You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Brothers Face $450,000 in Fines for Cutting Trees on Their Own Property Without Asking Gov’t First
It seems then that our dispute is over the meaning of ownership. We are merely stewards of God's creation, yes, but property rights define right-of-use based on the principles of homesteading and voluntary exchange to prevent disputes while we are on this mortal plane.
Right, I feel that the 100 landmark trees that were removed shouldn't have been because they were their before and would have remained after benefiting the ecosystem and history. I agree they have temporary ownership rights to clear the brush but they should have left the landmarks and planted around them in my humble opinion.
If you want something on someone else's property left alone, offer to compensate them, don't threaten to harm them.
Did I threaten them? And why would I compensate them for doing something that harms the ecosystem living breathing creatures birds squirrels and all animals and insects alike that suffer from the mass loss of their natural habitat. The fact that it is illegal also weighs in the scale of destruction they caused, they need to be held accountable for what they have done and a fine is the only way to do it without being cruel and unusual punishment. They have laws like this for a reason if they wanted to clear out the land they should have got the proper agencies to conduct studies and research to see if they could follow through with their plan.