Smoke two...

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in
message
news:Misc-F6D0C9.19582716042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <66nguuF2k7s63U1@mid.individual,net >,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


>> I am defending the fundamental right to life,
>> the right not to starve, freeze or bleed to death, the
>> right
>> without which all other rights (entitlements, privileges
>> etc) are meaningless. If you make my very survival
>> contingent on your generosity alone, you essentially
>> deprive
>> me of my human dignity and you deny that I, as a human
>> being, have the *right* to live independently of your
>> charitable impulses.
>
> This would be true *IF* I could make your survival
> contingent on my
> generosity. And, in fact, that is *WHY* we have special
> exception laws
> for children, because their survival IS contingent on
> their parents'
> generosity! That's why we have laws, and children have
> rights, that
> don't apply to the rest of us.

And it is only this "if" that I am debating here. There
appears to be some confusion on this. I am thinking of
situations where I might be carrying the emergency injection
in my pocket and the guy at the next table over is in
anaphylactic shock (shouldn't have ordered the peanut
brittle oysters). To save that man's life, he or his
companions do, I maintain, have the right to demand and TAKE
from me this medication.


>
> YOU, on the other hand, lying bleeding in the gutter
> (let's just say),
> do NOT depend on my generosity for your survival. In
> fact, it's not
> even assured that I'll be anywhere around! (See how this
> is different
> from the laws which protect a child's right to have
> parents watching
> them at every moment?) You're largely dependent on LUCK,
> at this point,
> and that includes being lucky enough to have a generous &
> capable
> samaritan walk by.

You personally may not walk past (probably won't since it
involves the deeply un-Californian activitin of
w-a-l-k-i-n-g :-), but anyone who comes by has this
obligation.


>
> Hey, check this out: In California, I have the right to
> accidentally
> kill you, if I was trying to help. So, there you are,
> lying in the
> gutter, bleeding from a punctured lung (let's say you fell
> & a rib poked
> through (no offense -- I certainly don't wish any of this
> on you!))
> Along comes generous I, an begins to administer CPR
> (because it's what I
> know.) ...

AFAIK, many inexperienced kiss-of-lifers break their
victims' ribs in the process ...

That aside, it is the attempt that matters.


>
> ...
>
> Ooo, here's an interesting one: Do you have "a [basic,
> fundamental]
> right" to deny me my [so you say I have an] obligation to
> render aid...?


>
> ...
>
> So, anyway, punctured lung, broken rib, CPR, and a few
> minutes later,
> I've managed to inadvertently squeeze that last breath of
> life out of
> you. Under California's "Good Samaritan" law, I'm ok
> because I was
> trying (however incompetently) to help.
>
> Sorry, got sidetracked. But I think all the key points
> were covered, in
> there... :)
>
>
>> Do you really want to go there? When
>> you get right dow to the very edge, the survival of each
>> and
>> every one of us depends on others recognising our right
>> to
>> live and assist us in continuing to do so.
>
> Huh? I'm afraid you lost me, there.
>
> Are you going the "without doctors, firemen & police,
> you'd be dead a
> long time ago" route...?

As in "try to survive without others, I dare you". 99 of
100 people would simply die if stranded alone on a desert
island. 99 of 100 of us survive within society because
others respect my fundamental rights and act accordingly.


>
>> When that fails,
>> we typically end up re-enacting mankind's worst moments
>> of
>> inhumanity.
>
> The Benny Hill show...?!
>
>> >> This is not an issue of welfare fraud.
>> >> It's a fundamental point of natural and human rights.
>
>> > I believe this argument is centred around your
>> > confusing
>> > "must not deprive" with "must provide."
>
>> At the extreme and the very basic end, they are one and
>> the
>> same, Ted.
>
> Sorry to seem dense (it's a gift! ;), but I'm just not
> getting this
> point. Rather, to the extent that I think I get it, I
> disagree,
> strongly. (Hence, I'm considering the possibility that
> you mean
> something else.)

