A while back, after I had said that a person has no right to trespass even if surrounded by private property and prevented from getting vital resources by the owner/s, this link came up in comments: Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict.
I found it very interesting. It seems to dovetail very nicely with my "most unpopular idea". That doesn't make either one right, obviously. Still, it's something to think about, and it does make a lot of sense.
Of course, the author keeps talking about freedom, when I always think the critical issue is liberty.
.
I see the white man in the very same light as I see rattlesnakes. A rattlesnake has no regard for property "rights". He will come onto and reside upon your property at his own will. He will bite you whether you are on your property or a guest on mine. So it behooves you to beware of rattlesnakes.
ReplyDeleteYou have a "right" to go barefoot in the woods. I don't recommend it. If you do, listen and watch carefully each step.
Does that mean you are a "slave" because you wear protective footwear on your own property for your own protection? Not at all. It means you have common sense.
Am I saying the rattlesnake has the brains of a white man? Not at all. The snake is you friend. He feeds off rodents and mosquitoes and other undesirable pests. The white man feeds off you.
So if you enjoy pest-free property, thank a snake.
Sam
White man?! Sam, people of every color and creed have been screwing themselves and each other over since the inception of mankind.
ReplyDeleteI believe he uses that term as a euphemism for "government" or "elite, ruling class". He can correct me if I'm mistaken.
DeleteGuess I should thank Russel Means for the term, although natives to this part of the world have used it since the first day their ancestors discovered it was not smart to try to treat the intruders with courtesy and respect.
ReplyDeleteSam