[at-l] A Question Of Trail

[icw39@ncfreedom.net (Clark Wright)]

I think the key point is this:  As long as we respect private property
rights by supporting land trusts and governmental programs that PURCHASE
land from WILLING sellers, then there is no issue.  Where it gets
tougher is when we get to either eminent domain, or regulatory takings
concerns; both are areas where well meaning, reasonable folks can differ
- and I don't think ole Daniel had the foresight to address the rise of
the modern bureacracy, but I doubt he would like it . . . no matter how
"good" some of its stated "ends" are.

thru-thinker [thinking philosophically tonight! :)]

"Bob C." wrote:
> 
> Many thanks Jim for bringing this wonderful oration to our attention. There is
> nothing in it -- though I don't pretend to have studied all the subtle nuances
> -- that strikes me as being in opposition to anything I have written.
> 
>  Perhaps you could explain, Jim, which features of the oration that violates my
>  contention that "It serves no purpose to argue with the ultra right "property rights" folks.
> >It's a religion with them. No amount of common sense will ever change their
> >minds."
> 
> I see the oration as properly setting forth the limits of private property.
> 
> As Dan Webster so eloquently said: "The freest government, if it could exist,
> would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid
> accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the
> population dependent and penniless. In such a case, the popular power would be
> likely to break limit and control the exercise of popular power."
> 
> As you and I well know, Jim. There are those radicals among us who fail to
> recognize this elementary truism. For them the "accumulation of property in few
> hands" has become so much a religion that they forget the many wise voices from
> the past.
> 
> Of course when Daniel Webster was orating this nation thought it had an
> unlimited wilderness to settle and exploit, so every man could truly have his
> own private estate, or aspire to the same, by settling in the vast wilderness.
> 
> Now, sadly, that no longer is realistic. To have space for wandering -- either
> in a small town such as mine, or for the millions who enjoy the Appalachian
> Trail, we must cooperatively own property. That's why I've founded one land
> trust and am trying to found a second.
> 
> The current fad in Maine is for wealthy people to buy 20,000 acre "kingdoms." If
> this trend continues to its logical conclusion, the  20 million acres that make
> up Maine would eventually be owned by just 1.000 individuals or families --
> leaving nothing for our other million plus residents.
> 
> That's why I think it wise for Maine people, through it's elected government and
> private land trusts, to purchase a few bits and pieces of land so that we all
> can enjoy the freedom of wandering in wild places. Aside from the intrinsic
> value of such preservation, it will also help preserve Daniel Webster's precient
> vision that "The freest government, if it could exist, would not be long
> acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of
> property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent
> and penniless."
> 
> Jim, as you so rightly point out by reminding us of Daniel Webster's Plymouth
> Oration, a free people requires more than dollars and luxury goods, true freedom
> is the freedom of the hills, the freedom to explore wild places. We must not
> allow the fanatics to take this away from us.
> 
>  Those with the wealth to afford 20,000 acre kingdoms may not need public parks
>  and forests. The rest of us do.
> 
>  Weary
> 
> _______________________________________________
> >From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l