Picture in your mind an object. Make it a bottle of water,
maybe, a vial of medicine, or a life-vest. It is your
property. You have paid good money for it and have the
receipt to prove it. Now put the object in a situation
where the possession of said object makes the difference of
life and death to someone else. Do you have the right to
deny this person, even if he is rude or desperate enough to
make it a demand rather a plea? Does your property right
extend even to the point of letting someone else die over
it? I argue that this admittedly extreme situation is a
point of convergence where the other's right to live trumps
any of my "lesser" rights.


>
>> If you refuse me that which is absolutely
>> essential for my survival, you effectively deprive me of
>> life; in reverse, this means that you -- personally and
>> communally -- must provide those fundamental needs
>> because
>> the failure to do so will directly impact my fundamental
>> right.
>>
>> And no, "fundamental needs" does not mean free turkey
>> dinners and cable TV.
>
> What if you're one turkey dinner & an
> Oprah-enlightening-moment away
> from death, hmmmm...?!
>

Ahh, Death Row ....
;-)

Re: Smoke two...

On Apr 16, 7:33 pm, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


> Either I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or you're
> not reading all the posts.  I am not concerned with
> welfare -- that is up to the individual and his conscience,
> either enacted by himself or through institutionalised
> mechanisms.  This is not the issue here, as far as I am
> concerned.  I am defending the fundamental right to life,
> the right not to starve, freeze or bleed to death, the right
> without which all other rights (entitlements, privileges
> etc) are meaningless.  If you make my very survival
> contingent on your generosity alone, you essentially deprive
> me of my human dignity and you deny that I, as a human
> being, have the *right* to live independently of your
> charitable impulses.  

Very well stated, Alex.

> At the extreme and the very basic end, they are one and the
> same, Ted.  If you refuse me that which is absolutely
> essential for my survival, you effectively deprive me of
> life; in reverse, this means that you -- personally and
> communally -- must provide those fundamental needs because
> the failure to do so will directly impact my fundamental
> right.

Same reply

Re: Smoke two...

In article <66k7ikF2kgtrsU3@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
> life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such goods
> and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
> shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.

No.

This is the "not to be deprived of" thing. You have a right to find &
acquire by legal means food, clothes, medicine & shelter, and to expect
that no one else will take them away from you.

You are NOT entitled to any community just handing you those things.
The community has no obligation to fulfil your needs.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-6B8AA5.11560815042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <66k7ikF2kgtrsU3@mid.individual,net >,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
>> life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such
>> goods
>> and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>> shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.
>
> No.

Yes.


>
> This is the "not to be deprived of" thing. You have a right to find &
> acquire by legal means food, clothes, medicine & shelter, and to expect
> that no one else will take them away from you.
>
> You are NOT entitled to any community just handing you those things.
> The community has no obligation to fulfil your needs.

Then you have no fundamental right to life, no right to be given medical
treatment as you lie bleeding in the gutter. Don't think of the average
person, vaguely socialised and moderately able to tie his shoelaces -- if
you can work, you can obtain the necessities for yourself. Consider the
marginalised and genuinely incompetent: will you really argue that a
paraplegic or schizophrenic has no right to those things and services which
enable him to survive?

If one wants to extend care and support to the merely unfortunate or the
more than usually incompetent, well, that is a matter of conscience and
social attitudes (not to forget, the desperation of the incumbent government
to be re-elected). But if we accept that every human life is worth living,
we must accept that those few unfortunates have a right to our life support.

Re: Smoke two...

Alex W. wrote:

> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-6B8AA5.11560815042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
>
>>In article <66k7ikF2kgtrsU3@mid.individual,net >,
>>"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
>>>life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such
>>>goods
>>>and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>>>shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.
>>
>>No.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>>This is the "not to be deprived of" thing. You have a right to find &
>>acquire by legal means food, clothes, medicine & shelter, and to expect
>>that no one else will take them away from you.
>>
>>You are NOT entitled to any community just handing you those things.
>>The community has no obligation to fulfil your needs.
>
>
> Then you have no fundamental right to life, no right to be given medical
> treatment as you lie bleeding in the gutter. Don't think of the average
> person, vaguely socialised and moderately able to tie his shoelaces -- if
> you can work, you can obtain the necessities for yourself. Consider the
> marginalised and genuinely incompetent: will you really argue that a
> paraplegic or schizophrenic has no right to those things and services which
> enable him to survive?
>
> If one wants to extend care and support to the merely unfortunate or the
> more than usually incompetent, well, that is a matter of conscience and
> social attitudes (not to forget, the desperation of the incumbent government
> to be re-elected). But if we accept that every human life is worth living,
> we must accept that those few unfortunates have a right to our life support.

