On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, Roger Coupal wrote:
> Andy,
> Just a quick response and then I think I'll try to focus on local issues.
> You say may justification for the EPA is too general "so promote the
> general welfare is big enough to drive a semi through", so it is, but it
> certainly isn't any larger than the holes in the constitution you seem to
> open up.
I'm not sure what you mean. We have a well written document(the
Constitution) and plenty of historical data(most written by the authors
themselves) that show what "freedom" in this country really mean. The
EPA has been empowered to terrorize citizens into following their own
radical environmental agenda. Remember, we didn't elect the EPA.
Thankfully, it seems that some "repeal and rescind" actions are in the
works to restrict this agency.
> Andy we are all in favor of "free
countries", the issue is where the
> right of your "fist" ends and the right of my face begins.
You are exactly correct. I'm tired of the gov'ts fist in my face.
> That kind of
> rhetorical extremism is just not constructive.
At some point we all must take a stand. I refuse to be the frog boiled
because the "rate of change" of the temperature was so small.
I recently unsubscribed
> to an ecological economics bulletin board because idiots on that net
> were talking about "nuremburg trials" for those of us that are looking for
> consensus issues with people like yourself.
Perhaps you should resubscribe to get an idea of how radical
environmentalism works and what their true goals are? I always find
knowing your opponent is very helpful.
I find arguments and debate
> enjoyable, but I would like to see constructive development.
As would I. But much of the "debatable" ground has been lost and we are
finally to the point where people are saying "enough is enough" and
digging in. When environmental groups "sued and legislated" their way
into public policy much of the goodwill was lost. Besides we have lost
the common goal in what should be "constructive". Constructive to
environmentalism is to worship kangaroo rats and snail darters and having
us all live in hovels without electricity and cars and live off of
berries and herbs. Constructive for me is having a "cost/benefit"
analysis to all environmental issues. I classify myself as a
conservationist because I believe habitat and ecosystems are important,
but I prefer much more logic in the debate.
> WRTO Cameron Farms I do not necessarily disagree with you. It would be nice
> to elaborate on the Vision 2020 board though to encourage a little dialoge
> and debate. Since on this issue I am perhaps more in agreement with
> yourself than with others, we are just "preaching to the choir."
> Roger Coupal
>
But many don't care whether there are logical reasons why people should
have freedoms. They tend to focus on their own selfish ideas about what
they think others should do. Would I appreciate the traffic that a new
development would bring? No. Would I apprecate the fact that some nice
foreground for Moscow mountain would be lost? No. But I am willing to
allow others freedom because I believe in the concept of private property
as fundamental. I will restrain my selfish desires and tolerate the
actions of others because I value *freedom*. The reason? Because the
stick can always strike the opposite direction once the threshold is
breached.
Cheers,
Andy