Collecting Ethics

FredL

Rather than continuing the argument on previous threads, I'd like to make a comment on a new thread, perhaps in this way eliminating some of the baggage this subject carries with it elsewhere.

I'm not a legal expert, nor do I wish to become one, but I do know what I think is right and wrong. In regard to theft, I think it is wrong to take from another person what that person places value on. Now that value could be monetary (taking trees from a Christmas Tree Farm without permission would certainly be wrong), personal (taking a twisted little tree in the forest understory that is quickly succumbing to the shade cast by larger trees if the owner enjoys the tree and feels that it adds to the beauty of his forest) or even just an intrusion on the privacy or pleasure of ownership of the owner.

Now, the fact that the owner places no value on something may be explicit (the person gives permission) or inferred (the owner abandons the item or just applying common sense, as in the case of seedlings growing on an unmaintained public road). Application of the principle can create lots of shades of grey. The principle, at least for me, remains clear.

In past comments I've made, I've tried to make the point that if my actions do not injure anybody, even in the slightest, the actions are harmless. Label them however you wish; label me however you wish, I feel no compunction about actions which injure no one in the slightest.

I certainly do not believe that taking a handful of seeds from a strip mall parking lot Maple injures anybody. Most reasonable people seem to agree with this. I also do not feel that taking seedlings from the road right-of-way in our rural community injures anybody. I do not believe that Walter taking trees from the area used by tanks injures anybody. I also do not believe that taking small pines from the dump/ATV area near my home injured anybody, though I 'd say this is arguable, which accounts for my qualms regarding this example.

For me, this is not rationalization If you are a person who believes that the issue of of whether an item has value to its owner is irrelevant, if you were to explain taking something using my logic, that would be rationalization. Accusing me of rationalization is simple projection.

I hadn't really thought about this matter enough before I inadvertently set off the firestorm regarding it to be able to clearly articulate this principle that I follow. I doubt that I'll have much of anything else to say on the subject now that my mind is clear on it.


Fred

Advertisement

pootsie

Well, I happen to be a lawyer. And after having admitted that, I can also admit to having engaged in a little "midnight collecting" of my own.

But I'd like to pass that off as a youthful indiscretion -- kinda like how I hope that it was just a youthful indiscretion to drive stoned. I don't do either anymore.

But I have found permission is not too hard to get.

pootsie

__________________
p.s. My cat is a bonsaiTALK Master.
Columbus Bonsai Society

Will_Heath

Fred,

You keep going back to seeds when in fact, you have told us that you have taken trees that were not yours without permission. Now you start a thread about ethics?

Color it any color you want, justify it to death, start a zillion threads, it is still stealing and it is still wrong.

Will

bonsaikc

Rationalization is as rationalization does, Fred.

Chris Johnston

__________________
Sashi-no-eda.blogspot.com

John Dixon

Fred,

You may be completely correct in that the owner of a small stunted tree, about to succumb to the bigger trees from lack of light, has no concern about that tree and attaches no real value to it. Okay, I give you that.

Now, even if that is the case, I promise you that property owner does indeed place value on the right to decide who is allowed on their property. If you do not obtain permission from them, you are trespassing, and that is irrefutable. Hence you have violated the law. The law is in place to protect, and at the same time hold responsible, the property owner's rights and liabilities.

They pay property taxes to "earn" this right. To say different is nonsense. Here is a little known fact: If illegal dumpers throw away material deemed as a public hazard by government authorities on someone's private property, guess who gets the responsibility, and pays the cost, to clean it up? The property owner!!! Not the government (who required the clean up) or the dirtbag who didn't get caught. This can be so expensive that the owner can't pay the clean up cost and the State condemns and takes over ownership of the land. Now justify that! What a tragic turn of events for a property owner who did nothing wrong. I am not saying that you would do such a thing, but it is a consideration for the discussion. Robert Trojaniweitz (sp?) authored a book called "Broken Windows" about how urban decay can be linked to allowing little problems to go unchecked until they are huge problems.

