On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:13:24 -0700, "Warren"
wrote:

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?

A sure sign that a person is losing a debate is when they extend the
subject to a ridiculous extreme. We were talking about one tree and
you have tried to extend the same principles to earth scorching.

End of conversation.

John