Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Bush Administration an Ecological Disaster?

Thorfinn · 04-23-2003, 06:19 PM

Let's try to keep the hyperbole under control, shall we?

Look the definition of public property is property owned by the country, in other words, in common by all citizens. The shrimper is a citizen. You are a citizen. I am a citizen. We all own that property in common. Thus the shrimper does own the land, and through the guise of the ESA, Congress harmed him. It is that simple.

Secondly, your fear of the raping of private property is entirely unjustified. Owners of the property have no vested interest in harming their own stuff -- in fact, they have a vested interest in increasing its value. Contrast that with public land, where no one has any particular interest in maintaining the value. Most people treat rental property differently than they do their own property -- that should be beyond dispute. So if you really want to keep the world in as good a shape as you can, you should be interested in getting rid of as much public lands as possible, and converting them to better maintained private lands. Seriously, where do the major forest and grassfires originate? Public lands.

I believe that if I own my lawnmower, that means I get to decide how and when and even if it will be used. Apparently, you believe that if I decide not to use it, that is not exercising the choice of how to use it. I guess this is just another place where we will never agree.

04-23-2003, 06:19 PM	#43
Thorfinn Zhentarim Guard Join Date: February 24, 2003 Location: Indiana Age: 62 Posts: 358	Let's try to keep the hyperbole under control, shall we? Look the definition of public property is property owned by the country, in other words, in common by all citizens. The shrimper is a citizen. You are a citizen. I am a citizen. We all own that property in common. Thus the shrimper does own the land, and through the guise of the ESA, Congress harmed him. It is that simple. Secondly, your fear of the raping of private property is entirely unjustified. Owners of the property have no vested interest in harming their own stuff -- in fact, they have a vested interest in increasing its value. Contrast that with public land, where no one has any particular interest in maintaining the value. Most people treat rental property differently than they do their own property -- that should be beyond dispute. So if you really want to keep the world in as good a shape as you can, you should be interested in getting rid of as much public lands as possible, and converting them to better maintained private lands. Seriously, where do the major forest and grassfires originate? Public lands. I believe that if I own my lawnmower, that means I get to decide how and when and even if it will be used. Apparently, you believe that if I decide not to use it, that is not exercising the choice of how to use it. I guess this is just another place where we will never agree.