There is a concept called "Eigentum verpflichtet"* (ownership brings responsibility) in German, I don't know whether a variation of this exists in English, but it is a formulation I would apply to owners of historic goods.
(*Yes, this is actually about social responsibility.)
Who decides what that responsibility is, if not the owner?
Common sense.
Yours or the owner's? Does he get to decide what you do with your belongings?
Yours or the owner's? Does he get to decide what you do with your belongings?
A private citizen should approach this man and offer to buy the whole lot; and make an offer so large that he simply could not refuse.
Mankind developed an useful thing called law.
But on this thread we originally made no legal but moral judgements on this particular „philosopher“/owner.
He may or may not have by law (or other regulation) the right to do to his property what pleases him, but we have the right to think he is a colossal jerk in any case.
I am talking about a moral obligation/responsibility owners should have for historical valuables but would certainly be in favor of laws prohibiting such willfull destruction.
Now while letting these cars rot away is bad enough, what about i.e. smashing up millenia-old archeological artifacts?
Regardless whether they are in a museum or private collection – owners should be legally demanded to take responsible care of these items or pass them on to someone who does.
Apart from this... and to get back to "common sense", these cars are financially valuable.
Common sense of every half-wit dictates that burning money is dumb and irresponsible. And this guy is doing this on purpose. ^^
No, there are ordinances, if he brakes them, some one else decides! Plus, in this day and age, with all the TV shows about antiques, it is plane irresponsible to let them disappear! It is an ignorant man, that is stubborn for no real reason.
HudsonHawk said:wanting to prosecute him legally for not doing what *you* want him to do with *his* stuff.
I guess this one of the places where the German sense of government dictation and the American sense of personal liberty collide.
HudsonHawk said:Like say...tobacco?
LizzieMaine said:There are some precedents in current American law for restricting how an owner can use his property, the most notable in this case being historic preservation laws. [...]
It's not something that applies to a car, obviously, but there's an underlying principle that the importance of the historic value of a particular object to the community as a whole outweighs the individual rights of the current owner.
I favor some government body, which in a democratic country is legitimated by the people, to define what constitutes historical/cultural heritage and provide for its care through the owner - as is done in case of buildings.
I understand that you see it differently, but do you apply this reasoning also to historical heritage monuments? If say... Monticello or the birth house of George Washington or whatever you have, would be in private hands... should the owner be allowed to let it decay or tear down?
Or where appreciation of historical heritage preservation and "laissez-faire" fundamentalis[m collide.
"Dictation" would apply to a dictatorship. Which Germany isn't.
Also your personal viewpoint is not representative of all Americans.
(BTW John Locke, widely regarded to be a prime source of the American understanding of limited goverment and property rights, sharply rejected "wasting" and "spoiling" property which others can use.)
A wonderful strawman. Tobacco of course is intended and accepted to be consumed by burning.
I reject any government that restricts the rights of its citizens without cause.
Do you think the government should tell you what you should do with your collection of hats? Or razors? Or shoes? What if I decided those articles are too precious for you to wear or even keep in a closet or display case? Should the government then have the right to confiscate them?
It would be [dictatorship] if the government was allowed to confiscate personal property because some people don't approve of who owns it or how he's using it.
And I'm certain yours if not representative of all Germans.
I prefer Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on liberty.
Why is it a strawman? Do you not think there are many, if not most, people who see cigarettes as a waste of money that could be better spend on something else?