Reggie, bfo's etal I appreciate your facts and civility but I think you are missing something. Maybe that something is in the definition of the "legacy of 30A". Maybe your definition is different. You don't seem to accept that people have different perspectives, different definitions and well are just different. I understand why you are fed up with emotional outburst, propaganda and the lack of respect for your perspective. No matter what the facts are regarding CU doctrine and it's legality there is a higher power called the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. Well, it should be the higher power because it is just. Both sides of this issue and most issues begin to lose sight of this powerful doctrine when promoting an agenda. Your agenda is that you worked hard for the money that allowed you to buy beach front property and pay the taxes on that property and the Constitution gives you the power to protect that property. Okay so now I must ask you a question and the answer is very important. Do you think that our economic system is fair to all people? This is not a question that you can answer quickly. It requires a lot of honest reflection not just a quick response to justify with "I worked hard" or "I worked harder than those who want to use the beach behind my house" and I have the Constitution on my side. Even if you do have the Constitution on your side you have to admit that the reason we have a Country is because of oppressive power. Money is power. So if you don't want the people to envy, resent or even hate your success it might be better to go back to the doctrine of good behavior, fairness and equality. I get it, the side that opposes you on this issue has either forgotten how to behave or relaxes good behavior in order to promote their agenda. I have posted on other threads and I can personally verify the disrespect and hatred from that side. My point is that both sides are wrong to fight fire with fire. I am not disputing your facts. I am not disputing why you chose to fight the agenda from those who believe in CU doctrine. BUT I am disputing the belief that you earned the right to keep ALL people off the beach behind your house because you earned that right from an economic system that is not fair to all people. The history of Country supports the fact that the people will eventually rebel against abusive power. It is better to use your power to promote a sense of sharing the beach (with rules of good behavior) remembering that building on those sand dunes already restricts the views of our beautiful natural resource which damages that very resource. If you practice the doctrine of good behavior you do not have to feel guilty of anything because we all damage this planet by definition of consumption. The only way for us all to get along with each other and this planet is to only take what you need and give something back...
Well done! Thank you for the intelligent, linear thought with cause & effect logic. You, my friend, are a breath of fresh air. Quick answer to your question is no, I do not. There is indeed great socioeconomic imbalance with stacked decks based on many soft and hard variables. But hey, life is NOT FAIR! Regardless of how much we’d like, it never will be. And that’s actually a good thing. I’ve been at both extreme ends of that imbalance. I'd like nothing more than for you and I to carry this discussion forward in a vacuum and solve this together. Won't happen. So here's a reply...
I'm all about perspectives. My journey has been long and very, very, wide. Perception is reality, I've written reams on that. (Under my Pen Name) With sincere respect, you entirely missed on what you assumed is my agenda. Right of exclusion, yes, undeniably, it's Constitutional discipline. Unilaterally? No, not here. That WAS the 30A legacy, we all got along. But that's where the fuse was lit. Certain little wealthy persons with greedy personal agendas, who live behind gated security fortress & fences, hoarding their private beaches, whipping up a public frenzy against folks owning private beaches. Irony? Exploiting natural public greed for a neighbor's sand, wife, dog, or car is not a sustainable strategy. It collapses under the weight on either side of the fulcrum. Expecting one to pay a premium for any asset, regardless of public opinion, as long as there are laws governing the transaction, then reversing that ownership AND THE RIGHTS THAT OWNER HAS LAWFULLY ENJOYED, and reversing it without compensation, is either stealing, or government taking (same thing). The answer to your desire for a kinder more tolerable sharing culture is impossible when the public is deliberately misled by extreme activists unwilling to compromise and let the truth be known. When every CU proponent gives up his property to use by Native Americans, or allow your neighbors to commercially rent their houses for dollars, complete with using YOUR pool at no charge, then we can reach your Utopian existence. See how absurd that sounds?
For the record, you’re also wrong on your assumptions of my:
working hard for a beach house, my current wealth status, taking what I need, giving back, and most of all - my agenda. I have none. My purpose is to shed light on reality where heretofore there has been none, so that newly educated peeps can decide for themselves on which side of the CU issue they are most comfortable. Then they will realize that either way this journey ends, CU will destroy our 30A legacy.
