Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote
> Mike1 <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I don't know about "research", but I do know that a man named James
> > J. Hill built a transcontinental railroad across thousands of miles
> > of NOTHING (without a wooden nickel of tax-funding) with *precisely*
> > that in mind, and his Great Northern became so wildly successful
> > that his competitors ran bawling to Congress to shut him down.
>
> Actually, James J. Hill built his railroad across the sovereign lands
> of more than four dozen distinct tribal groups without regard to
> property rights or ethics. But, as is usually the case in these
> discussions, the owners of the property didn't count (and still don't
> because they aren't white and mostly can't afford to buy Congressmen
> for themselves).

And you forget that all (repeat: all) railroads, including the predecessor
of the Great Northern (Minnesota & Pacific) benefited from being
able to raise money by mortgaging/selling the checkerboard lands they
were granted by the state/feds. Granted that Hill was not given as
much as, say, the Northern Pacific, the fact remains that all the
x-country rr's were built all or in part with govt subsidies.

Floyd
 
Actually, technically, the RRs were not given alternate sections of land for
building the RRs, they were given the land for providing RR service. When
the routes and services were drastically cut the RRs were taken to court (in
the middle 70s, as I recall) to force them to give back the land they still
owned because they were not providing the service. You can imagine the
phalanxes of lawyers musterred to quash that suit!
--
Steve Juniper
"... patriotism has run the world through so many blood lakes:
and we always fall in."
-- Robinson Jeffers

"fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote
> Mike1 <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I don't know about "research", but I do know that a man named James
> > J. Hill built a transcontinental railroad across thousands of miles
> > of NOTHING (without a wooden nickel of tax-funding) with *precisely*
> > that in mind, and his Great Northern became so wildly successful
> > that his competitors ran bawling to Congress to shut him down.
>
> Actually, James J. Hill built his railroad across the sovereign lands
> of more than four dozen distinct tribal groups without regard to
> property rights or ethics. But, as is usually the case in these
> discussions, the owners of the property didn't count (and still don't
> because they aren't white and mostly can't afford to buy Congressmen
> for themselves).

And you forget that all (repeat: all) railroads, including the predecessor
of the Great Northern (Minnesota & Pacific) benefited from being
able to raise money by mortgaging/selling the checkerboard lands they
were granted by the state/feds. Granted that Hill was not given as
much as, say, the Northern Pacific, the fact remains that all the
x-country rr's were built all or in part with govt subsidies.

Floyd
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike1 <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The first rule of social behavior is "Don't steal other people's
> > stuff." When a government wades in and begins ripping off property,
> > "social behavior" is relegated to the peripheral actions of
> > individuals trading off-the-books.
>
> Tell that to Native Americans.

Roaming around a bunch of land does not constitute ownership of it.

> I presume that you are again talking about taxation, and again making
> the inaccurate equation "taxation = stealing" that right wing nutjobs
> so love to do. You're wrong, simple as that, but you'll never be
> convinced of it.

You're right. It's not stealing. It's extortion.


Shayne Wissler
 
> >Nice way to put it. If capitalism can't take care of it, then it's
> >time to look for other solutions.
>
> Capitalism let old people starve. That's why we now have Social Security.
> Capitalism's failures gave us public schools, public universities, a
> government-run military, interstate highways, etc.

Yet it's creating environmetal havoc left and right and up and down,
wars over resources that threaten our very survival, the highest penal
population in the world, parks that are occupied by the homeless,
unsafe roads where the big rule, junk food that's making our kids
addicts to something worst than cigarettes, endless commercial TV and
radio shows that offend our intelligence, lack of universal
healthcare, unsafe streets, and a few other social ills. Other than
that, capitalism is OK... ;(
 
"Mike1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project-C266CC.03231928072004@news.usfamily.net...

> The idiots! They should be riding mules.

That is what I thought I should be doing once. After five days on the
river going through the Grand Canyon, we were hauled out with a string of
horses and mules.

The people were on the horses, but at least my horse kept running into the
one in front and actually walked a little off the trail on a very steep wall
on the little used side of the canyon, The mules carried the supplies.

