It's a tempting argument, but by his reasoning every rock band who trashes a hotel because they can afford the axe is "right". Or who litters the highway because they can afford the garbage is "right".
Why wouldn't it be OK for anyone who is willing and able to buy a gun and ammo to be able to fire it wherever and whenever they want to? Because that's unnecessarily hazardous to the population? So are polutants from a vehicle which is bigger than necessary for it's immediate mission.
And the same argument applies to the person who doesn't want to be hooked up to a sewer line. Should the community put a gun to his head to make him do something he doesn't want to?
Some people will not curb their selfishness in order to contribute to the common good, and they have to be encouraged beyond the cost of being able to do the damage. I truly believe that being able to afford to wreck the environment, for instance, isn't a good enough excuse to allow it.
Arf
Flame » in reply to Lindy, Tom is right
I don't think he is, really.
The whole thread (56 posts)
- FLAME ON!
- Conspicuous Consumption
- Here, this proves my point "Fuel consumption wasn't a consideration" (SUV owner)
- Oil will be worth more than diamonds
- re: FLAME ON!
- Interesting.
- I feel like I'm arguing with Ed Begley Jr. and the hardcore leftist brigades.
- Are you freekin serious?
- I'm happy to know you know so much about living with, and transporting, children.
- re: Interesting.
- I feel like I'm arguing with Ed Begley Jr. and the hardcore leftist brigades.