if a person choose to donate to such causes according to their conscience then
that is just and proper (and even honorable). when someone demands than another
donate according to the first person's conscience, then that is oppression.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <66kugoF2k4sd7U2@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-6B8AA5.11560815042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> > This is the "not to be deprived of" thing. You have a right to find &
> > acquire by legal means food, clothes, medicine & shelter, and to expect
> > that no one else will take them away from you.
> >
> > You are NOT entitled to any community just handing you those things.
> > The community has no obligation to fulfil your needs.

> Then you have no fundamental right to life, no right to be given medical
> treatment as you lie bleeding in the gutter.

Ah, but I *do* (argh! "by convention." <sigh>) have a fundamental
right to life. We agree, though, that I do NOT have any right to be
given medical treatment under any circumstances.

> Don't think of the average
> person, vaguely socialised and moderately able to tie his shoelaces -- if
> you can work, you can obtain the necessities for yourself.

On this, we agree.

> Consider the
> marginalised and genuinely incompetent: will you really argue that a
> paraplegic or schizophrenic has no right to those things and services which
> enable him to survive?

Yes.

I may CHOOSE to give him those things, out of the goodness of my heart
or for whatever reasons please me, but he has no right to take those
things from me, nor to demand them of me.

(Well, he has the right to demand, in a "free speech" sense, but not in
the "at gunpoint" sense. So long as his demands can be met with my
refusal, we're all within our rights.)

> If one wants to extend care and support to the merely unfortunate or the
> more than usually incompetent, well, that is a matter of conscience and
> social attitudes (not to forget, the desperation of the incumbent government
> to be re-elected). But if we accept that every human life is worth living,
> we must accept that those few unfortunates have a right to our life support.

That's a total non-sequitur -- utter nonsense!

To demonstrate just how wrong your statement is, I offer this proof by
counter-example: I believe that every human life is worth living, but do
not accept that anyone has any right to taking the means of that life
from me without my permission.

It's really not that hard, Alex!

The unfortunate (or fortunate -- why limit ourselves?!) have access to
medical care and other assistance because we -- you & me! -- offer it up
to them, freely.

This is a far cry from "they have a right to [take] it."

"They have a right to someone else setting up some convoluted
infrastructure to take from the rest of us, piss most of it away and
give what's left to them" is the same as "them taking it", except worse,
for the wastefulness of it.

And if no one wants to give or be charitable, those who want have the
right to try to convince us to be more charitable. And we have the
right to refuse. It's a discussion. Taking what you want from others
who do not give it willingly is called "stealing", and it's WRONG.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked,com > wrote in message
news:Misc-6B8AA5.11560815042008@news.sf.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <66k7ikF2kgtrsU3@mid.individual,net >,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
>> life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such
>> goods
>> and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>> shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.
>
> No.
>
> This is the "not to be deprived of" thing. You have a right to find &
> acquire by legal means food, clothes, medicine & shelter, and to expect
> that no one else will take them away from you.
>
> You are NOT entitled to any community just handing you those things.
> The community has no obligation to fulfil your needs.


And just who (or what) the hell is a "community"?

Re: Smoke two...


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox,net > wrote in message
news:aufNj.49941$QC.27656@newsfe20.lga...
>

> And just who (or what) the hell is a "community"?

Depends on the specific context. We are all part of
multiple communities -- work, play, political, religious, by
personal interests, by language, even by our patterns of
consumption. Unfortunately, this lays the whole concept
open to abuse by those who choose/claim to speak for
communities of their own making ....

