🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul16.190250.8257@cco.caltech.edu>, tylerh@cco.caltech.edu (Tyler R. Holcomb) writes:

> I do not want to get into an extended flameware: neither of us 
> seems to know enough about private property rights to develop
> a decisive answer.  

You say you don't want a flame war, then you presume to judge
how much I might know about the subject, without any evidence.
Pretty arrogant.

> I would like to make two points.  First, you seem to imply that
> the relevant standard is to "show specific damages to him and
> his property."

What I am saying is simple.  Before you restrict the rights of
others to the use of their property, you must show either that
some sort of specific damages would result to certain interested
individuals, or you must show that the state, acting in the
interests of all the people, has some compelling interest in
proscribing the proposed use or activity.  If neither of these
conditions is satisfied, then the state may still, under
certain circumstances, regulate or restrict certain uses, but
that constitutes a "taking" of the property rights of the owner
and must be compensated.

The default, however, must be in favor of the property owner, not
in favor of those who would assert arbitrary control over him.
In the absence of cogent arguments to the contrary, then, the
owner is presumed to retain the rights to harvest his timber in
whatever way he finds appropriate.  It's none of our business.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA