Weather Channel Founder says"Global Warming is Biggest Scam in History

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Is that your lake? If not, who owns it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it your position that we should be free to crap on anything and everything we want so long as nobody owns it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just observing that this seems to be the position of states. Whenever someone points out a wildly polluted area, more often than not it's not privately owned.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So people have the legitimate right to exercise control over things that they don't own?

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't controlling anything, they are stopping others from doing so.

You must realize by now that our conception of "rights" is vastly different, so proceeding down that alley will be unlikely to prove fruitful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopping someone from doing something sounds an awful lot like controlling that person to me.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So people have the legitimate right to exercise control over things that they don't own?

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't controlling anything, they are stopping others from doing so.

You must realize by now that our conception of "rights" is vastly different, so proceeding down that alley will be unlikely to prove fruitful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopping someone from doing something sounds an awful lot like controlling that person to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. So if you stop me from stealing from you, that is controlling me?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So people have the legitimate right to exercise control over things that they don't own?

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't controlling anything, they are stopping others from doing so.

You must realize by now that our conception of "rights" is vastly different, so proceeding down that alley will be unlikely to prove fruitful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stopping someone from doing something sounds an awful lot like controlling that person to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. So if you stop me from stealing from you, that is controlling me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.

[xorbie]

Alright then, I think it's fair to say we simply disagree on the acceptable bounds of control.

[adios]

You wrote earlier:

[ QUOTE ]
They aren't controlling anything, they are stopping others from doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that if you restrain/stop someone you're not excercising control? That's crazy.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright then, I think it's fair to say we simply disagree on the acceptable bounds of control.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that if you apply your acceptable bounds universally you run into massive problems but if you apply mine you don't. Now I realise that your retort is that you do'nt think these things should be applied universally that a case by case basis works. The Grand Canyon is a non ownable public thing that everyone can "control" Jeffs house is not it's something only he can "control" that makes intuitive sense (which is why the government gets away with it) but it doesn't work on a general philosophical basis and is more open to corruption of power. Wherever someone hold the power to designate one thing a certain moral category and another a different one there is room for distortion and corruption. Developing a general universal framework takes away some of that power and therefore the room for corruption.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
You wrote earlier:

[ QUOTE ]
They aren't controlling anything, they are stopping others from doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that if you restrain/stop someone you're not excercising control? That's crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Already covered. I was using the word in the sense of positive control (i.e. You must do X) not negative control (i.e. You must not do Y).

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright then, I think it's fair to say we simply disagree on the acceptable bounds of control.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that if you apply your acceptable bounds universally you run into massive problems but if you apply mine you don't. Now I realise that your retort is that you do'nt think these things should be applied universally that a case by case basis works. The Grand Canyon is a non ownable public thing that everyone can "control" Jeffs house is not it's something only he can "control" that makes intuitive sense (which is why the government gets away with it) but it doesn't work on a general philosophical basis and is more open to corruption of power. Wherever someone hold the power to designate one thing a certain moral category and another a different one there is room for distortion and corruption. Developing a general universal framework takes away some of that power and therefore the room for corruption.

[/ QUOTE ]

But demanding private ownership of every last piece of land makes room for just as many entirely different problems. I don't want someone buying the Grand Canyon and using it as a giant land fill.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright then, I think it's fair to say we simply disagree on the acceptable bounds of control.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that if you apply your acceptable bounds universally you run into massive problems but if you apply mine you don't. Now I realise that your retort is that you do'nt think these things should be applied universally that a case by case basis works. The Grand Canyon is a non ownable public thing that everyone can "control" Jeffs house is not it's something only he can "control" that makes intuitive sense (which is why the government gets away with it) but it doesn't work on a general philosophical basis and is more open to corruption of power. Wherever someone hold the power to designate one thing a certain moral category and another a different one there is room for distortion and corruption. Developing a general universal framework takes away some of that power and therefore the room for corruption.

[/ QUOTE ]

But demanding private ownership of every last piece of land makes room for just as many entirely different problems. I don't want someone buying the Grand Canyon and using it as a giant land fill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then buy it yourself. Or get together with a bunch of people who agree with you and buy it together. Otherwise you're just waving guns around and imposing your personal preferences through violence. It's pretty non controversial for the Grand Canyon (which is why it'll never be a landfill under AC) but the same reasoning applies to all sorts of unsavoury things.