Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Letters to the Editor

I received an interesting e-mail today from of all people, a land surveyor, Sean Joyce of Joyce Surveying and Mapping Associates. He copied me on a letter to a reporter, Kathie Durbin of the Columbian Newspaper in Washington.

In particular, Mr. Joyce took offense to Ms. Durbin's article, "Law Sparks Boundary Wars"

Quoting Mr. Joyce he believes the news article should be entitled, "Inept attorneys spark boundary disputes." Sadly, Mr. Joyce is blinded by his own bias of being a land surveyor. As the issue with adverse possession has nothing to do with "inept" attorneys. The fundamental issue is that adverse possession is an unfair, immoral and unnecessary law that need not exist anymore.

In his letter to the editor, Mr. Joyce fell into the same logical trap that so many people fall into. His argument is that because adverse possession has been around for hundreds of years, it must be a good law. This is the logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to Tradition."

In essence, it was the same logic that was used to support why slavery should exist. After all, it had been legal to own slaves in the United States for decades. Why change?

Adverse possession is just as repugnant and immoral as slavery. Yet today, the same supporters of adverse possession use the same logic and ill-formed arguments to keep it alive.

I can not change Sean Joyce's viewpoint as his opinion is based on emotion rather than truth. I suspect that other, narrow-minded individuals will cling onto this 800 year old belief that legalized land theft is acceptable.

But, at the end of the day, who I have to praise is Kathie Durbin and other reporters who have the courage to write about this pernicious law. For legalized land theft to end, people need to share their stories -- to editors, lawmakers, heck - even land surveyors. And likewise, we need those letters to the editors to show the human side and detriment of what legalized land theft is all about.

1 comment:

  1. Ask yourself and everybody else, why does Mr. Jamie Pederson, an openly gay, progressive liberal mindful type person, even consider opposing this total no-brainer??

    Could it be long-term politics???

    Could it be the presumed next Supreme Court Justice-in-waiting Anne Ellington, who may share some "private" behind closed doors or "open" (like when?) concerns, with Mr. Pederson ???)

    So, who really stands to lose political points if this bill is passed?

    Could it be the (presumed) next Supreme Court Justice-in-waiting?? - Anne Ellington??

    And what could she have in common with Jamie Pederson??????

    And why would he be opposing a no-brainer on her behalf??

    Judicial history is such an annoyance in all things politic. Seattle is the bananna republic of our times. South America all over again.

    Virgil Howard
    (not afraid to state my name in print), hey, I'm just another idealistic unimbedded journalist, right??

    ReplyDelete