Paul Worsley’s letter (Home- owners rights are endangered, Sept. 25) illustrates a serious political problem – convenient definitions of rights.
In Worsley’s case, he claims a right to control others’ property at no cost to himself.
But he does not justify that right on moral grounds – he only uses his desire to keep other people out and makes a vague collectivist pitch.
Given that humans must produce to live, property is the result of the owner’s earning and saving, and taking it is theft, I don’t see how Worsley can make a moral case.
Keith Sketchley
Saanich