From: mzimmers@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers)
Newsgroups: ba.general
Subject: Re: Attractive Nuisance (was: East Bay Regional Parks/dog restrictions)
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:48:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov6.013614.2737@eagercon.com> eager@eagercon.com writes:

>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.

Do you always refer to other people's posts that you don't understand
as blather?  No one else seems to have had trouble understanding what
I was saying.  Perhaps you're impaired in more ways than one.

And no one has answered my question.  That you dislike this fact doesn't
make it not so.

>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.

Once again, for the not-so-alert:  what I was trying to point out was
that the extent of change to property rights in the past 30 years or so
seems to be far more extensive (and invasive) than anything that went 
before for centuries.  Care to disagree without being a jerk?

>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.

OK, listen really closely, and I'm going to knock your socks off on this one:

You're right, and I was wrong.

I erroneously lumped the 1963 Civil Rights Act into the Great Society.  In
self defense, I was trying to establish a time-line perspective, and didn't
miss by more than a couple of years, but it wasn't correct.

>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.

"And please don't."  What a jerk.  "Don't use that argument or I won't
have anything left to say."  I've cited two such expansions relevant to
property owners that I consider recent.  If you missed them, that's your
lack of observance.  If you consider them vague or irrelevant, than you
don't understand what we were talking about when you entered this thread.

>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.

If you repeat yourself, I'm only going to hear the same pink noise again.

>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.  

 SSS    A   Y   Y  SSS      W   W H   H  OOO   ???
S      A A   Y Y  S         W W W H   H O   O     ?
 SSS  AAAAA   Y    SSS      W W W HHHHH O   O   ??
    S A   A   Y       S     WW WW H   H O   O   ?
 SSS  A   A   Y    SSS      W   W H   H  OOO    ?

You're really not worth the time, but ONCE again:  who did you turn to
in order to ascertain this responsibility?  Where did you get your
definition of "unreasonable"?  How did you derive your right to trespass
and to hold me responsible for the consequences of your crime?

No one has answered this.  Your pompous assertations don't qualify.

>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.

Oh?  Can you cite evidence of an application of this law to something
like an AN that's more than 30 years old?  There is an ocean of difference
between giving property owners carte blanche to toss cyanide-laced candy
bars onto their front lawns, and simply not covering backyard swimming
pools.  I think you understand this, but you just don't like it.

>>>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?

>The court cases which I remember seeing mentioned were from the 30's or perhaps 40's.

That would surprise me, but it's still pretty recent in comparison to
the relatively constant period of centuries of fee law.

Can you provide a specific reference?  I promise I won't be so rude as
to term it "blather".

-- 
Michael Zimmers                                    |  Home:  408 996 1984
SoftHelp                                           |  Work:  408 996 1965
Software Solutions for Open Systems                |  Data:  408 996 1974