31 Dec '16 03:46>
Originally posted by EladarFor the efficient running of a society especially when citizens are housed in highly dense populated areas, maintaining civil order requires many of your rights to be curtailed. The reality of living in city means that many civil codes and ordinances are forced upon you, to use your language. The problem is not that individual rights are moderated, its the emotive aspect of your language that would imply by extension of logic that great numbers of people somehow coexist peacefully within the boundaries of cities without recourse to laws that coerce conformity under pain of incarceration or monetary penalty.
The question is if the people make the decision or is it being forced upon them? Pure and utter servitude of the US population without a voice.
If therefore we can all accept a limitation on individual rights when we establish public spaces and commons, why are we suddenly challenged and threatened to have that same sense of public commons extended to the environment and find ourselves subject to a guiding principle?
Would you live in a city where it was up to individual choice whether you stopped at intersections, or whether your neighbour placed loud music in his adjoining apartment at 3am?
There are hundreds of examples of you giving up your absolute rights to live amongst other people. If we all share the same environment and are all equally sustained or poisened by its stewardship or wanton neglect, why would you accord more rights to individuals to do as they please in such an important sphere.