Re: Smoke two...

> Let's clarifiy as I think were talking about the same thing from differnt
> angles: rights, IMI, are the freedom to perform a certain action in societal
> context. You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
> right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such as
> food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).

that's where we differ. we should have the right to equal opportunity (all men
created equal, etc.) but that doesn't mean it's the gov't's job to enforce equal
outcomes. and gov't'all intervention beyond the scope of original intent is what
such so-called rights to material things would require to realize.

rights flow from "the creator" to the individual who then may choose to loan
some portion of those (always temporarily and never under duress) to it's
government to conduct some, limited actions in proxy of the individual (protect
the borders, arbitrate when 2 individuals' Rights appear to come in conflict
with each other and a personal agreement can't be reached, etc.).

Re: Smoke two...


"[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
news:mwUMj.679$26.316@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...


> rights flow from "the creator" to the individual who then may choose to
> loan some portion of those (always temporarily and never under duress) to
> it's government to conduct some, limited actions in proxy of the
> individual (protect the borders, arbitrate when 2 individuals' Rights
> appear to come in conflict with each other and a personal agreement can't
> be reached, etc.).

*Unreasonable* duress would be a better formulation. An individual's rights
are all very nice to have, but they cannot work if they are exercised to the
detriment of your community or society as a whole. You cannot allow the
community to be held hostage by the whims, prejudices or fears of
individuals. A new road benefiting the entire town should not have to be
scrapped because one contrary landowner won't sell, and an individual's
pacifist convictions should not allow him to refuse to participate in the
defence of the nation (either in person or through material contributions).

Re: Smoke two...

In article <66k7ijF2kgtrsU1@mid.individual,net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> A new road benefiting the entire town should not have to be
> scrapped because one contrary landowner won't sell, and an individual's
> pacifist convictions should not allow him to refuse to participate in the
> defence of the nation (either in person or through material contributions).

I could not disagree more strongly with either of these statements.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke two...

Alex W. wrote:

> "[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
> news:mwUMj.679$26.316@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...
>
>
>
>>rights flow from "the creator" to the individual who then may choose to
>>loan some portion of those (always temporarily and never under duress) to
>>it's government to conduct some, limited actions in proxy of the
>>individual (protect the borders, arbitrate when 2 individuals' Rights
>>appear to come in conflict with each other and a personal agreement can't
>>be reached, etc.).
>
>
> *Unreasonable* duress would be a better formulation. An individual's rights
> are all very nice to have, but they cannot work if they are exercised to the
> detriment of your community or society as a whole. You cannot allow the
> community to be held hostage by the whims, prejudices or fears of
> individuals. A new road benefiting the entire town should not have to be
> scrapped because one contrary landowner won't sell, and an individual's
> pacifist convictions should not allow him to refuse to participate in the
> defence of the nation (either in person or through material contributions).

i disagree. oppression by the majority is a very serious problem. your first
example is an excellent one based on current events and certain cities actions
to misuse imminent domain for financial gain. some cities have confiscated
private land and then resold (or leased it) to a business for no other reason
than it would make them more money as a commercial site than it was as private
property. one land owner should have the right to do with his/her personal
property as he/she sees fit. it's at the core of some of the explicitly
enumerated Rights.

and Right that is waived as a result of ANY KIND OF DURESS is an atrocity.

Re: Smoke two...


