🚀 go-pugleaf

Brian K. Yoder (I think):
:>: [the downstream victim can sue the upstream perpetrator]

Dragon Monster (or someone else):
:>:> Should someone have to prove a harmful consequence?
:>:> Or is it just generall bad and therefore justifiably forbidden?

Dragon Monster (I think):
:>: 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.

Chipmunk:
:> 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.

Dragon Monster (for certain!):
: Innocence or guilt have nothing to do with this.  The forest owner who cuts
: down his trees has indeed cut them down, no-one questions that fact.
: My point is merely that if the laws were stuctured in such a fashion
: that his actions, which are radically altering the existing environment [by
: environment here I just mean surroundings] should have had some sort of
: binding review process in advance to show that there will be no harmful
: consequences, or rather that any harm caused is considered acceptable.

That's guilt or innocence, merely set up indirectly.

Vehicular manslaughter.  The perpetrator was driving his car, this is a
fact which no one questions.  It turns out that he is alleged to have
run over three people.  Should he have gotten the govt's permission 
before driving the car?

Is he guilty or not?  Would a review board have prevented him from
driving in that direction on that day?  Do YOU want to go to a review 
board every time YOU start your car?  Or would you rather just be put in 
jail AFTER you kill somebody?

Be careful with your answer to this, assuming you want to answer it at
all (I'll admit it's a strange question, but it will hopefully make
my point more clear).  It will be an especially opressive society 
indeed which harrasses people with the POTENTIAL of doing harm.

This is the KIND of society you're advocating with "Review Boards" for 
what people may or may not do with their own property.

When you drive your car, you know you have certain things to watch for.
You don't want to kill anyone, and you don't want to be put into jail.
Your awareness of the inherent dangers of driving have been increased by
groups like MADD, so you're careful.

Similarly with timber property.  You know you're up-stream from somebody.
You don't want to hurt them, and you don't want to be sued.  Your aware-
ness of these kinds of problems have been raised by ever-diligant env'tal
groups, so you're careful.

: This would reduce the number of lawsuits in court.

You replace time, energy and productivity wasted in court with time,
energy and productivity wasted in running thru burocratic hoops.

Don't forget, you'd have to file paperwork each time BEFORE you start 
your car.  Today, you only have to deal with the court AFTER you kill 
someone.  Innocent until proven guilty.  99% of the drivers are
innocent, so why should they be put thru the burocratic ringer?

Why should we as taxpayers be forced to pay for all this nightmare, when 
at best we should only have to pay for the 1% who are guilty?

: I realize that EIRs and timber harvest reports are intended to do just
: that, but a) the review process is not binding and b) it is also biased
: towards the logging/development side.

Of course it's biased.  Everything dealing with the govt will be biased, 
because it involves govt control.  Anyone with any clout whatsoever is 
going to make sure that they have the right palms greased, such that
their interests are protected.  Also known as "corruption."  The more
govt control you implement, the more you're going to get, and there's no
way to avoid it.

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Everyone is familiar with GIGO.  But this garbage, having passed through 
a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and none dare criticize it.