From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance (was: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:36:14 GMT

In article 7706@netcom.com, mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>
>What I have a problem with is the lack of a moral basis for the rapid
>expansion of what society is willing to impose upon me.  For centuries,
>the rights of property owners were relatively constant.  In the past 30 
>years, the Great Society has bestowed upon us, in addition to many other
>jewels, a greatly reduced set of property rights.  I'm asking why.  And
>you're not answering.


There have been many people who have tried to convey to you the moral basis
of attractive nuisance laws.  You seem to have pushed each and every one off
to the side with some blather about "fee simple absolute" and other stuff.

First, lets knock down some straw men.  The rights of property owners have
never been constant, for centuries or otherwise.  They are continually being
refined and defined by courts.  This is not new.

The Great Society (by which I assume you mean the programs proposed by Lyndon
Johnson in the mid-60's) did not have much to do with property rights.  They 
had a lot to do with social programs like Head Start and Medicare.  Can you
point to any single action taken as part of the Great Society which affected
property rights?  Please don't include Supreme Court cases, they are not part
of any program.  This is the second straw man.

Rapid expansion of what society is willing to impose on you?  This is another
straw man.  This is a vague and irrelevant point.  There is no rapid expansion
and you have never supported what these impositions are.  And please don't.

Why?  I'll repeat my self for the umpteenth time and hope that you will finally
hear the same answer you have been given before.

Each person is responsible for their property.  This includes the responsibility
to maintain it in a fashion which does not pose unreasonable harm to the society
or to the members of the society.  This right of the society and its members to
be safe from unwarranted hazards is a simple and basic moral right.  As an 
extension of this, society claims the right to compel individuals who harm others
to make just compensation for their loss.  This is a moral basis going back 
more than 1000 years, to the DaneLaw.  The AN laws hold that a property owner
cannot assume that everybody is an adult and competent to make clear decisions
of risk on the basis of experience and judgement.  This is a moral basis that
goes back hundreds of years.

I hope this answers your question.

>
>>I don't know about any recent interpretations which you may be refering to.
>>The ones which have been mentioned are all quite old.  
>
>Oh?  AN law is quite old?  Care to elaborate?

You refered to recent interpretations that were mentioned in this thread.  
I haven't seen any recent interpretations mentioned.  You could elaborate on 
what you mean by recent interpretations, rather than shifting the question.

The court cases which I remember seeing mentioned were from the 30's or perhaps 40's.
Maybe with your viewpoint, this is recent.
  
>
>>Glad you are finally agreeing.
>
>Sorry you're still not listening.

Actually, I am listening.  You keep saying the same thing over and over and
over.  You ask for moral basis, get several responses, ignore each and every
one and then deny anyone has ever given you one.
I am truely tired of listening to the same words over and over.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

Newsgroups: ba.general