8/17 Question for soda ilyases regarding envrionmental protection.
The rationale, as I understand it, against envrionmental protection
goes as follows: "it is not fair that some nameless, faceless
government agency can regulate what people can and can not do on
property they own." Assume I agree with this. Let's consider a
related kind of property. Some people own cats. In some sense, this
is property just like land. Would you support people's right to
burn their cats alive?
\_ Yeah, fresh cat is always best prepared when the cat is broiled
alive. Where have you been?
\_ Mmmm...Ilya satire is an untapped goldmine!
\_ Satire requires more effort than this.
\_ Well, I said it was _untapped_. I like the idea more than the
above attempt.
\_ Since people act as a colony much like ants, and since ants have
the right to eat any food the colony deems important, is it not
logical that humans may eat their children? -mock-ilyas
\_ Yeah, it's easier to mock than it is to respond intelligently.
\_ No. Arguing with ilyas approaches a limit at infinity
of uselessness extremely quickly.
\_ Yeah, and a lot more fun than responding to stupid
questions, too.
\_ Will no one else help mock?
\_ Actually, yeah. I don't give a crap if people want to light
their own cats on fire. -motd conservitive
\_ So it OK with you if I burn your cat and then pay you its
fair-market value?
\_ No, you can only do that if you're the government.
\_ I can drop a ton of bricks on your car and pay you fair
market value for it. Why can't I do the same to your cat?
\_ No. A cat is not *owned* like a car or a house. And no,
you don't have the right to destroy other's property and
simply replace it with FMV. Property rights are a
fundamental part of western society that the alleged motd
conservative above fails to understand. --real conservative |