They say Lady Justice is blind. Well, if she is blind, then she is also deaf to the man who cannot afford to hire the best lawyer; but her tactile senses are just fine, as her greedy little fingers have no trouble discerning who has the largest stack of dollars.

As always, this is our own fault for sending ‘statist’ nitwits to our legislatures, and to the bench, to chip away at our “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as prescribed by our first Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence, and to set ridiculous and dangerous precedents that subvert the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Whether the question is loud music, “unsightly” views, tobacco smoke, the smell of livestock, chemical run-off, or spray drift crossing a property line, nuclear power, radioactive waste storage, drug side-effects, medical malpractice, ingredient or country of origin labeling, or any other consumer product liability question, our representative government must not be allowed to use its coercive power and taxpayer dollars to deny the legitimate ‘rights’ of any American citizen to the necessities of life (i.e. clean air, pure water, wholesome food, direct sunlight and adequate space in which to exist), to yield to the petty ‘desires’ of anyone over the ‘rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ of another, nor to shield anyone from their own liability.

What is right and just is not a mystery that must be left to be deciphered by lawyers and lawyers-made-judges, but the common sense of natural law.

There is no conflict between the legitimate “rights” of men. The ‘right’ of any man to extend his arm in ‘liberty’ stops just shy of the next man’s nose. No man can ‘physically’ affect the life of another without incurring a corresponding liability.

Notice that word ‘physically’! No, you do not have a right to go thru life without ever smelling something unpleasant, seeing something ‘unsightly’, nor hearing someone say something that makes you feel ‘uncomfortable’. You have no right to tell your neighbor what color to paint his house, when to cut his grass, what words he can speak, what music he can listen to, who he can associate with, what substances he can ingest, nor what enterprise he can or cannot engage in upon his own property, unless the repercussions of his ‘activity’ cross his property line onto yours and cause some ‘unnatural’, ‘physical’ effect that ‘adversely’ affects your life, liberty, or the ‘pursuit’ of your happiness.

Notice that you are also not guaranteed happiness, but merely the ‘pursuit’ of it.

If you cannot stand to look at your neighbors purple house, or the tall prairie grass in his yard maybe you should look the other way, or not live close to other humans.

If you cannot stand to wade in mud, smell livestock and fertilizer, or inhale pollen, perhaps you should not buy an acreage downhill or downwind of a farm. But, if that property is emitting any unnatural (as in GMO) pollen, toxic chemical run-off or drift, anyone receiving that emission should be due reparations, and the government has no business shielding the perpetrators of such pollution from their legal liability.

But our current ‘unconstitutional’ laws do shield biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and agrichemical companies and the professionals who use their products according to the labels from their just liability, and our un-justice system has allowed these laws to stand.

Now, I have wonderful neighbors who are systematically converting their land over to organic production, tho’ I wish they would convert their fields adjoining me first, as the Law permits them to overspray chemicals onto my organic land, as long as they are following the label, and forces me to lose money on a thirty foot strip between my organic production and their chemical production.

I have a small farm and cannot afford to lose one foot of production, let alone thirty.

If both fields were organic, I would not be forced to leave that thirty foot strip.

I am not the one spraying toxic synthetic chemicals around, so why am I being forced to suffer a loss for the actions of another person? Where is my government’s protection of my ‘equal rights’? Why does Monsanto have more ‘right’ to sell a toxic chemical than I have to live free of it. And, why can’t I get legal redress for such an obvious injustice without even more loss of my hard-earned money?

Those who use chemicals, or GMO crops, should have to keep them on their own property, or leave an adequate strip without these on their side of the fence.

Those who wish to build new livestock production facilities of unnatural animal densities should merely be forced to build biogas generators, or other sealed manure treatment, to abate the associated volatile gas and leach-able chemical production problems.

Those who wish to build nuclear power plants should be free to do so, as long as they can find liability insurance to cover all the risks that the reactor, the radioactive waste and the half-life storage of that waste present, without taxpayer money (by the way, even the Government could not afford to build them, if they were exposed to that liability).

Nobody has a right to pollute the environment we all depend upon to sustain life.

Our Courts should do the job the Constitution charges them with and strike down such obviously unconstitutional infringements upon the rights of Citizens before they even take effect, instead of waiting for somebody with sufficient money to contest them.

If justice must be purchased, it is only available to the rich, then, it is not justice!