, using language indicative of a naturalist mindset by granting trees rights on the same level as people (protecting them from their owners). And that thinking is plain WRONG and dehumanizing and needs to be opposed.
By: berencamlost on April 18, 2008
at 8:45 am
I would never put corporations at the same level as humans. That would be the beginning of the end. But as I said, a corporation is a “juristic person”, which is far from being a person in the eyes of the law.
I have cut down every other tree in a row of trees to help the remaining trees grow bigger and stronger. If I didn’t, the collective of trees all would all suffer from starvation of space, light and water. Spock: “Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” But would Saltzman require representation of the few and who would incur this expense?
Clarity before agreement.
By: Andy from Beaverton on April 18, 2008
at 9:24 am
Andy, glad we agree on not putting corporations on the same level as humans.
And, what Saltzman would do, is create another bureaucracy that oversees trees and bushes rights and they would intervene anytime anyone weeded their garden or trimmed their bushes. They would also require permits be filed before pruning your rose bush or planted a row of corn. Then they would have more power over people’s lives, create more government for them to oversee, and create more reasons to tax us. We would have your typical socialist response from him.
Pure idiocy, but that’s what I’d expect from him.
By: berencamlost on April 18, 2008
at 9:39 am
berecamlost –
I have one other question: do you believe a fetus has rights? From conception? Or otherwise?
Andy –
In response to your questions:
Yes, I am serious.
I never said anything like that.
Yes, I know what a corporation is.
Again, I never said they shouldn’t have rights.
Finally, I’m sure you would.
By: Bryson Nitta on April 18, 2008
at 4:10 pm
Given that a fetus is a human being, it is obvious that it is “endowed with certain inalienable rights”. There is no question that it is biologically a human being (given the most basic biology- i.e. human DNA, living, growing), therefore is entitled to the rights you and I have.
Categorically, a tree is not a human being, therefore is not entitled to those inalienable rights.
By: berencamlost on April 18, 2008
at 4:34 pm
So…what exactly must a being possess in order for us to endow it with rights? First, you argued for sentience; now, you argue ontologically.
Unless, of course, I am mistaken.
Hmm…maybe this question will help me understand. If you saw a guy beating a dog to death with a bat or something, I assume you would be repulsed. What is the cause of your revulsion?
By: Bryson Nitta on April 18, 2008
at 4:40 pm
Actually, it’s not a ‘given’ that a fetus is a human being. That depends entirely on what defines a human being. If something needs to be alive, have human DNA and be growing to be a human being, than human cancer cells in a dish are human beings too.
By: Joshua on April 19, 2008
at 12:18 am
Its condemnable.
anyways I wrote about it Here
check it out
and it is not naturalism, but environmentalism.
By: GarGi Dixit on April 20, 2008
at 3:29 pm
“That is, environmentalism is basically anti-human.”
Riiiight….
By the way, I’m still respectfully waiting for a reply. Or has this thread died? Well, if it has, thank you for letting me post; I always enjoy a respectful debate.
By: Bryson Nitta on April 20, 2008
at 7:15 pm
Well, given I’ve been way too busy this last week to deal with my blog, it looks like this thread has died.
Bryson, I do want to point out that the distinction between sentience and ontology is somewhat of a false dichotomy: you can’t have ontology without sentience and vice versa. They are congruent and overlapping.
Anyways, will try to respond more later.
By: berencamlost on April 25, 2008
at 2:06 pm
Would it kill people NOT to cut down trees? No.
By: pinheiro torcido on February 22, 2009
at 9:57 pm
Yes, it actually might. Trees provide an incredibly valuable resource- wood. Without wood, many people would not have heat for winter. We would not have furniture, houses, paper, and a plethora of other items that are a necessary part of our life. And, since they are a renewable resource, it makes perfect sense to use them.
By: berencamlost on February 23, 2009
at 9:06 am
To add to berencamlost comment. If trees are not taken care of or weeded out it could cause more fires than we do have now. Fire can kill people, having more trees around can burn a fire and have it spread faster then humans could keep up with. So yes trees could kill people.
By: Tracy on February 23, 2009
at 9:23 am