🚀 go-pugleaf

Written in article <1aii0eINN4b0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
 by bafta@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (dragon-monster):

: In article <BvB2sB.5nx@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
: (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
:> In article <5292@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. 
:> Anderson) writes:
:>> In article <Buv3CJ.Kyu@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
:>> (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
:
: [example of fisherman vs upstream logger]

: [the downstream victim can sue the upstream perpetrator]

:> Should someone have to prove a harmful consequence?
:> Or is it just generall bad and therefore justifiably forbidden?

: What should really happen is that the burden of proof should be on the
: forest owner, to demonstrate that his actions will *not* be harmful.

Well, I'm sorry, but this nation was founded on the principle of "innocent
until proven guilty."  If you want to change that, fine, say so.  But it's
a different thread, to be taken up in talk.politics.theory.

In the meantime, you can't do that.  Under current practices, at least
the way current practices are _supposed_ to be, the burden of proof is
on the plaintiff, not the defendant.

:> I say the same thing.  First, I can't see that having a few more people 
:> driving down your street causes any tangible harm.  
:
: Maybe when this happens to you and *your* property values plummet, you
: will sing a different tune.

For someone who believes in principles, I doubt it.  Perhaps you could
make that accusation against congress-critters, who will happily flip-
flop with the political wind.

You can not "own" property values.  If you are the first black to move
into a neighborhood, and it can be proven that you caused property
values to plummet, should you be liable to recompense everyone for lost
equity?

I don't think so.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Crime does not pay...as well as politics.
    -- A. E. Newman