lvc@cbscd5.UUCP (08/19/83)
Stan is exactly on target when he says a proper definition of rights and freedoms do not automatically exclude conflicts. If we have a situation where right and wrong are not clearly known then it is rational to engage in conflict. I didn't say aggression and I don't mean aggression. For example, before airplanes were invented the concept of air space rights was not around. Suppose the Wright brother's in their excitement flew over a farmers land next to Kitty Hawk. It would have been perfectly legitimate for the farmer to get out his shotgun and shoot at them. The farmer would think that this represented a danger to him and he probably assumed that his property was being tresspassed. Another example that presents problems is the issue of mineral rights. Do I have the right to dig a cone straight to the center of the earth ? Am I allowed to dig under the surface of the property of others ? If I am allowed to dig under the surface of the property of others am I allowed to dig out so much that the surface caves in ? Or should supports be left behind to prevent cave ins ? The solution I would propose is that you can dig out a frustrum to a certain depth under only your property (not clear how far down yet, say 1/10th the way to the mantle) and *nobody* would be allowed to dig below that depth. Nobody would be allowed to claim a property right below that depth. If someone can show a causal link between digging below a certain depth and causing damage to the property of others, my proposal would be shored up. Clearly *some* depth is dangerous to dig below. If my neighbor imposes a solution on me that is different than mine, say he wants to dig below my property, then I would be justified in compelling him not to. If I am told what the proof for their solution is and I can find holes in it, I am not bound by it. And if my neighbor can find holes in my solution then he is not bound by it either. We will fight it out, and the person with the greatest amount of force will win. If I am dealing with someone that has ethics of baboons, and won't accept reason in the first place, then I'll have to fight them anyone. Might does not make right but it is legitimate to use it when right and wrong are not known. Expecting flames, Larry Cipriani cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/21/83)
The "when the facts are not know fight it out" philosophy of things fits nicely under my "the trouble with this world is that we have great powers but the morality of petulant five year olds (apologies to enlightened five year olds)" definition of the meaning of life. If you and I had a conflict of interest, and we could not resolve it, I would look for a more enlightened authority whose decision we would both be willing to live with. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura