Good evening again, Dave! Dave Laird wrote to Dr. Chris R. Tame...
You previously wrote: > >>What is a terrorist organization? In my book, it is *anyone*, big, little > >>or small, that deliberately ignores threats to the environment. In all fairness, and in Dr. Tame's defence, I would have to conclude that you made your above statement incredibly broad. 'Environment' is in itself an very broad term, and includes almost everything in human experience. Humans and human interaction is also very much a part of the environment that humans live in. So, in my opinion, your lack of a more definitive qualification in this case likely sparked Dr. Tame's reply, which was: > > Well, that sounds like a nice little excuse for demonising and > > repressing anyone who disagrees with you. Again, since you spoke in such broad terms, anyone with a large paint brush could almost always certainly paint anyone else who might disagree with you in the same fashion as a 'terrorist'. Well, the Bush Administration is doing some of that very same thing too, since the Patriot Act and other similar clones, make little definitive distinctions relative to specifics. The guiding philosophy seems to be in The Shrub's own words: "You are either with us, or you support the terrorists." Any 'thinking individual', and I would have to include myself here to some degree at least, would have to strongly object. I don't support this regime's foreign, or for that matter, domestic or economic policies; but I certainly am NOT a terrorist, nor do I support terrorism! Your reply to Dr. Tame included, in part: > There are voluminous studies available both online in the scientific > journals which describe in technical detail the past offenses of > Burlington Northern where it concerns massive contamination of both the > topsoil and ground water. No one is repressing Burlington Northern; in > fact it is the other way around, for they are repressing the public's > right to safe drinking water in lieu of their own fiduciary interests. But you'll have to agree, that isn't exactly what you originally wrote. You seemed originally to include just about any and everything related to 'the environment', even without suggesting that a lot of the environment might include a lot of other things, including perhaps even relationships within any given society in which human beings exist. I suspect too, with the advent of cyberspace, one might right talk about the 'cyber environment' in such a context! If your 'one-size' definition fits all, then anyone, big or small that contaminates any environment by default by simply disagreeing with a certain contingency with such an environment, is guilty and should be branded a 'terrorist', I believe you might have to conclude your wide brush definition. I do understand what you were probably trying to suggest here relative to Burlington Northern's spill of diesel fuel within the confines of the Rathdrum Aquifer. But originally, you didn't qualify that as such, did you? You did however help narrow this down a great deal, and this is something we ought to discuss here, since Libertarians recognize such pollution as you described so well, as 'aggression', and something that ought to have both legal and economic consequences against the aggressor! If anything at all, this is perhaps a giant misunderstanding between what you wrote, and Dr. Tame's response to what you originally wrote, nothing more. Libertarians mostly agree with the following regarding specific environmental pollution as it affects the private property and rights of other property owners adjacent to such pollution. Jay Hailey did right something that might be considered here as a companion argument, which I found out later as he labelled it ZAP: Zero Aggression Principle. I never really heard that term before he used it. Nevertheless, here it is certainly relevant since in the pollution you described with Burlington Northern is pertinent, namely: 1. When anyone so creates pollution on their own private property, either by reckless design or knowingly affects anyone else's private property, and that may include the right of adjacent private property owners right to their own otherwise clean water, air, or other specific environmental rights, then the polluter is an aggressor against that victim or victims as the case may be. There should be, and in most cases already are, legal remedies for such reckless endangerment to life and property. In such cases, there are both civil as well as criminal actions that can be taken when such occurrences take place. 2. As you seem to infer, Burlington Northern seems to have a documented pattern for similar instances in regions well beyond the Rathdrum Aquifer. This would be an integral part of evidence that might form the basis for any class action law suit (civil or criminal) against such a corporation, and might certainly be used as evidence in the case of either criminal or civil legal action for appropriate remedy. In the case you mention here, where 150,000 people rely upon safe and clean water, this could become a huge case as you might suspect. I suppose what I am really saying here is that certainly we have laws already on the books to deal with such contingencies. We might even, if we were honest about it, include dishonest and self-serving politicians who signed on to such 'rights to pollute' as a Party to any such lawsuit, but that too might become a real stretch. One thing you really do need to know however, is that Libertarians believe and hold to the 'right' to resources that are clean and otherwise inherent within their own private property, and in the case you mention, there are hundreds of thousands of them! When your neighbour pollutes your own drinking water, or poisons the air that you breathe, then you ought to have legal recourse for complete compensation and in determined criminal cases, the polluter ought to go to jail! I may have over simplified this to some extent, but I have to believe that Dr. Tame's response to your lack of clarity in defining 'environment' (which obviously includes just about everything in human experience) would obviously include anyone who disagrees with you about almost anything. He's right! I also think you clarified most of that in your response, since you specifically called into question details that are presently going on with regard to an ongoing allegation of an actual trespass, or violation over other individuals property and their inherent right to the resource contamination resulting from a trespass and violation against themselves. If you had couched your definition in much more limited terms, this confusion would probably not have resulted as it just did. I'm going to close this by suggesting something really very simple. The key word here is 'environment'. Be aware. This is not really me. But it could be anyone; and, as such this is only an example! Trust me! It is! Here it comes... My 'environment' as a social human being is limited. I am a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu (pick what you wish). You are my next door neighbour, and I don't like you. And, I don't want you around any more since you are a Satanist. I know you worship Satan. I've seen your icons, heard you speak of the glorification of Lucifer, and I've seen you myself handing out literature to that effect trying to entice others to go along with your beliefs, customs, or religious orientation. YOU are destroying my environment! I don't want to see your face. I don't want you anywhere around me, or for that matter, anyone who might even sympathize with you! So, I'm going to find a way to get the government to force you to be forcefully removed from my presence, since I don't have any moral right to forcefully evict you myself, I'll let the government do that for me. I'll even find others (a Special Interest group) to lobby and buy the politicians to make sure you don't pollute my, or anyone else's environment ever again -- I'll make it legal, and you'll be in jail. Dave, that's how it usually and almost always works; that is, almost all of the time! Remember the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas? The large percentage of them are dead, and the rest of 'em ended up serving jail sentences for minding their own business and wishing to be left alone. I suppose they polluted someone's moral environment, perhaps as a pretext to their own demise. I have a very difficult time however suggesting that the Branch Dividians really were trespassers in the sense you envisioned tonight concerning the rights of people to clean air and water intrinsic to their own private property. I only suggest we have a limited degree of controlling our own environment, whatever stretches you choose to make on defining such conditions. The real issue is 'what do you own?' You don't own each and every environment in which you live, since a lot of others live in the same environment and all have their own individual rights to do many things that do not infringe upon what you really do own. So, when you talk about such things as environment, you have to differentiate between what you 'own' in such an environment, and in cases of non-owership, you have no control and shouldn't create conditions where the affect would become your control over someone else's right to enjoy as much as humanly possible, THEIR environment too. If you don't own someone else's environment, but you might share it with them, then respect their own right to do so. This is likely the position where most libertarians might find common ground. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
