Quote:
|
Would it resrict our freedom to follow this rule, "no action of man can cause an adverse reaction on nature".....You bet!
|
It's impossible to avoid these adverse reactions in everyones mind. Some people will see smoking a cigarette alone on a beach as a threat to something. Or even building a home from wood as a problem etc.
A good way to do something similar though would be to enforce rights to life, property, including land, and liberty and when someones actions cause harm to it, have a government that enforces reparations or reconstitution of it. (There's little that can truly be undone but at least if we deter people from harming others vested interests, it would help limit damages done)
That way people don't even need to agree on what an "adverse reaction on nature" is because everyone is free to use their own definition for themselves, these are arbitrated when there's a dispute (we have issues with jury selection and judges and lawyers leading jurors etc., and there might be a better way to arbitrate things but I'm sure you get the idea). That way a person is free to deny or allow whatever they want within some realm (quite likely their home).
This same thing can be expanded to have people pool their resources or make agreements with others to set common standards for a larger area, if they desire.
The best part is that this works in a non-violent, voluntary and beneficial fashion. If/when someones actions elsewhere affect this through, that's when government or another form of arbitration comes into play to resolve the dispute but it's unneeded until that occurs.