That’s not really true, but I get the intent of the claim.
Thats not true. Once most of the trees have been destroyed we could privatize the remaining ones and charge people money to come look at them. All under the guise of “we’ve done everything we can to protect the trees”.
Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends
We’re so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside
There behind a glass stands a real blade of grass
Be careful as you pass, move along, move along
Took all the trees, put them in a tree museum. Then they charge all the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em.
Parks with entrance fees exist
yes i can see some smartass defender using this arg or something like “nuh uh what about tooouriiism…?”
No, a tree has value if it bears fruit or other produce (syrup).
That’s what I was thinking. I’m curious what the intended meaning is because I’m super hung up on “people sell apples/other fruit/produce”.
Unless it bears fruit
Or saps, rubber trees and maple trees
Or useful barks. White birch, cinnamon.
Or just offers shade, or looks nice.
Those less tangible things also have value both under law and under capitalism. OP has a 4th grade understanding of economics.
Those are things of value but not commodities and are outside what I was using for examples of capitalism. Though fuckers would absolutely charge you to enjoy those things if they can figure out how to make us ;(
Cork too
National parks and protected lands exist too. Conservation is a vital tree-reliant field.
You say that like national parks and protected lands aren’t strictly anti-capitalist concepts. Ones that capitalists aren’t trying to destroy constantly and currently.
A mature oak tree is worth over a hundred grand. Alive. This is engagement bait for being wrong.
