but your argument doesn't specify a value. If your argument is valid, it ought to work for any activity. It doesn't, so it's not valid.
This is a strawman response and this argument has nothing to do with a formula or that formulas need to work across the board.. Perhaps you can take murder and plug it into your formula and make it immoral across the board. (If you do, I predict shortly this thread will need to be moved to the gloves are off section")
no disrespect, but I think it is you who are missing the point..
My argument works just fine, you simply don't like the fact that our country allows people to own private property and restrict the activities that are done on that property.
Furthermore, my argument does work for any activity and I even gave you an example so you could better understand it. The owners of Culebra restrict and charge a fee for ALL activities on their property; therefore they are not discriminating against anyone or any specific activity. Even if they were, they still have the right to do so.
Perhaps you would better understand this "right" if you had forked over your own hard earned money to buy a piece of property and someone demands to have access to it simply because it has something to do with their hobby..
First, did you not get the point that I actually support property rights as asserted in this case?
Yeah, I kind of wish we had rambling rights in this country, but not having them doesn't bother me all that much. What bothers me is your logic that seems to me to say that a right is good and proper simply because the U.S. government supports that right. That's obviously wrong.
The fact that murder is wrong does not derive from the fact that the U.S. government says it is. My argument was not a strawman because I wasn't trying to disprove your conclusion, but only to criticize the way you arrived at it. Using your logic, you can arrive at not only reasonable conclusions (the ranch should be able to regulate and charge visitors), but also unreasonable ones (segregation was okay).
I didn't supply the formula -- you did. You said:
Why should they have this right? Because the law- as set forth by the state of Colorado and the United States of America gives them that right. Which I think is compelling enough for anyone.
That's a formula. I disagree with it. It's also circular logic: they should have the right because they do have the right.
Sorry. I really get chafed by what I see as faulty arguments, even (especially) when I agree with the point being argued.