I wanted a mule so bad because I thought they would be a lot safer than a
horse several thousand feet up on a path only few feet wide.
 
"Shayne Wissler" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mike1 <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > The first rule of social behavior is "Don't steal other people's
>> > stuff." When a government wades in and begins ripping off
>> > property, "social behavior" is relegated to the peripheral
>> > actions of individuals trading off-the-books.
>>
>> Tell that to Native Americans.
>
> Roaming around a bunch of land does not constitute ownership of it.

And what exactly does constitute ownership? Native Americans were
"roaming around" as you put it for thousands of years before Europeans
came to these shores. They built cities, the cultivated, the hunted.
Indeed, 500 years ago Native Americans had the second or third largest
city in the world.

Your claim is one of the usual arguments put forth to justify the
stripping of ownership from Native Americans. It's racist ********.
Planting a flag on a continent and declaring ownership is no better a
claim- indeed, a much weaker claim to ownership- than living on it for
hundreds of generations. But that's basically what Europeans did.

And a little over 500 years later, we're still trying to weasel out of
the deals we made. But indeed, the Bush Administration is only the
latest incarnation of an American government that doesn't live up to
its promises. Bush has proven more faithless than most, however, and
it's one more reason for his ass to be thrown out of office come
November.

>> I presume that you are again talking about taxation, and again
>> making the inaccurate equation "taxation = stealing" that right
>> wing nutjobs so love to do. You're wrong, simple as that, but
>> you'll never be convinced of it.
>
> You're right. It's not stealing. It's extortion.

More malarkey. This isn't even up to your usual low standards.
 
"fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Mike1 <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > I don't know about "research", but I do know that a man named
>> > James J. Hill built a transcontinental railroad across thousands
>> > of miles of NOTHING (without a wooden nickel of tax-funding) with
>> > *precisely* that in mind, and his Great Northern became so wildly
>> > successful that his competitors ran bawling to Congress to shut
>> > him down.
>>
>> Actually, James J. Hill built his railroad across the sovereign
>> lands of more than four dozen distinct tribal groups without regard
>> to property rights or ethics. But, as is usually the case in these
>> discussions, the owners of the property didn't count (and still
>> don't because they aren't white and mostly can't afford to buy
>> Congressmen for themselves).
>
> And you forget that all (repeat: all) railroads, including the
> predecessor of the Great Northern (Minnesota & Pacific) benefited
> from being able to raise money by mortgaging/selling the
> checkerboard lands they were granted by the state/feds. Granted
> that Hill was not given as much as, say, the Northern Pacific, the
> fact remains that all the x-country rr's were built all or in part
> with govt subsidies.

That was not forgotten.
 
STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION

Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?

Hey, Americanus Raptor, would you please move over? ;)

Transportation Alternatives

There are a number of beneficial forms of transportation that make our
lives easier, reduce congestion, reduce our dependence on cars &
foreign oil, are safer & less costly, and help save the planet:

1. TRAINS - Futuristic High-Speed trains like the Eurostar (pictured
above), the French TGV (right), & the Bullet train; Regional trains;
Monorails; Light rail; Trolleys; & Peoplemovers. Clean electric trains
are a major form of daily transportation all across Europe, and are
the single most powerful transportation choice that can solve serious
mobility, environmental, economic, health, and social problems on a
global scale.

2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
wide use.

3. SCOOTERS - Electric and push types are heavily used in urban areas
as daily transportation.

4. ROLLERBLADES - Used in urban areas by many as daily transportation.

5. WALKING - An often forgotten way to get around because so many
places have been made hostle to pedestrians. Still the preferred
choice in dense urban areas.

(see pictures and details of beautiful bullet trains)

http://www.newurbanism.org/pages/416432/index.htm
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Roaming around a bunch of land does not constitute ownership of it.
>
> And what exactly does constitute ownership? Native Americans were
> "roaming around" as you put it for thousands of years before Europeans
> came to these shores. They built cities, the cultivated, the hunted.
> Indeed, 500 years ago Native Americans had the second or third largest
> city in the world.

"Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern Americans" can.
It's individuals that own not collectives. I own my house and the land it's
built on, not you and your mob.

And an individual walking across a given area of land, or putting up a tent
(or teepee), admiring the pristine view, or shooting some things with arrows
doesn't give him ownership of that land either. The land is yours only if
you mix your labor with the land creating something that helps to sustain
your individual life, such as building a house and raising crops.

> Your claim is one of the usual arguments put forth to justify the
> stripping of ownership from Native Americans. It's racist ********.

I'm not a racist, but you are definitely a collectivist, which is
practically the same thing.

I don't care about what color a person is, but if all he's doing is
wandering around shooting things that doesn't give him ownership of all the
land he's wandering around on. Nor does he have special rights just because
there are 10,000 other people that happen to be his same color doing the
same thing.

> Planting a flag on a continent and declaring ownership is no better a
> claim- indeed, a much weaker claim to ownership- than living on it for
> hundreds of generations. But that's basically what Europeans did.

I wouldn't defend every action they undertook, but if you look at history
you'll find real justification for most of what they did. To the extent that
they came, built settlements on uninhabited areas (and a wandering Indian
doesn't constitute habitation), and defended those settlements against
attacks they were doing everything right. To the extent that they made
pre-emptive attacks on known aggressors they were doing things right. It's
the fact that we've forgotten how to protect ourselves that things like 9/11
happened.

> >> I presume that you are again talking about taxation, and again
> >> making the inaccurate equation "taxation = stealing" that right
> >> wing nutjobs so love to do. You're wrong, simple as that, but
> >> you'll never be convinced of it.
> >
> > You're right. It's not stealing. It's extortion.
>
> More malarkey. This isn't even up to your usual low standards.

You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent collectivist.


Shayne Wissler
 
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:38:10 +0000, Shayne Wissler wrote:


> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> > Roaming around a bunch of land does not constitute ownership of it.
>>
>> And what exactly does constitute ownership? Native Americans were
>> "roaming around" as you put it for thousands of years before Europeans
>> came to these shores. They built cities, the cultivated, the hunted.
>> Indeed, 500 years ago Native Americans had the second or third largest
>> city in the world.
>
> "Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern Americans"
> can. It's individuals that own not collectives. I own my house and the
> land it's built on, not you and your mob.
>
> And an individual walking across a given area of land, or putting up a
> tent (or teepee), admiring the pristine view, or shooting some things
> with arrows doesn't give him ownership of that land either. The land is
> yours only if you mix your labor with the land creating something that
> helps to sustain your individual life, such as building a house and
> raising crops.
>
<snip>

More "might makes right" nonsense. Most Iraqis aren't busy raising crops.
So we are justified in taking their land, right?


--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ **** Cheney
 
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:38:10 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> > Roaming around a bunch of land does not constitute ownership of it.
>>
>> And what exactly does constitute ownership? Native Americans were
>> "roaming around" as you put it for thousands of years before Europeans
>> came to these shores. They built cities, the cultivated, the hunted.
>> Indeed, 500 years ago Native Americans had the second or third largest
>> city in the world.
>
>"Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern Americans" can.
>It's individuals that own not collectives. I own my house and the land it's
>built on, not you and your mob.

Yet it's the laws of this mob that allow the concept of ownership.

>And an individual walking across a given area of land, or putting up a tent
>(or teepee), admiring the pristine view, or shooting some things with arrows
>doesn't give him ownership of that land either. The land is yours only if
>you mix your labor with the land creating something that helps to sustain
>your individual life, such as building a house and raising crops.

An interesting approach. Say for example you buy a hundred acres or
so, 50 of which were forested and not under development. Would you
have a problem with me knocking down some trees, setting up a house
and some fields on 10 of those acres and claiming ownership? By your
own definition you don't own them.

>> Your claim is one of the usual arguments put forth to justify the
>> stripping of ownership from Native Americans. It's racist ********.
>
>I'm not a racist, but you are definitely a collectivist, which is
>practically the same thing.
>
>I don't care about what color a person is, but if all he's doing is
>wandering around shooting things that doesn't give him ownership of all the
>land he's wandering around on. Nor does he have special rights just because
>there are 10,000 other people that happen to be his same color doing the
>same thing.