"[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
news:51aNj.738$26.254@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...
> Alex W. wrote:
>
>> "[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
>> news:mwUMj.679$26.316@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...
>>
>>
>>
>>>rights flow from "the creator" to the individual who then may choose to
>>>loan some portion of those (always temporarily and never under duress) to
>>>it's government to conduct some, limited actions in proxy of the
>>>individual (protect the borders, arbitrate when 2 individuals' Rights
>>>appear to come in conflict with each other and a personal agreement can't
>>>be reached, etc.).
>>
>>
>> *Unreasonable* duress would be a better formulation. An individual's
>> rights are all very nice to have, but they cannot work if they are
>> exercised to the detriment of your community or society as a whole. You
>> cannot allow the community to be held hostage by the whims, prejudices or
>> fears of individuals. A new road benefiting the entire town should not
>> have to be scrapped because one contrary landowner won't sell, and an
>> individual's pacifist convictions should not allow him to refuse to
>> participate in the defence of the nation (either in person or through
>> material contributions).
>
> i disagree. oppression by the majority is a very serious problem. your
> first example is an excellent one based on current events and certain
> cities actions to misuse imminent domain for financial gain. some cities
> have confiscated private land and then resold (or leased it) to a business
> for no other reason than it would make them more money as a commercial
> site than it was as private property. one land owner should have the right
> to do with his/her personal property as he/she sees fit. it's at the core
> of some of the explicitly enumerated Rights.
>
> and Right that is waived as a result of ANY KIND OF DURESS is an atrocity.

Hence my choice of the weasel word "unreasonable" -- surely one of the
trickiest concepts to get right even in the vaguest fashion. To stick with
the example of compulsory purchase, the United States would arguably not be
the economic power that it is today if the railways and later the
interstates had not been constructed -- they, together with Mr Henry Ford,
kick-started the richest domestic market in the world.

With regard to the shameful episode in New London, I fully agree that such
land grabs, while hallowed by good old American custom, are unacceptable and
should be resisted at all cost, you also have the other extreme, which is
what I am concerned with. If you live in some pissant town in a flyover
state and the only thing standing in the way of full employment for the
entire county -- or even the survival of the town itself -- is one ornery
property owner who won't give up his back yard even for fair recompense,
whose needs take precedence? Isn't that why we have procedures and courts,
to safeguard against abuse and to test the claimed needs of the community?

Re: Smoke two...

Alex W. wrote:

> "[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
> news:51aNj.738$26.254@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...
>
>>Alex W. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
>>>news:mwUMj.679$26.316@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>rights flow from "the creator" to the individual who then may choose to
>>>>loan some portion of those (always temporarily and never under duress) to
>>>>it's government to conduct some, limited actions in proxy of the
>>>>individual (protect the borders, arbitrate when 2 individuals' Rights
>>>>appear to come in conflict with each other and a personal agreement can't
>>>>be reached, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>>*Unreasonable* duress would be a better formulation. An individual's
>>>rights are all very nice to have, but they cannot work if they are
>>>exercised to the detriment of your community or society as a whole. You
>>>cannot allow the community to be held hostage by the whims, prejudices or
>>>fears of individuals. A new road benefiting the entire town should not
>>>have to be scrapped because one contrary landowner won't sell, and an
>>>individual's pacifist convictions should not allow him to refuse to
>>>participate in the defence of the nation (either in person or through
>>>material contributions).
>>
>>i disagree. oppression by the majority is a very serious problem. your
>>first example is an excellent one based on current events and certain
>>cities actions to misuse imminent domain for financial gain. some cities
>>have confiscated private land and then resold (or leased it) to a business
>>for no other reason than it would make them more money as a commercial
>>site than it was as private property. one land owner should have the right
>>to do with his/her personal property as he/she sees fit. it's at the core
>>of some of the explicitly enumerated Rights.
>>
>>and Right that is waived as a result of ANY KIND OF DURESS is an atrocity.
>
>
> Hence my choice of the weasel word "unreasonable" -- surely one of the
> trickiest concepts to get right even in the vaguest fashion. To stick with
> the example of compulsory purchase, the United States would arguably not be
> the economic power that it is today if the railways and later the
> interstates had not been constructed -- they, together with Mr Henry Ford,
> kick-started the richest domestic market in the world.
>
> With regard to the shameful episode in New London, I fully agree that such
> land grabs, while hallowed by good old American custom, are unacceptable and
> should be resisted at all cost, you also have the other extreme, which is
> what I am concerned with. If you live in some pissant town in a flyover
> state and the only thing standing in the way of full employment for the
> entire county -- or even the survival of the town itself -- is one ornery
> property owner who won't give up his back yard even for fair recompense,
> whose needs take precedence? Isn't that why we have procedures and courts,
> to safeguard against abuse and to test the claimed needs of the community?

these imminent domain cases have happened in TX and other states, too.

situational ethics are not ethics. property rights are proper regardless of
whose property is in question or where it exists. your entire description of
"pissant" and "fly over" smacks of elitism.


