[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: We don't create the land, we use it, therefore, we do not have a right to private property. Your logic. My original question stands unanswered.

I say:
You certainly are twisting my words.... or not seeing the logic I expressed. Perhaps it was my explanation, so allow me to clarify.

Land, is property. Your body, is property. You have rights over property in this system of law as a basic, self-evident truth that is enumerated within the bill of rights and the Constitution of the United States, as well as most if not all State Constitutions.

Air, is not property. Air is "collective" property of the world, since without our atmosphere, we (none of us) would exist, nor would the material to provide our existence exist. You can't build a fence around air, but you can own "airspace", which is directly over "land", which is property.

There are rights to "airspace", but you can't physically own air without owning the property beneath it, since whatever you "contained" the air in would have to sit somewhere, wouldn't it?

Governments maintain rights to "airspace" above their nations, based on property rights and national soverignty. Isn't it odd that even communist and socialist nations "respect" the right to property when speaking of "their" airspace?

So, land is property. Air is not property. Airspace is dependent on property.

That, is the logic I adhere to, and the logic defined in our legal rights.

madprophet said: Your rhetorical gymnastics aside, clean air is defined as air devoid of human pollution.

I say:
Sorry, dander is pollution from a human or animal, is it not? Animals provide dander, just like humans. Do animals get to pollute the air, but humans can't? Is this not trying to defy nature?

madprophet said: And to suggest that we should do nothing about human pollution simply because natural pollution exists is nonsensical and, frankly, insane.

I say:
I didn't suggest that.

I suggested we adhere to property rights, and individual rights, AS IS THE LAW, when addressing the issue.

madprophet said: Mercury exists in nature, but you don't want it in your water, do you?

I say:
Are there mercury tests? Is there a way to filter mercury? I guess I have the power to prevent that then don't I? While I have no problem with public water and sewage, it should be voluntary compliance based on use (AS IT IS) in most places.

Your point?

madprophet said: Would you be bothered if they simply dumped radioactive waste on the street?

I say:
Would that waste constitute a danger to others NOT on the property, or contaminate groundwater? If so, there are laws to prevent that BASED on property rights. YOUR POINT?

madprohet said: In closing, I'd like to point out a misconception in your assumptions: No one is advocating the regulation of air, but of human pollution. It's a very subtle difference, I'm sure.

I say:
No, you totally have a problem with reading and comprehension.

I have no problem with the regulation of air quality in PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS (indoors), because indoors it can be shown that smoke can accumulate, and it does provide a "tangible risk" to people who have asthma, or breathing conditions affected by smoke of any kind.

I DO have a problem with the government AT ANY LEVEL interfering in the property rights of individual owners, which is exactly what these laws are doing. REMOVING the property rights of private property owners.

Is this clearer?