Ann wrote:
"Warren" expounded:

So freedom is the right to adversely affect the lives of others just
because
you happen to be standing on property you own?

Yea, I guess it does, if that's how you want to look at it. If I own
the property, and I want more sun where a tree shades, then I can cut
the tree down - without asking anyone's permission (and here in MA we
don't have to pay a tax on it). At least that's the way it works
around here. I wouldn't want it any other way.

So clear-cutting forests, strip mining, damming of rivers and all other
kinds of mass environmental damage is fine with you as long as the owner of
the property is the one doing it?

If you can cut down your tree, why can't a lumber company clear-cut an
entire forest? What if your neighbor was a farmer, and the trees you cut
down resulted in erosion that wiped-out his entire crop? You owned the land
the trees were on. Didn't you have the right to cut them down regardless of
what damage it did to the environment or economy?

I'm sure glad it's not your way in most places in this country. I'm glad
that most places have sensible land use rules that address environmental
concerns, and who owns the land is not the only criteria used to determine
if something can be done. That kind of thinking goes more with a feudal
system than it does with a free society. (Note that it's a free society, not
a bunch of free individuals. That's anarchy.)

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
What's on TV? See the new fall network schedules online:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/tele.../fall2005.html