Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (10/09/85)
> Ownership of property does not give you the right to use it as a
detriment to society.
This statement is not necessarily true. For example :
- Toxic Waste Dumps
- Using farmland in such a way that massive erosion occurs.
- porno shops
- this list is endless.
My real point is that there are very few stipulations placed on private
property usage.
Brett Slocum
(Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)
(after a long absence caused by network problems)arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (10/11/85)
>> = Me > = Brett Slocum >> Ownership of property does not give you the right to use it as a >>detriment to society. > >This statement is not necessarily true. For example : > - Toxic Waste Dumps > - Using farmland in such a way that massive erosion occurs. > - porno shops > - this list is endless. > >My real point is that there are very few stipulations placed on private >property usage. > > Brett Slocum Toxic waste dumps are heavily regulated. The fact that owners flout these regulations, and thereby endanger neighbors, is irrelevant to their rights. Massive erosion is, indeed, a problem, but if the erosion due to negligence damages my property, the eroder can be held responsible. Porno shops are only arguably detrimental to society -- until you can prove this absolutely, I'd drop it out of this discussion. If you do want to discuss it, please join the porno discussion going on in net.women. However, can you tell me how this relates to shooting down a working sattelite? Are these damaging uses you mention ethically allowable? We *are* discussing ethics, after all. Would you argue a toxic waste dump owner has the *ethical* right to poison his neighbors? My real point is that, just because the military paid for the satellite (did they really pay for 100% of it?), they do not have the right to destroy it at a whim while it is still useful. Ken Arnold