Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Technosoul · Aug 12, 2004, 11:57 am

Kyran.

You did not really address the points I made at all but just returned to the simple concept that one law should fit all.

But are things all that simple? Are there not exceptions and complexities in real life?

Is private ownership by a company the same as private ownership by a homeowner, would the Libertarian party get rid of all zoneing laws and allow someone the right to use his private property to fuild a factory in a housing track next door to your kid's schoolyard?

Could I use my private property for a nudest camp in a conservative housing track? In other words, is it unfair to have zoneing laws that seperate housing and commercial properties?

If you live downstream from me can I use up all the water in the stream before it reaches your property, if it was on my property first?

Under the thinking of environmentalists some of our remaining wildlife areas should be seen in the same manner as waterways, and as beaches on the ocean, and like we might some important historical landmark. Something that belongs to everyone and that can be handed down to future generations so that students in the future can study nature in it's orginal habitat. Those remaining wildlife areas represent what Ameirca was like before it became America. I guess the only reason the rainforests in our North West remained unused was because until that case was because no one could afford to buy it, or because the area was not yet zoned for private useage. Each redwood tree is worth millions and so a forest full would be something only a billionaire could dream of investing in, which is not fair to all the rest of us who do not have a billion bucks to buy up the land for so-called envirnomental reasons (unless done so collectivly via taxes).

So we have issues that go beyond individual rights.

So here are my questions for you.

Should we get rid of zoneing laws? Should private ownership be liberated come zoneing laws so that we place no differnence on property used for dwelling purposes, for commerical or industrial purposes. Should the same laws be used for each of those zones now in effect (in most locations).

Next: Should human rights be the only rights worth concidering, or should we as humans also respect the rights of other animals and life forms that we share our planet with?

How can a spotted owl get a job and pay for it's right of private ownership under our human system of thinking?

You need to address those questions that go beyond the more simplistic concept that you are attempting to hold onto, first by saying what you think about those additional insights.

(1) do future generations have any rights or should we have all the rights just so we can gooble up all the natual resources before they are born (which, with modern technology could be done as swiftly as a hurricane blowing away Jed Bush's house).

(2) do other speicies of life (other then human beings) have any rights relative to total termination from ever appearing again on the face of our planet?

(3) can I have an ant farm next to your bakery shop?

(4) should we abort all zoneing laws now in effect?

(5) should laws be flexable enough to compensate for speical needs or should they be written in stone as unchangable standards no matter what the particular circumstances might recomend.

(6) can we have a law that all people must respect the environment and those concerns reguardless of who they are, be they rich or poor, black or white, religious or secular? Without stereotyping that respect as pandering to just one special interest group?

Your turn.

PS: Yes, if giving up my rights here on this tiny rented space could save a gaint rainforest from distruction, I am willing to surrender my individual rights for that greater cause.

Technosoul.

Aug 12, 2004, 11:57 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Kyran. You did not really address the points I made at all but just returned to the simple concept that one law should fit all. But are things all that simple? Are there not exceptions and complexities in real life? Is private ownership by a company the same as private ownership by a homeowner, would the Libertarian party get rid of all zoneing laws and allow someone the right to use his private property to fuild a factory in a housing track next door to your kid's schoolyard? Could I use my private property for a nudest camp in a conservative housing track? In other words, is it unfair to have zoneing laws that seperate housing and commercial properties? If you live downstream from me can I use up all the water in the stream before it reaches your property, if it was on my property first? Under the thinking of environmentalists some of our remaining wildlife areas should be seen in the same manner as waterways, and as beaches on the ocean, and like we might some important historical landmark. Something that belongs to everyone and that can be handed down to future generations so that students in the future can study nature in it's orginal habitat. Those remaining wildlife areas represent what Ameirca was like before it became America. I guess the only reason the rainforests in our North West remained unused was because until that case was because no one could afford to buy it, or because the area was not yet zoned for private useage. Each redwood tree is worth millions and so a forest full would be something only a billionaire could dream of investing in, which is not fair to all the rest of us who do not have a billion bucks to buy up the land for so-called envirnomental reasons (unless done so collectivly via taxes). So we have issues that go beyond individual rights. So here are my questions for you. Should we get rid of zoneing laws? Should private ownership be liberated come zoneing laws so that we place no differnence on property used for dwelling purposes, for commerical or industrial purposes. Should the same laws be used for each of those zones now in effect (in most locations). Next: Should human rights be the only rights worth concidering, or should we as humans also respect the rights of other animals and life forms that we share our planet with? How can a spotted owl get a job and pay for it's right of private ownership under our human system of thinking? You need to address those questions that go beyond the more simplistic concept that you are attempting to hold onto, first by saying what you think about those additional insights. (1) do future generations have any rights or should we have all the rights just so we can gooble up all the natual resources before they are born (which, with modern technology could be done as swiftly as a hurricane blowing away Jed Bush's house). (2) do other speicies of life (other then human beings) have any rights relative to total termination from ever appearing again on the face of our planet? (3) can I have an ant farm next to your bakery shop? (4) should we abort all zoneing laws now in effect? (5) should laws be flexable enough to compensate for speical needs or should they be written in stone as unchangable standards no matter what the particular circumstances might recomend. (6) can we have a law that all people must respect the environment and those concerns reguardless of who they are, be they rich or poor, black or white, religious or secular? Without stereotyping that respect as pandering to just one special interest group? Your turn. PS: Yes, if giving up my rights here on this tiny rented space could save a gaint rainforest from distruction, I am willing to surrender my individual rights for that greater cause. Technosoul.