Hoarders Have To Go.

[Smithy]

Those snaps of that very depressed XK120 are enough alone to make one weep.

What a bloody waste.

 

[HudsonHawk]

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?

 

[LizzieMaine]

The thing is, when you read the article, it's pretty obvious this guy isn't a *hoarder" at all, in the sense of someone who just accumulates stuff and lets it rot. It's pretty clear that what he's doing is intended as a deliberately-provocative art project, in which he's proposing to demonstrate that nature will eventually reclaim all of man's works. The cars were all deliberately chosen and specifically placed to emphasize the point he was trying to make. He's nothing like old Crazy Joe Backwoodsman who lives in a cabin surrounded by trash and doesn't care about it one way or the other.

Of course, living next to a junkyard, I don't need some fatuous German "philosopher" to bring entropy to my attention, all I've got to do is look out my bedroom window.

 

[Fastuni]

Who decides what that responsibility is, if not the owner?

Common sense.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Common sense.

Yours or the owner's? Does he get to decide what you do with your belongings?

 

[Stearmen]

One mans junk Cadillac, is another mans GM Stonehenge!

 

[Stearmen]

Yours or the owner's? Does he get to decide what you do with your belongings?

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.

 

[Fastuni]

Yours or the owner's? Does he get to decide what you do with your belongings?

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But on this thread we originally made no legal but moral judgements on this particular „philosopher“/owner.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. ^^

 

[Vintage lover]

Some people are truly despicable. This man is intentionally letting irreplaceable treasures rot simply to laugh at the horror on peoples faces. It almost reminds me of a less entertaining version of Peter Sellers character in "The Magic Christian".

In regard to making the detestable action of this man illegal, I must respectfully disagree. Value cannot be set by politicians, and it would be extreme to establish special squads of the police department whose sole purpose is to insure that your nationally recognized valuable is being treated in a manner which coincides with legislation.

Passing laws to that effect would mean private citizens would no longer own their treasures (an outlook many enthusiasts relate with), and could be deprived of them by force. Imagine then what would happen to the rescued item. Would the government place them in a Louvre or Smithsonian-like institution where they would be preserved and likely never used for their intended purpose again? If not, than would an auction decide who became the caretaker, or would somebody from a list be selected based on qualification?

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. A rather large friend or two sanding behind the buyer amid a public outcry would be a good lubricant to get the gears of finance going. "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone" -Al Capone

 

[Fastuni]

No need for ¨special squads¨... the law should simply provide for the offender to be liable.
Yes in the case of cars for example, auctioning them off would be good. In my example of archeological items, they of course should go to a museum if threatened with destruction.

Animals are property, yet there are animal protection laws that proscribe abuse. Of course animals are not inanimate objects like cars, but this is an example of legally regulated use of property.
A more relevant comparison is cultural heritage preservation which aims mostly at buildings and monuments. In Europe (as I understand also in some US states) it also applies to private property.

On a philosophical note... turn to John Locke (who is hailed as the advocate of property rights, limited government and free market capitalism) - Second Treatise, Chapter 5 on property.
He vehemently writes against waste and ¨spoiling¨ of property that could be used by others - particularly if it is in low supply. The "no-waste"-provision is Lockes chief limitation on property.

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.

Not so sure this is an idea that should be emulated.
Great selling tactic... holding valuables ¨hostage¨. Next time I sell some vintage garments I first will tear them apart and threaten to burn the scraps.
That will sure make someone pay a good price.

 

[HudsonHawk]

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.

No one has argued that they're glad he's letting them rot, nor that it's not a tragedy. Only that there's a huge (monumental, life defining, go to war over in fact) difference in thinking he's a jerk and 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

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. ^^

You mean buying something then setting it on fire should be illegal? Like say...tobacco?

 

[HudsonHawk]

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.

Actually, he has his reasons. I understand that you don't agree with them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

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. In many towns or cities if your building is a designated historical structure, you're severely limited in how you can remodel or modify it, or whether or not you can demolish it.

