Why "loss of productivity" is NOT an issue
Tue, 31 Jul 2001 18:02:20 -0500
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Tom wrote:
> --]We are all responisble for not intrusing on others.
> Ok let me clearifiythis before the trained monkey dances all over it.
> For substances and spplications where intrusion is non filterable or where
> intrusion is pushed on to other parties it is a good thing to make sure
> your not shlopping your spew onto others.
So here's a scenario, to test the "not filterable" rule-of-Tom-thumb. Let's
imagine that Tom wants (for whatever reason) to put up a giant, hideous,
totally offensive sculpture on a section of empty land he owns way out in the
middle of nowhere but visible, say, from a stretch of rural highway. Say, a
20' to-scale model of an erect, diseased penis covered with oozing scabs and
sores. (Let's say it's some kind of politically-motivated STD statement.)
Clearly, it's not --- aesthetically --- filterable.
Should Tom be allowed to do it? Why or why not?
My answer is yes, it should be allowable, though let's hope that he wouldn't.
In this case, the market acts as the filter --- outraged neighbors, commuters,
whoever "buy" their filter by making Tom an offer he can't refuse on the
land. If folks individually or collectively can't purchase it, well, that's
too bad then.
Point being, the "filter" rule is a slippery slope, a not-very-useful rule of
thumb, and a bad basis for law.