| You have jumped the gun a bit too quickly with such a big comeback but now allow me to reason form my side of such a debate.
You have framed it as being an issue of personal property rights which you assume are the same for a house owner and a big company.
The owner of the company that would buy up massive real estate is only interested in fast bucks and not using the property as a private dwelling place for his self or his family. No one is telling him what he can do at his big house in Texas which is miles away from his company property in northern california.
Some of the gaint trees are over 200 years old and were standing at that location long before our pioneers came here and before they wrote the consitution. No one should have had the right to buy that property in the first place but Regain said "if you seen one tree you have seen them all" and released some lands to his logging "special interest" group and/or person. At the time the Repubicans thought that more logging jobs were more important then a anicent rainforest that is just standing there doing nothing but "being".
So this rich oil guy buys up a lot of forested real estate and then is making contracts with loggers to distroy it so he can have a little extra pocket money because just one president is not environmentally sensitive. The rich guy claims property rights, and the environmentalists say he is a company and cannot violate laws that preventing impacting nature in a negative or dooming way.
It goes to court and the logging is put on hold pending the outcome of those hearings. Does a company have the same rights as a private homeowner? Is saving an ancient redwood forest the same thing as telling someone to mow their grass?
After Reagan the Democrats move into the White House but the logging case is still a hot topic. It was found that the rich guy owed millions in unpaid taxes and so the lawyers were able to workout a deal to make the rainforest the payment for that debt. However the real case was never completed and so the "property rights" issue was left unresolved.
However I only stated that one type of case as being the exception to the rule about eveyone having the same property rights. That is because that land and it's primitive forest is of greater value to America as a whole then are the rights of one guy who's only real interest is his bank account.
I do not think that a large company (aka super rich guy) or industry should be able to stand behind laws that were designed only for small home ownership and/or the personal freedoms that being in your own house or yard would grant.
Can you see that we have a difference in types of ownerships of private property and for different reasons and that one law might not be applicable to every private ownership situation?
Technosoul. |