Quote from: FirstAscent on August 11, 2012, 12:47:40 AM

I'm curious. Consider:

Let's say someone hires you on the East Coast. They pay you wages to fulfill their vision for their land. By doing so, the "improvements" to the land are environmentally neutral. However, we could consider the cases where the "improvements" are positive or negative as well. After years of toil, you have saved up your money from these labors, and you set out for the West Coast, money in tow.

So far so good, except that what I do to the land I own, whether I "affect" positive or negative things to it, is perfectly fine. It's my property. You must prove I have negatively affected the property of others. To wit, you must demonstrate direct harm, not inconvenience. If I can't do what I want to my property (including burn it to the ground) only means that my property, becomes your property. My property rights are destroyed, and yours are automatically improved. Do this on a grand scale, and you have communism all over again. I'm seeing red.

Quote

You have converted your labor to money, possibly at the expense to the environment. However, we won't hold it against you.

Glad you agree with private ownership, assuming it's only the environment constrained by and within my property boundaries, we're good. Again demonstrate actual harm, trespass, or vandalization of your property, and we have something to "fight" over. Otherwise, bugger off.

Quote

You arrive at the West Coast and purchase land, becoming a proud property owner, whereupon you commence in creating your own "improvements" to the land you purchased. Let's assume that your "improvements" have a negative environmental impact to your land, but not the surrounding land. This, incidentally is unlikely, due to how the environment interacts, but for the sake of argument, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Everything affects everything in some way, including your environmentalism. It's unavoidable. Shall we all just prostrate ourselves upon the earth and die now? It seems Humans are less than the dust of the earth these days. Sometimes I feel I'm on par with the snails.

Quote

So, let's summarize:

- Your labor (and the desires of your employer) resulted in a net neutral effect of the environment on the East Coast.
- Your labor granted you the rights to receive compensation in the form of money.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you having money.

- Your money afforded you the right to travel to the West Coast and purchase land.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you owning land on the West Coast.

- Your ownership of land now provided you the ability to make "improvements".
- These "improvements" have a net negative impact on the land you own, environmentally.

1. So what? Neutral doesn't mean anything to me. Define it. Put context to the words. Do it concisely.
2. Who cares whether or not I received money. That's not the issue.
3. I purchased land. Again, who cares. Not the issue.
4. Net neutral meaning what? Affecting who, or what?
5. Improvements??? Ok, whatever.
6. A negative impact on my land is my business, not yours.

Quote

Thus, your net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast, according to you, provides you with the right to negatively affect the environment on the West Coast.

No it doesn't. Never implied that. Your just reaching now. Your logic is now fallible. Having achieved a transfer of land does not accord anybody the right to use that land to affect changes (specifically negative changes) to other persons' property.

Quote

Now, imagine if your labor on the East Coast actually resulted in a net negative effect on the environment. Whatever the case, your argument appears to be that labor, which earns you money, then earns you the right to purchase land, own the land, and harm the land. This is not a sustainable model, yet it's one you support.

Purchasing, transfering, or assigning of land, does not give anybody rights to destroy the property of others, including affecting their environment (whatever that might actually mean). However, if it is my property, then I can do with it whatever I want, with the exception that I can't use it to harm others, or from proscribing the right of others to use their property how they choose. Define "sustainable". Very crafty you are...

Your putting words in my mouth I never uttered. Nice try. Caught you, careful next time, or you might make an fool of yourself. Your much smarter than that. You've got the right scientific knowledge, but your political leanings are extremely dangerous, if not borderline sociopathic.

Quote

Regulations can and do help alleviate this.

False. It assists the statist/elitist/corporatists in fradulently obtaining property that was never theirs to begin with. Or at a minimum, it confuses and obfuscates who actually owns what, who is responsible for the stewardship thereof, or at the very least, distorts the markets attempt to evaluate the utility of the land in question.

Quote

Let's examine other models you support:

1. Being born to rich parents provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
2. Being given money provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
3. Inheriting land from your parents gives you the right to negatively affect the environment.

1. False. Your 'ass'uming. Never said that. Those are your words.
2. Also false. Similar premise to 1, just reworded.
3. False again. See 1 and 2.

Your leaving out critical information. It's like saying it's okay to kill somebody. Hmm.... Well that depends. Are you being attacked by a vicious mugger, in your home with a large knife? Well duh!! It's called self defense. Pick up your side arm and put a bullet in him center mass. However to kill with no provocation, well that's a very different story now isn't it? Keep your facts straight, and at a minimum, include all the relevant criteria. Makes you look stupid if you don't.

Quote

And, as described in detail above:

4. Labor, regardless of what type and where performed, affords you the right to negatively affect the environment.

In all cases, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt such that your "improvements" actually don't extend beyond your property boundaries, which would be a rare case. However, that really doesn't seem relevant.

The issue then, is what defines effective stewardship of land, and the consistent application of it through individual ownership among thousands.

Labor does not equate to "damaged" environment. All physical activities (that would include everything, in case you were wondering) will always affect the environment around you, including your manipulation of the environment thru "environmentalism". The only thing that matters, is whether or not the environment I affect within the boundaries of my property, somehow "spill/effuse/emit" physical material matter onto your land. If I do that, you have yourself a potential lawsuit.

Anything beyond that only means you don't like what I've done with my microenvironment, and so instead of trying to convince me that I could find a better use of my resources, thru education, you use the long arm of the law to try to plunder me. In which case, you now believe you have a right to take my property from me, and keep it for yourself, or give it to others (likely your government cronies who've crafted laws to ensnare me in some purported "criminal" environmental activity).

It is the only thing that's relevant here. Don't be so snide to think that your utopian environmentalist world won't just end up being the private playground of the rich, the famous, and the politically inclined. I'm not interested in destroying the environment for me or my successors, but I'm certainly not going to quitely let my life become overridden by elitist ego-maniacal highwaymen, who have nothing better to do with their time but play gods on earth, and pretend to be do-gooders, when they just want more slaves to play with.

Your must think I'm as dumb as a rock.