Replies

You have not demonstrated that one principle, long-settled and still good law, that rural landowners split the cost of a fence between two adjoining properties (the underlying argument being that both benefit from the fence, and that public policy should promote the construction of fences between properties in rural areas), is similar to the other principle of imposing a cost on one party for the benefit of an otherwise unrelated party, by simple reason that both parties hypothetically benefit from an amorphous "protection" of general economic activity.

One interesting similarity between your argument and that of some of the folks with whom I disagreed on that thread is that you all are ultimately relying-upon the argument that "lawyers bad," or "free traders bad," and to heck with the circumstances. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?

If you wish, please return to that thread and convince me why your cattle are entitled to graze on my land. That after all, is the legal issue that goes back centuries and the one you appear to favor.

You have not demonstrated that one principle, long-settled and still good law, that rural landowners split the cost of a fence between two adjoining properties (the underlying argument being that both benefit from the fence, and that public policy should promote the construction of fences between properties in rural areas), is similar to the other principle of imposing a cost on one party for the benefit of an otherwise unrelated party, by simple reason that both parties hypothetically benefit from an amorphous "protection" of general economic activity.

The "amorphous protection" you so easily dismiss is, in fact, the general economic well-being of the nation. The relationship is more abstract than the shared fence, but no less real. All of which you realize perfectly well.

One interesting similarity between your argument and that of some of the folks with whom I disagreed on that thread is that you all are ultimately relying-upon the argument that "lawyers bad," or "free traders bad," and to heck with the circumstances. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?

Well, of course free traitors are bad. Everyone knows that! As for lawyers, there are a great many good ones; it's unfortunate that their reputation is sullied by the few bad ones.

Not having been a party to your previous thread, and not caring to go back and get involved, but let me make a comment.

"convince me why your cattle are entitled to graze on my land."

The cattle have no right to graze upon or take value from the land without the landowner being compensated. It is the owner of the cattle's responsibility to be sure that his property does not wander off and steal value from the owner of the grasslands. The fence or compensation for the damage done by his property to another is the sole responsibility of the cattle owner.