It seems that the "right-of-way" remarks are getting numerous. Guess what? If you can find property anywhere in the U.S. that cannot be traced back to an owner, I will be surprised. If it is not privately owned, then it is State or Federal Government land. Do you really think that States with property taxes are not going to bill for payment? They WILL find out who owns the land. It's revenue waiting to be collected!

All I can say is that on the land I own, no ONE, repeat no ONE, has my permission to enter or remove anything without my consent. I follow the same principle when I am the one who should seek the consent. It's courtesy reinforced by legislation.

Collecting candy bar wrappers in a Walmart parking lot was your analogy of characterization earlier Fred. We can continue to pontificate and use wild conjecture and dogmatic reference, in remark and reparte, from here to eternity, but realize this; as adament as you are to justify your position in "hold harmless" collecting, I am every bit as steadfast to counter your stand. One big difference to consider: If done my way, a collector doesn't break the law. If they do it your way, and are caught, what happens then? If "getting caught" is your biggest concern than you are dishonest, and I will not sugar coat it. Get mad and sling slobber like a rabid dog if you want, but I ain't budgin' on that.

I await my negative points. So be it.

Sincerely,

John (a person who realizes no one is above or below the law)

__________________
John Dixon

Si vis pacem parabellum

Stay off the trails of others, that's where the booby-traps are.

Will_Heath

Well said John!

Hey Fred, I was at a nursery this morning picking up some grass seed and as usual, I walked through the plants and trees. They were horrible, unwatered, in the shade, most in poor health or dying. It was obvious that the owner of these plants did not care for them.

The thought ran through my mind that I should just steal them and use your justification and your words, "Now, the fact that the owner places no value on something may be explicit (the person gives permission) or inferred (the owner abandons the item or just applying common sense, as in the case of seedlings growing on an unmaintained public road). Application of the principle can create lots of shades of grey. The principle, at least for me, remains clear." ....it would be okay?

Lol, I don't think so....


Will

Joanie

I have some elderly friends who own land in South Dakota. They live in So. California. It has been in their family for generations, used to be farmland. They decided to let it go wild because they are big environmentalists, but they go out to see it and walk in it once or twice a year. They value the land and everything on it, they haven't abandoned it despite its wildness. It is very important to them that what is growing there, stays there.

If someone wanted a tree from their land and didn't take the time to contact them it would be wrong. They would be so sad and upset to see it gone. However, if someone asked them, they would probably say yes....they are sweet people.

They pay the taxes, they own the land, and everything on it that isn't blown around by the wind or able to walk on its own legs.

Just how you determine "abandoned" is a sticking point here.

Joanie

EarthgirlOK

I think that Fred, due to some mental or emotional issue, and/or to amuse himself (to put it politely) is baiting us ad infinitum.

Regardless of his "harmless" antagonism, I will not hesitate to shoot him in his bum if I catch it on my property. I might even get carried away with the buckshot...it isn't wrong to shoot somebody on your property if nobody sees it, right? I mean, they OBVIOUSLY don't value their life or butt very much if they are being negligent in their behavior, right?

It's probably even self defense...I don't know if they are trespassing in order to steal from me or to come hurt me so I better take care of me and mine! If I don't kill him, but just 'nick him real good, then I can't go to jail (right?).

I would even guess that they actually WANT to be shot at if they stepped foot on someone else's property without obtaining permission! I'd REALLY be helping them out!

They could go home sore and bleeding, and feel good about the flesh offering that they gave for the little potensai tree they stole from me that unbeknownst to them, I have been grooming for the past four years.

Rationalize that, ____.

(p.s. Hey Will, can I borrow one of those tree stands left by trespassers on your property?)

__________________
Sonlight NurseryGreen Country Bonsai Society

rockm

Oh fer Gawd's sake...WHERE IS THE HARM IN ASKING PERMISSION FRED? Why is it such a big deal to make sure you are, indeed, not harming anyone, being an obnoxious jerk, or committing a crime?

Your droning on and on about asking a simple question is becoming a little frightening. I'm beginning to feel like Shelly Duval in "The Shining" reading Jack Nicholson's novel:

"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."
"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."
"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."
"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."
"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."
"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."
"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."
"All work and no play make Jack A dull boy."