How can paving over my land harm others? If nothing exits my land, what harm could it do? So if the government stops me from doing it I need to be compensated.



That is where you and I disagree. You can confuse exercising the rights over your property with externalities.

The rule is simple:

You can do whatever you want with your property. If the government wants to infringe on that right you need to be compensated (of course if you buy property in a zoned area, then you knew that going in, so you knew you were purchasing property with limitede rights).

If you release some, gas, liquid or solid, from your property that leaves your property then you are either infringing on the property rights of you neighbor or some publicly owned land (in this country all land is now owned by someone the government). And you need to take responisiblity for that action.

Not complicated.

It can cause flooding, for one.

but there'd be fewer snakes.

But lots more mosquitoes, and I've never been bitten by a snake.

On the other hand, fish eat mosquitoes, and migratory waterfowl eat fish, and the reason we want to save the wetlands is to protect the migratory waterfowl. Maybe Spanky's right. The only way to save the wetlands is to pave the wetlands.*


*New board motto? Or at least a bumpersticker?

Well, I've been bitten by mosquitoes and lived, so I'd rather risk that then the chance of snake bite. (ignoring the whole West Nile thing) . And plus, getting rid of wetlands would eliminate mosquitoes breeding areas, like you the year you lived in that dry county and couldn't hook up with drunk chicks.

So you lose this round.

201-11

and I'm not in favor of draining wetlands, but I don't think it's fair for you to argue widelife with Spanky- it is not his strong suit.

Huh. I've seen plenty of homes with chimneys in Los Angeles, but I've never seen one actually -- you know -- used.

I always suspected that they were one of those nonfunctional features to be seen and admired, like crown moulding.

No more BoHo Woods.

Merry Christmas
 

Merry Christmas


<http://www.reuters.hu/card_dom/index_content.html

Merry Christmas
 

Wow. That is very cool.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Morality is either based on a UMC or reason:

(or maybe someone can suggest another source)

If you think that all morality can be reasoned out, what rational reason is there not to take (steal) the possessions of someone else if such possessions will improve the quality of your life and there is no way that the person you steal such possessions from can effect your life after you take such possessions?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Why do you need to establish some deeper moral principle? Why not look at specific circumstances, and work from there?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Translation: I will often delete conservative's posts, but never would delete a liberal's post.

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

What difference does a specific circumstance make? I just gave you a specific circumstance and showed that with out a deeper moral principle, the rational thing to do is the immoral thing. From a rational perspective, the rational action is not what most people would consider the moral action.

Am I wrong?

If I encounter a stranger with lots of money, and I know I can take his money, kill him, hide the body, and I am sure no one will ever know, why shouldn't I do that. What if I have an ear infection, and I don't have the money to have it treated? Shouldn't I kill the guy?

What rational reason is there for me not to kill him?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Does he have a lot of cash on him, or is it a bunch of credit cards?

Morality cannot exist without a higher power
 

Unmarked, untraceable bills. Small denominations. An entire garbage bag filled with the stuff.