I just read a most interesting article at the Scientific American website. A recent study reveals that declaring a species as rare (i.e. putting it on the endangered species list) can create an economic “extinction vortex” whereby the price of the animal increases at a rate linked with its decreasing populations (scarce goods = higher price = more reward for those who can obtain them). This kind of economic situation eventually leads to extinction of the species in question.

Since extinction of a species is bad for biodiversity (a fact), and decreasing biodiversity is bad for the environment (another fact), an economic “extinction vortex” is bad for all of us. Furthermore; since the only way (that I can see) to stop an extinction vortex would be to institute powerful authoritarian protection mechanisms (tough government regulations), it seems that the loss of some freedom (to hunt the species) wins out in the long run as the most beneficial course of action. Presumably, if the regulation works, the freedom to hunt can resume after the species regains a healthy sustainability.

It is common for libertarians (and minarchists) to argue that a land owner has an economic interest in preserving the animals on their property and therefore; privatizing all land is the best way to prevent species extinction. Clearly, the truth is just the opposite… There is always a pressing economic incentive to keep hunting a species—even until extinction—so protecting land and species by way of regulation is much more effective.

One could argue that after some people learn this lesson the hard way, privatized land owners would shape up. The problem with this idea is that once a species is gone, it is gone forever. Also, the lesson of conservation throughout history is that those who have a short-term incentive to not conserve will always refuse to do so. As Upton Sinclair wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Ultimately, believing that all regulations or restrictions on trade are bad, is foolish.