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.

It pains me to see old cars hacked up -- I've taken great care to keep mine as original as possible -- but the one that really gets me is the "preserve your old radio/tv by tossing out the old obsolete insides and replacing them with this modern digital chassis." That might be a lot of things, but it isn't preservation.

 

[Fastuni]

wanting to prosecute him legally for not doing what *you* want him to do with *his* stuff.

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? Is there any line you would draw to oblige owners to take care of property? I suppose by your arguing probably not.

I guess this one of the places where the German sense of government dictation and the American sense of personal liberty collide.

Or where appreciation of historical heritage preservation and "laissez-faire" fundamentalism 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.)

Like say...tobacco?

A wonderful strawman. Tobacco of course is intended and accepted to be consumed by burning. :smokin:

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.

Exactly.

 

[herringbonekid]

i don't think buildings and 'consumables' such as cars, clothing, shoes, furniture and household appliances which have a much more limited (and personal) life-span are comparable.

 

[Fastuni]

The preservation of historical buildings was mentioned as a point in case where private property is affected by government regulation (which HudsonHawk by principle rejected).

Of course one has to draw a line somewhere.
Clothes/household appliances are not in the same league as cars either.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As I said, I don't think the legal principle applies to something like a car -- it simply establishes that even in America, the freedom of an owner to do as he likes with his property isn't absolute. Society does set limits in certain cases, and it's society which decides where that line should be drawn.

As far as consumer goods go, of course one is legally free to nail wheels onto the bottom of a good pair of shoes, or paint a hideous design on the back of a one-of-a-kind dress or fishtank a prewar television set or leave fifty cars from 1950 alone in a field to rot if he wants to do it. And I'm free to think he is, and judge him as, a pretentious short-sighted fool for doing so. When I'm dictator, the tumbrel will be coming for him.

 

[herringbonekid]

if a rich car collector trashes his 1932 Ford model 18 it's sad, but there were plenty more of them made, and plenty more still well looked after.
if the Glasgow School of Art - a one of a kind historic Art Nouveau building - suffers a major fire as it did today, it's a tragedy.

 

[HudsonHawk]

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 do not. I reject any government that restricts the rights of its citizens without cause.

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?

Yes. As much as I would hate it.

But let's get closer to the reality. 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?

Or where appreciation of historical heritage preservation and "laissez-faire" fundamentalis[m collide.

What ever color your glasses are.

"Dictation" would apply to a dictatorship. Which Germany isn't.

It would be 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.

Also your personal viewpoint is not representative of all Americans.

And I'm certain yours if not representative of all Germans.

(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.)

I prefer Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on liberty. Your mileage may vary.

A wonderful strawman. Tobacco of course is intended and accepted to be consumed by burning.

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?

 

[Fastuni]

I reject any government that restricts the rights of its citizens without cause.

... causes were mentioned. As you don't accept historical and cultural heritage of any kind to be a legitimate cause I think we can leave it at that.

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?

A historical car is in terms of value and scarcity not comparable to a hat or razor. Also I did not say that I am against the intended use of historical cars - to the contrary. The intended use of clothes is to be worn and razors to be used to shave. So please put away this strawman.

In many countries the line of historical preservation is drawn at historical buildings (possibly also artworks)... I would favor it to include cars/trains/planes.

As for how realistic it is... well obviously it isn't a law anywhere to my knowledge.
Unfortunately... but things seldomly are how they ought to be. ^^

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.

You don't seem to understand the line of legimation in a representative system.
By this logic no act of government would ever be acceptable.

And I'm certain yours if not representative of all Germans.

I never claimed it is.
You made the comparison of "German sense of dictation" vs. "American sense of liberty".

(Frankly I fear that indeed many Germans, including those in positions of goverment, don't value historical heritage at all... as the tearing down of several significant historical buildings in recent years indicates.)

I prefer Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on liberty.

If he ever hears you would accept wrecking Monticello...

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?

Why even bother trying to patch back together a strawman?