My goal is to convince you that property rights should not prevail over environmental protection. First off, There should be a line between private property and the environment. The environment should always come before property rights. For the good of the people’s safety and the safety of the environment. For example the barrier Islands in South Carolina, you cannot build on most areas of the properties now. They migrate, literally; they move, with the actions of the wind and water.
People were angry because the government said you cannot build there due to the danger, but safety should prevail don t you think? Imagine a piece of property that has been bought, to build a new house on. You notice a large tree on the property that is close to 200 years old or more. If you cut that tree down there go 200 years of growth or many animals living area. I don t think the land or earth belongs to us enough to sell, cut, and destroy as rapidly as we are.
At the rate we are going the earth could be made of buildings instead of trees, etc.
Now let’s talk about the rainforest. It is getting smaller than it used to be because they keep cutting at it. Now, do you think they should sell the land to get cut down? Especially when most of the plants and animals are not too easy to replace or find. Some of the plants or animals could help us find new cures for sicknesses, etc One of the largest areas of change-producing knowledge is the working of the natural environment and environmental health.
We have learned why we should not do certain things to the environment. Like why the marshes and dunes should be left alone. Unfilled, Undug, and undumped in, if we wish to preserve the life of the sea and inland areas of the property. Before it is all gone. Ask yourself what is meant by private property. Is it an exclusive right that the commonwealth has no control over? Or is it property owned by you and me? But if needed the commonwealth can control rights and regulations.