kurt_w wrote:Large environmental NGO uses private funds to buy up land that generations of local people in the little village of Beaversdam have used for hunting, fishing, logging, etc. The land is turned into a nature preserve and the local people aren't allowed to hunt/fish/log there any more.
So in your example the local people sell the land and then can't benefit from the land anymore? They weren't forced to sell the land. It was a choice.
No, in my example someone else sells land that they used to allow local people to access, whether for free (hunting/fishing) or by selling the timber for logging. They of course have every right to sell the land, and the new owner has every right to change longstanding practice and forbid people from using the land.
This is an extremely common scenario in rural forest lands of the northern US. Things like this happen all the time (albeit the new owner is not usually a Nature-Conservancy style charity). Lots of places, people have traditionally been allowed to hunt/fish/whatever on unposted land owned by, e.g., forest products companies. When the land is sold, people sometimes lose access to it.
I can already see you saying "So what, the new owners have a right to do what they want with their land." That's the whole point. I'm not talking about "rights" at all. Yes, charities have a right to do whatever they want (as long as it's legal) with their funds. But sometimes they can exercise that right in a way that negatively impacts the community.
It boggles my mind that you're still unable to grasp this concept. I think you're assuming that if something doesn't involve fraud or illegitimate use of coercion, we're somehow not allowed to describe it as "bad" in any way. That's extremely short-sighted.
dogmeat wrote:We are talking about a foundation that operates inside the United States so I don't know why you're using third world examples.
This (hypothetical) example was hypothetically set in Maine, USA. Not the third world. The other example was set in Africa. I wanted to show that a wide range of examples are available.
kurt_w wrote:I get the feeling that you would have no problem accepting the idea that well-intentioned actions by government could have negative consequences. But the same is true for well-intentioned actions by charities, or businesses, or private individuals. Is that really so unfathomable?
When the government does something to infringe upon someone there is sometimes no recourse. An example of that would be eminent domain abuse. [...] When an individual or non-governmental group infringes the rights of someone, an injunction and payment for damages can be pursued in civil court in addition to possible criminal action.
Again, I'm not talking about "rights" at all. There are lots of things I could do legally and fairly that you would see as unfortunate or tragic or upsetting or infuriating, whether I'm a government or a private charity or a private business or a private individual.
If my actions are in fact legal, you may have no recourse. But you still have the right to express your opinion of them! You can even try to drum up community opposition, if you think that the (perfectly legal and aboveboard) actions I'm taking really are bad for the community. You could launch a boycott of my business, or try to dissuade others from donating to my charity, or whatever.