🚀 go-pugleaf

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:

>>You mean, some environmentalists do't like the fact that the government won't
>>disenfranchise businessmen.  It is an insult to be told by a bunch of 
>>busybodies what one may or may not do with one's property.  Much more of an
>>insult than being told that you will not be allowed to control the property of
>>someone else.

>Let's say property owner A cuts down all his trees. Property owner B, who
>lives downstream of A, finds out that the extra silt in the water has
>killed all the fish that he needs to feed his family.

If you can prove the cause-effect relationship, then that's fine.  The fishermen
should be able to sue.  What shouldn't happen is for the government to say
"You can't cut those trees.".  If the forest owner could figure out a way to
cut down the trees without harming his neighbor downstream, he should not be
prevented from doing it.  The problems is that environmental laws focus not
on proof and harm to people, but on the supposed intrinsic value of nature.

>Before the cut, B would most likely protest the logging. He would say, "hey,
>that cut's gonna screw up the stream going through my property."

>Property owner A would say, "hey, I bought this property for the logs. If
>you keep me from cutting, that is "taking;" compensate me fairly like it
>says you have to in the Constitution."

Such laws have been on the books for a long time and I have no problem with
prohibitions against actions known to violate the rights of others.  Do you 
think that this standard applies to a farmer who wants to drain a little swamp
land on his property?  Should someone have to prove a harmful consequence?  Or
is it just generall bad and therefore justifiably forbidden?

>Owner B says. "yeah, but killing all the fish is "taking" my property;
>compensate me fairly likes it says you have to in the Constitution."

In this case I agree with B.  He has experienced a tangible harm which
can be directly linked to the actions of someone else.  That is not the
kind of situation where you and I disagree.

>And on and on we go with the same merry-go-round of disagreement. Right now
>in my neck of the woods the developers are whining that the slow-growth
>initiatives are "taking" their property which they bought to they could
>build lots of houses and make buckets of money. What do they say when I
>tell them that their developments will "take" my property, which I bought
>with the understanding that I wouldn't have a zillion people driving down
>my street? "Go pound sand, Mike," that's what they say.

I say the same thing.  First, I can't see that having a few more people 
driving down your street causes any tangible harm.  Second, if you really
wanted that to stay that way, you and your neighbors could have put
appropriate covenants into your deeds.  Third, it is generally not "the
neighbors" who generate these ridiculous "slow-growth" ordinances, but rather,
city bureaucrats.  If only the neighbors directly involved were concerned,
the developers might even be able to pay you for your trouble and everyone
would go away happy.  Instead, developers are thwarted, their money is
wasted, housing shortages grow, property prices and rents rise, and those
at the bottom of the heap end up out on the street.  Do you want to reduce
homelessness?  Scrap the rent control laws and slow-growth laws.

>P.S. I don't understand your use of the word "insult" in the above.

Do you have no idea what it would feel like to invest your life savings
in some property, and then have some bureaucratic weasle come along and
tell you that he knows better how to spend your money than you do?  Don't
you think you would feel insulted by this kind of impertanent meddling?
I feel insulted (actually, he feeling is stronger, but there is no stronger
word with the same meaning I can think of) whenever the government tells me
how to live my life, or how to spend my money, or how to use my property.
In some cases, the government is asking me to do something I would have 
done anyway, but that's not the point.  They don't own me or my property
or my time, and when they act as though they do, it insults me tremendously.

>>What would you consider to be "working"?  The elimination of all logging?
>>Mining?  Private property?  Factories?  How much is enough?

>1) The elimination of all logging? No. Let's negotiate...

Negotiate about what?  Your right to control the property of other people?
There's nothing to negotiate.  If you can prove some particular harm to 
someone else, then there's nothing to negotiate either...the logging should
not go ahead.

>2) The elimination of all mining? No. Let's negotiate...

Negotiate about what?  Your right to control the minds of other people?  
There's nothing to negotiate.  Perhaps we should negotiate over the question
of how many other men ought to be allowed to have sex with your wife?

>3) The elimination of all private property? What, are you nuts?

I'm not nuts.  I'm not the one wanting to be able to "negotiate" away the rights
that other people have.  If someone offered to "negotiate" about the limits to
your freedom of speech, would you consider him to be an advocate of free
speech?

>4) The elimination of all factories?? Methinks you took too many
>   hyperbole pills...

Well, every factory creates a certain level of hazard (to workers who might
slip on the floor, to neighbors who might be hit by trucks shipping finished
products out, traces of air pollution, etc.).  According to the kinds of 
standards you are using, I can't imagine you approving of ANY factory or
any other industrial enterprise. 

You have explained what you think would be bad and worthy of being disallowed.
I basically agree with what you have said.  What about what SHOULD be 
permitted?  Don't pick the extreme case of a business which employs 
passive zombies who generate thoughts transmitted by telepathy to customers
in their beds at home.  What would you consider to be a "borderline case" of
property rights infringement in which you would side with the productive 
party rather than "the environment"?

>How much is enough? I'll tell you. As much as it takes to bring back
>the salmon runs, 

At what cost?  For what purpopse?  It seems to me that in certain places,
salmon runs are not particularly valuable, and the costs to restore them 
are very high, both in terms of money and individual liberty.

>stop the extinctions, 

To stop extinctions, you basically have to stop all human progress.  To what 
end do you want to stop these extinctions?  Certainly, some beneficial
creatures have some value and steps ought to be taken to preserve them,
but the spotted owl, the snail darter, and the kirtland warbler have no
particular value to people.

>cut greenhouse gas production,

By what means?  What makes you think that the Earth is warming?  The climate
record doesn't show it.  Most climatologists don't think that there has 
been any warming due to human activities.  Even if you do think it is warming,
what makes you so sure the consequences will be bad?  How much do you think
would be "enough"?  A 10% reduction?  A 99% reduction?

Are you so convinced that this is a good idea that nuclear power should be
used?

>and bring the western world to a closer, symbiotic, relationship with
>the earth. That's how much. 

Just what would that consist of?  I want to use to earth to make my life better.
I don't want to get down on my knees and worship it.  How much of this would
you consider to be "enough"? It would seem that what you REALLY want to do
is turn the "western world" into the "eastern world".  I don't think that's
a step up.

>And guess what? All that, and you'll still have a job. Imagine that...

What makes you think so?  Taxes are already making it hard for me to stay in
business.  Do you think that businesses can withstand anything your whims
choose to throw at them?  They can't.

--Brian