We need to be mindful only of affecting others when it involves safety or
public endangerment. Being considerate *is not* a requirement for
citizenship in the US. While we may deem someone inconsiderate with
their use of their property, if it does not *harm* us we can only say "he
is inconsiderate". See my previous post about legal recourse.
>
> the fact of the matter is that you CAN'T do "whatever you want" on
> "your" land. societal, cultural, moral, and ethical norms place limits on
> what you can do on your land. in the extreme, you can't murder persons
> on your land simply because it is "my land and i can do what i want." by
> the same token, you can't build a tire pile and burn it on a city lot, you
> can't endeavor to open a nuclear repository on your quarter section
> simply because "its my land."
>
I thought I had mentioned the acceptable legal limitations on land
ownership. Of course what you say is correct, however, the goal should
be to maximize your private property rights while meeting a minimum
requirement for accepting legal *warranted* evaluation of activities on
your property so as to protect the public. When we agree to abide by the
private property right definition in this society we must accept the
legal systems definition of crimes and that they apply on all property.
However, this is a far cry from not letting someone build their own house
on their own property.
> i am not arguing against development and resource usage. i am saying
> that before anybody acts, they need to exhibit the responsibility to
> consider the reaction. ask yourself the question: "how will what you
> are proposing to do affect the systems and persons around me?" "how
> can i achieve my goals and mitigate negative affects on others?"
> consider social costs, they are very real, in addition to economic costs.
> think on it hard, then act responsibly.
You are correct. Analysis is valid to ensure costs are properly
applied. But social costs are not measurable to the same standard by
everyone, do they are not relevant unless you can place a dollar value on
them. We may not "like" what someone is doing, but if it does not affect
our safety or endanger the public, we have no right to demand that that
landowner do what "we" think is best. This is where my disagreement
lies. Just because we don't think someone is doing what *we* feel he/she
should be doing does not give us the right to force that individual to
comply with our wishes.
Best,
Andy