"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims must
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his
cupidity may at some time be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end, for they do so with approval of their own
conscience." - C. S. Lewis

Re: Smoke two...


"[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
news:L8dNj.1929$7Z2.443@newssvr12.news.prodigy,net ...
> Alex W. wrote:
>
>> "[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
>> news:51aNj.738$26.254@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...
>>
>>>Alex W. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"[none]" <name@swbell,net > wrote in message
>>>>news:mwUMj.679$26.316@newssvr23.news.prodigy,net ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>rights flow from "the creator" to the individual who then may choose to
>>>>>loan some portion of those (always temporarily and never under duress)
>>>>>to it's government to conduct some, limited actions in proxy of the
>>>>>individual (protect the borders, arbitrate when 2 individuals' Rights
>>>>>appear to come in conflict with each other and a personal agreement
>>>>>can't be reached, etc.).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*Unreasonable* duress would be a better formulation. An individual's
>>>>rights are all very nice to have, but they cannot work if they are
>>>>exercised to the detriment of your community or society as a whole. You
>>>>cannot allow the community to be held hostage by the whims, prejudices
>>>>or fears of individuals. A new road benefiting the entire town should
>>>>not have to be scrapped because one contrary landowner won't sell, and
>>>>an individual's pacifist convictions should not allow him to refuse to
>>>>participate in the defence of the nation (either in person or through
>>>>material contributions).
>>>
>>>i disagree. oppression by the majority is a very serious problem. your
>>>first example is an excellent one based on current events and certain
>>>cities actions to misuse imminent domain for financial gain. some cities
>>>have confiscated private land and then resold (or leased it) to a
>>>business for no other reason than it would make them more money as a
>>>commercial site than it was as private property. one land owner should
>>>have the right to do with his/her personal property as he/she sees fit.
>>>it's at the core of some of the explicitly enumerated Rights.
>>>
>>>and Right that is waived as a result of ANY KIND OF DURESS is an
>>>atrocity.
>>
>>
>> Hence my choice of the weasel word "unreasonable" -- surely one of the
>> trickiest concepts to get right even in the vaguest fashion. To stick
>> with the example of compulsory purchase, the United States would arguably
>> not be the economic power that it is today if the railways and later the
>> interstates had not been constructed -- they, together with Mr Henry
>> Ford, kick-started the richest domestic market in the world.
>>
>> With regard to the shameful episode in New London, I fully agree that
>> such land grabs, while hallowed by good old American custom, are
>> unacceptable and should be resisted at all cost, you also have the other
>> extreme, which is what I am concerned with. If you live in some pissant
>> town in a flyover state and the only thing standing in the way of full
>> employment for the entire county -- or even the survival of the town
>> itself -- is one ornery property owner who won't give up his back yard
>> even for fair recompense, whose needs take precedence? Isn't that why we
>> have procedures and courts, to safeguard against abuse and to test the
>> claimed needs of the community?
>
> these imminent domain cases have happened in TX and other states, too.
>
> situational ethics are not ethics. property rights are proper regardless
> of whose property is in question or where it exists. your entire
> description of "pissant" and "fly over" smacks of elitism.

Do I detect a slight hint that you may be sitting in one of thse places
right now? This wasn't meant as an expression of elitism, I used it because
the middle of America is full of little towns that are slowly dying, little
places that only ever existed as a hub for farmers and ranchers, or as a
support and services centre for mining activity. When the farmers go and
the mine is played out, these towns start to die. I can't help it that this
tends to happen inland rather than at either coast.

As for ethics, all ethics is situational and morality is always relative.
Nor are most rights in any way absolute, and rightly so. Human affairs are
an unpredictable and messy muddle, and to set up absolutes without
mitigation and exceptions is a sure-fire way to store up trouble for later.