RE: Re[2]: [ihc]...property rights

[Tom Harais <THarais@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ken, Jim, et al:

>  What is it that fosters such desire for control over other people?

It's the last six words of that sentence:  "desire for control over other
people".  I think it's human nature, some desire for dominance.  And, since
we aren't foraging on the savannah any more and beating the tar out of each
other to show dominance is generally frowned upon, "controlling" others
through law and ordinance is the socially acceptable way of showing
domination in modern times.

The founding fathers of the US were aware of this and very concerned about
the powers that a central government would have to impose such controls.

George Orwell warned us about this in "1984".  It was exemplified by the oft
refrain of the pigs in that story's barn when they dominated the group "for
the good of all" but exempted themselves from the rules:  "Some pigs are
more equal than other pigs".

> I apologize for the lack of IH content.

There is actually substantial IH content here.  Since this digest is
populated by IH enthusiasts; since IH hasn't built a light line vehicle for
almost 25 years; since everything we are talking about here is represented
by 25 year old (or more) sizeable chunks of iron and steel:  we are all
owners of vehicles that are considered "visual blight"  by many.  And there
is the age/obsolescence factor of owning these vehicles forcing many of us
into owning several of them for parts or preservation purposes or at least
owning a single IH product and then storing a substantial inventory of parts
to support that ownership.  It's not like we can go out and buy a new IH at
our local dealer and pick up whatever parts we need from the McParts store
in town.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that there is relevant IH
content in this thread.  If you own an IH, this thread has relevance!

I can say that I am proud to be a member of this group where people from all
walks of life don't seem to have difficulty noticing that there are many
facets to this issue and personal freedom along with personal responsibility
are as involved here as the collective good.  When I contrast that approach
with the what I frequently here from neighbors, friends and coworkers
(remember, I work in local government) about this issue, I'm impressed by
the Digest group.  

It continually amazes me how many of those I deal with outside of the digest
insist that we NEED all sorts of control over everyone else or otherwise, as
one coworker put it yesterday, "Think of what you're neighborhood would look
like if everyone had an old car (note that term "old car") sitting in their
driveway.  That would look junky".  This line of reasoning, that we need to
act collectively to prevent anyone from doing anything that is visually
displeasing to others, with no thought to the rights of the individual,
scares and upsets me.  

"Collective good" has replaced individual rights as the ultimate goal in
people's minds and they don't even realize it. People have developed this
sense of "I know what's right and I'm going to make you comply with that by
developing a law to support my beleif".  These people support their own
contention by finding a majority subset of their peers that agree with their
specific plan of imposition on everyone.  There is no consideration given to
their peers who are in the minority on a given issue and their opinion is
disregarded - until one of the majority supporters finds themselves on the
minority side of the mob on some other issue and suddenly realizes what it
feels like to have others trying to tell them what to do.

When I was growing up, a common mantra was "live and let live".  Something I
really wish would come back in vogue.  Something do gooders need to think
about before they go off and try and "control other people's lives".

Tom H., '76 Traveler, many spare parts