SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: haqihana who wrote (4561)2/25/2006 12:03:40 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
"financial benefits for helping the ecosystem to stay healthy, would be effective."

In the US we have government bureaucracies that penalize people for polluting. There is the SuperFund which is really just a government agency that forces property owners to clean up their land. Then you have self appointed groups like greanpiece, the weathermen and sierra club that harass property owners, attack building sites, and occasionally use effective enticements for land protections.

The SuperFund logic of forced cleanups appears to come from the don't pollute and harm others and don't yell fire in a crowded theater mentality. No one wants polluted ground water.

"Property, in most cases is a person's home, and I believe that a home should still be a man's castle, as long as he takes care of all within his "kingdom" in the right way. For any form of government to have the right to take property away from a person, without compensation, is just like stealing,"

Yet we have Kelo, and the Klamath Basin and many other examples of government abuse of power. Government prevents people from using land for the purpose they intended, and that generally is without reimbursement. If a person ignores publicly available information they cannot complain about their own laziness. If a government restricts land after transfer, then they own they buyer.