3 ms·
>Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones you can't throw reasons away by labelling them historic, the same historic reasons still apply today, ca
by fsckboy 3y ago
>Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones
you can't throw reasons away by labelling them historic, the same historic reasons still apply today, call them Chesterton's reasons. They need to be balanced against other reasons, and your reasons and my reasons might be different, but that's what our govts do for us, and when enough people are unhappy we change govts.
- some_random 3y agoThat's why I'm asking, what are these reasons that need to be balanced against?
- dogman144 3y agoQualifying the reasons as "purely historic" as if that's a different type of reason is a bit of a dog whistle out around shenanigans with public land access and water rights in the western US, for what it's worth. Edit - what I mean to be clearer is that when it comes to land access, "historical" (i.e. what's on paper) is the only reason that counts - as in, property rights which span both private property, and the one that many love to forget - public land. Courts consistently hold this up. Those seeking to limit public land access for more or less greed often attempt to wave away those historical records via "well it's historical, what else is there to consider today," as if their private property rights are not also protected for the same reason.