Property rights.

[David S]

Sunday, April 24, 2005
Feds stand guard against those who pour sand in puddles
By Nolan Finley / The Detroit News


You might have a fighting chance in the federal justice system if you're a kidnapper, gun smuggler, counterfeiter or some other run-of-the mill crook.
But let the government get ahold of your leg for pouring sand in a few puddles on your own land, and you're a goner.
Last May, I wrote about the government's dogged pursuit of John Rapanos, a 69-year-old Midland businessman charged with destroying wetlands on his farm in 1988. His case has gone back and forth in the federal courts since then.
Detroit U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Zatkoff at first tried to set aside Rapanos' jury conviction, and when that failed, Zatkoff tried to keep him out of jail and minimize his fine.
The Justice Department wouldn't have it. It kept appealing Zatkoff's rulings and sentences to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Rapanos kept losing. Last month, Zatkoff sentenced Rapanos for what he hoped was the last time, giving him the three years of probationary time served and the $185,000 fine he'd already paid.
But now the Justice Department is heading back to Cincinnati with an appeal of that sentence. The feds want to see Rapanos in the pokey and won't quit until he's wearing stripes.
In addition, the federal government continues to pursue a civil case against Rapanos that is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. If Rapanos loses, he faces up to $13 million in fines, of which $3 million will go to turn 80 acres of his fertile farmland into a swamp.

Full article at:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0504/24/A15-159710.htm

What should Rapanos’ punishment be?

[opebo]

None of the above.  If the State wishes to maintain this fellow's property as a nature reserve it should've bought it and made it into a park.  Alternatives such as paying him a small subsidy to operate the property in a fashion that is environmentally superior but less economically productive would be good also.

However I think this should apply only to environmental rules that have a 'general good' purpose such as maintaining wetlands to preserve species.  If the people wish this to be accomplished they should pay for it by taxing the rich in general, not just taking from this specific rich man. 

Only in the case when an owner is utilizing his property in such a way as to actually harm others - such as polluting air, water, and/or neighboring properties, should he be interefered with by State force without compensation.

[ragnar]

all people should have the right to ignore the parts of law, they disagree with.

[A18]

Option 3 sounds about right, although with regards to these 'environment officials,' I would prefer that they just be fired.

[Inverted Things]

The idea that holding a piece of paper gives us the right to do whatever we want with a piece of land is stupid beyond belief.

As for his punishment, he should have to give that piece of paper to the county government, free of charge.

[A18]

Oh, okay. I'll go ahead and burn your house down since property rights are "stupid beyond belief."

[ragnar]

The idea that holding a piece of paper gives us the right to do whatever we want with a piece of land is stupid beyond belief.

As for his punishment, he should have to give that piece of paper to the county government, free of charge.

I agree

[Inverted Things]

Oh, okay. I'll go ahead and burn your house down since property rights are "stupid beyond belief."

I never said property rights are stupid. (By the way, don't quote me to me. I know what I said.) I said that the idea that land is property is stupid.

[A18]

Well, your house obviously does not have the right to be on that land, then.

[John Dibble]

Well, your house obviously does not have the right to be on that land, then.

His house can be there, but since land isn't property, I can build my smelly taco stand right next to his house.

[David S]

Oh, okay. I'll go ahead and burn your house down since property rights are "stupid beyond belief."

I never said property rights are stupid. (By the way, don't quote me to me. I know what I said.) I said that the idea that land is property is stupid.

Another socialist. Is there no end to them?

[opebo]

Well, your house obviously does not have the right to be on that land, then.

His house can be there, but since land isn't property, I can build my smelly taco stand right next to his house.

Is 'smelly taco stand' a euphemism?   (for a brothel)

[ragnar]

Well, your house obviously does not have the right to be on that land, then.

His house can be there, but since land isn't property, I can build my smelly taco stand right next to his house.

No but just because the land is your property, doesn´t mean that you can pollute it.

[John Dibble]

Well, your house obviously does not have the right to be on that land, then.

His house can be there, but since land isn't property, I can build my smelly taco stand right next to his house.

Is 'smelly taco stand' a euphemism?

No, I literally meant a taco stand that emits a strong odor.

No but just because the land is your property, doesn´t mean that you can pollute it.

Sure I can - it's only when my pollution effects other people's property that it shouldn't be allowed. If my land is the only land affected, then it's fine.

[A18]

^ Why not? I can think of two justifications:
(A) Future generations may not have decent land if we all do this, but that is very doubtful
(B) The pollution may spread to the property of others.

I would accept B, but this isn't really "pollution."

[ragnar]

Sure I can - it's only when my pollution effects other people's property that it shouldn't be allowed. If my land is the only land affected, then it's fine.

No pollution is local.

[John Dibble]

Sure I can - it's only when my pollution effects other people's property that it shouldn't be allowed. If my land is the only land affected, then it's fine.

No pollution is local.

You're wrong. Say I have 5 acres - if I dump a barrel of trash in the middle of it, I'm polluting, but who else's land is affected?

[Inverted Things]

Oh, okay. I'll go ahead and burn your house down since property rights are "stupid beyond belief."

I never said property rights are stupid. (By the way, don't quote me to me. I know what I said.) I said that the idea that land is property is stupid.

Another socialist. Is there no end to them?

I'm not a socialist. I'm an environmentalist. Outside of environmentalism I'm actually quite libertarian.

[ragnar]

Sure I can - it's only when my pollution effects other people's property that it shouldn't be allowed. If my land is the only land affected, then it's fine.

No pollution is local.

You're wrong. Say I have 5 acres - if I dump a barrel of trash in the middle of it, I'm polluting, but who else's land is affected?

In the short term no one, in the long term it will spread (20-30 year)

[John Dibble]

Sure I can - it's only when my pollution effects other people's property that it shouldn't be allowed. If my land is the only land affected, then it's fine.

No pollution is local.

You're wrong. Say I have 5 acres - if I dump a barrel of trash in the middle of it, I'm polluting, but who else's land is affected?

In the short term no one, in the long term it will spread (20-30 year)

By 20-30 years, all the biodegradeable trash will have rotted, and the less degradeable trash will probably have been buried and still on my land.

[A18]

Um, okay. How about this? If somehow it spreads, Dibble's neighbors can then sue him.

[John Dibble]

Um, okay. How about this? If somehow it spreads, Dibble's neighbors can then sue him.

That too.

[ragnar]

Sure I can - it's only when my pollution effects other people's property that it shouldn't be allowed. If my land is the only land affected, then it's fine.

No pollution is local.

You're wrong. Say I have 5 acres - if I dump a barrel of trash in the middle of it, I'm polluting, but who else's land is affected?

In the short term no one, in the long term it will spread (20-30 year)

By 20-30 years, all the biodegradeable trash will have rotted, and the less degradeable trash will probably have been buried and still on my land.

Biodegradeabble trash is not true pollution.
Lets say you empty some chemicals in the ground these will spread to the water, and slowly move out to the neighbours

[ragnar]

Um, okay. How about this? If somehow it spreads, Dibble's neighbors can then sue him.

That too.

In 20-30 years it can become almost impossible to find you, or prove it was you who did it.

[A18]

What nonsense. Take a picture if you're that paranoid.