Not PC asks whether the proponents of the RMA will "be just as happy with the RMA when also closes down proposals for electricity generation by wind turbine?"NRT answers 'yes' to this question, because he says,
Opposition to the RMA is generally founded on a denial of existing rights - or rather, as it tends to be linked to the idea of dealing with all problems via the courts, a denial of rights to those that cannot afford lawyers (rich NIMBYs, however, get to keep right on going). This is yet another example of the difference between their stunted version of freedom and that promoted by the left. Mechanisms to protect rights must be available to all, regardless of means. We do this to protect other rights - we provide police and public prosecutors to ensure that justice for crimes against persons is available to all, not just those able to afford it - and the same principle applies here.
Let me just say quickly that NRT has misunderstood the nature of my objections to the RMA. It is far from "a denial of rights to those that cannot afford lawyers." Very far from it.
I agree that inexpensive access to justice is a basic need -- 'justice not afforded is justice denied' you might say -- and the record of the common law is excellent on this score. Not so the RMA however; as litigants in RMA fixtures can attest RMA legal expenses are far from cheap, and getting that fixture can take some time, and the result full of uncertainty. I'll say more later on today on NRT's comments and those of his readers, but in the meantime let me point you to my answers to some recently voiced objections to the common law protection of rights here on NRT's blog, and here on my own, and here is some more detailed arguments with links here.
Rest assured that I will answer the objections raised at NRT's blog either later this afternoon or evening. Feel free to ask more questions (or answers) here as well.