A Usenet persona calling itself Melissa wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hi Scott,
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:23:10 -0700, you wrote:
I think most people, myself included, hold more nuanced views of
"private, personal property", especially when it comes to "owning"
a piece of the earth itself; which is a concept worthy of nuanced
consideration and discussion, but Scott's views on this are
anything but nuanced. I almost wouldn't be surprised if when he
dies, he'll want to have every speck of dirt, rock, and drop of
water stuffed into his coffin with him, because after all, he paid
"good ole US Cash Money" for it! :-)
Typical hypocritical leftist-socialist claptrap. I'm quite certain
that if I came to your house, walked in unannounced and uninvited
and picked up your kayak and walked out the door with it, you'd
object. I'm certain you'd object just as loudly if I walked in, sat
down on your couch and started drinking your beer without your
permission.
Though I really don't want to get into this too deeply with you (for
reasons already mentioned by a few of us),
and since I did bother to
add my two cents to the analysis of your "issues", it's probably only
fair that I should at least acknowledge your reply with an additional
comment or two. This once.
I would like to point out here that there can indeed be a difference
between a "nuanced" approach and a "hypocritical" approach. Your
knee jerk reaction above, having little to do with what was actually
said, is, unfortunately, typical of your style. You tend to see this
sort of thing in "black or white" terms, both philosophically and
politically, and I find that both philosophically and politically
limiting, and frankly, tedious in the extreme.
The way you put it above shows that you don't even want to get into a
more nuanced discussion, and would rather spew nonsensical binary
platitudes rather than discuss where/how we might draw the lines when
it comes to discussing "personal property versus public access"; but
of course, I already mentioned how I felt about your oft expressed
views on the subject, and you've only proven once again that my
assessment of your approach is spot on (if slightly
extended/exaggerated for dramatic purposes, which I freely admit to).
What "nuance" do you propose? It seems to me that there are only two
possible outcomes to the conflict of interests between a kayaker wanting to
boat through my property and my wanting to preserve my privacy by keeping
him out. Either the kayaker gets to do so without my permission, or he does
not.
Where is the nuance? If I don't want you in my living room, I have a right
to eject you because it's my private property. What "nuance" do you posit
that would change that in any way other than you using force to deny me my
right to exclude you?
If it sounds binary, it's because it is binary. Either my will prevails or
yours does in re the control of access to my land.
Ever since I first encountered your views on this subject several
years ago, I've thought about how I might approach the access issue
if I were in your position, and indeed, I would deal with it very
differently than you have; even if the *letter of the law* entitled
me to restrict access entirely, no questions asked.
Of course you would. And that would be your right. I wouldnıt even argue
with you about it. It's your property and you can concoct any sort of system
you wish, using any sort of nuanced justification you choose and allow
anyone you like to be there.
But what you may not do is impose your philosophical ideals on me, even by
proxy. If I choose to absolutely exclude everyone from my property, why,
that is the very core essence of the right to private property. Without that
absolute right, the term "private property" becomes a hollow façade that is
meaningless. This is what our Constitution flatly states: "Nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation." What's
ambiguous about that? If I don't want you there, you may not be there.
My views on this
have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing access to just anyone to
come into my home, drink my beer, or take my kayak out without my
consent. But of course, in spite of your silly drivel, I'm sure you
already understood the difference here. Your flair for the dramatic
is not very subtle, and therefore, not very entertaining.
But it clearly explicates the fundamental issue and puts it in terms that
non-stream-owning people may be able to comprehend.
My right to privacy on my property is as sacrosanct as your right to privacy
in your living room. That's the whole point. You cannot expect me to accept
the infringement of my fundamental right to exclude others if you do not
also accept the infringement of your fundamental right to exclude others.
The venue is different, but the legal, philosophical and moral issues are
identical.
Either we BOTH have an absolute right to exclude people from our private
property, or NEITHER of us does. There is no middle ground here. There is no
"nuance" you can concoct that would somehow justify your invasion of my
property without permission that would not also justify my invasion of your
property.
What you are suggesting is simply that because I happen to own a large plot
of land with a stream running through it, I should somehow be required to
permit the public to recreate on my land. You don't suggest why it is that I
should be required to do so other than some vague spiritual belief that
people cannot "own" the land. But even if you are correct that I cannot
"own" land because it endures beyond me, the very essence of private
property ownership is that I have a right to control who USES that land.
Just as you have a right to control who comes into your living room and who
uses your kayak. Your living room and kayak are private property. So is my
ranch. The difference is merely of degree. You suggest that because I'm a
"have", that this societally obligates me to share what I have with the
"have nots." But at the same time, you object if I wish to share your
property because I don't have a kayak and I like the view from your living
room. This is hypocrisy. It's also a manifestation of a typical
leftist-liberal/collectivist viewpoint that attempts to denigrate private
property ownership, but only when the malefactor has "too much" private
property.
So, it's hardly unfair of me to suggest that your position is not well
thought out and reeks of greed and selfish hypocrisy.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
İ 2005 Scott Weiser
|