Gents:With a few exceptions (war, for example), I’ve never been excited about destroying things just to keep someone else from using them. Our society at large produces goods – airplanes, MP3 players, refrigerators, batteries, what have you – using raw materials and labor. These goods are more valuable to society than the raw materials they came from. Destroying a battery not only reduces its value to all of us; it may even turn it into a liability. No one (including Lanse) benefits. The owner of a battery has the legal right to destroy it, but the moral obligation to make a reasonable effort to preserve it. Aren’t we supposed to be responsible stewards of the items God gives to us? Maybe Lanse feels justified because he thinks the “battery guy” is involved in some sort of unethical activity. The respondents seem to disagree, and I must say I’m with the majority on this one. That brings up a tough question, though: Is it all right for producers to pour milk down the drain (or kill livestock) to shore up prices, but not all right for Lanse to destroy his own battery? Does the motivation justify the action (trying to make money on one hand, vs. trying to keep someone else from making money on the other hand)? Oops! Sorry about the religious/political subject “drift”. It’s supposed to be a tractor page. So - How ‘bout them Farmalls? :-) Mark W. in MI
| 