The nobility of Europe wouldn't agree with you at all. Hunting
preserves were quite common and were most definitely owned by the
local noble, despite the fact that they weren't lived in or
cultivated.

>> Planting a flag on a continent and declaring ownership is no better a
>> claim- indeed, a much weaker claim to ownership- than living on it for
>> hundreds of generations. But that's basically what Europeans did.
>
>I wouldn't defend every action they undertook, but if you look at history
>you'll find real justification for most of what they did. To the extent that
>they came, built settlements on uninhabited areas (and a wandering Indian
>doesn't constitute habitation), and defended those settlements against
>attacks they were doing everything right. To the extent that they made
>pre-emptive attacks on known aggressors they were doing things right. It's
>the fact that we've forgotten how to protect ourselves that things like 9/11
>happened.

According to this, you'd have no problem with me attacking you for
wanting me off the property that I built my house on in the above
example.

>> >> I presume that you are again talking about taxation, and again
>> >> making the inaccurate equation "taxation = stealing" that right
>> >> wing nutjobs so love to do. You're wrong, simple as that, but
>> >> you'll never be convinced of it.
>> >
>> > You're right. It's not stealing. It's extortion.
>>
>> More malarkey. This isn't even up to your usual low standards.
>
>You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent collectivist.

Without taxes we have no enforcement of laws beyond might makes right.
Are you comfortable with this?
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking
Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4016
 
"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 1. TRAINS - Futuristic High-Speed trains like the Eurostar (pictured
> above), the French TGV (right), & the Bullet train; Regional trains;
> Monorails; Light rail; Trolleys; & Peoplemovers. Clean electric trains
> are a major form of daily transportation all across Europe, and are
> the single most powerful transportation choice that can solve serious
> mobility, environmental, economic, health, and social problems on a
> global scale.

I checked with Amtrak to see how long it would take to
get from Kansas City to Miami and it would take 3 days.

They would route me through Chicago or Washington D.C.
It is ridiculous to even consider doing this.
 
"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >"Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern Americans"
can.
> >It's individuals that own not collectives. I own my house and the land
it's
> >built on, not you and your mob.
>
> Yet it's the laws of this mob that allow the concept of ownership.

The mob can either respect or trample my rights. That doesn't mean it
creates or owns them. Just because a mob can declare someone a witch and
burn them doesn't mean it has a moral right to do so.

> >And an individual walking across a given area of land, or putting up a
tent
> >(or teepee), admiring the pristine view, or shooting some things with
arrows
> >doesn't give him ownership of that land either. The land is yours only if
> >you mix your labor with the land creating something that helps to sustain
> >your individual life, such as building a house and raising crops.
>
> An interesting approach. Say for example you buy a hundred acres or
> so, 50 of which were forested and not under development. Would you
> have a problem with me knocking down some trees, setting up a house
> and some fields on 10 of those acres and claiming ownership? By your
> own definition you don't own them.

Your question is confused. If I didn't own them then neither did the person
I bought them from, so why did I pay him for them in the first place?

> >I don't care about what color a person is, but if all he's doing is
> >wandering around shooting things that doesn't give him ownership of all
the
> >land he's wandering around on. Nor does he have special rights just
because
> >there are 10,000 other people that happen to be his same color doing the
> >same thing.
>
> The nobility of Europe wouldn't agree with you at all. Hunting
> preserves were quite common and were most definitely owned by the
> local noble, despite the fact that they weren't lived in or
> cultivated.

So?

> >I wouldn't defend every action they undertook, but if you look at history
> >you'll find real justification for most of what they did. To the extent
that
> >they came, built settlements on uninhabited areas (and a wandering Indian
> >doesn't constitute habitation), and defended those settlements against
> >attacks they were doing everything right. To the extent that they made
> >pre-emptive attacks on known aggressors they were doing things right.
It's
> >the fact that we've forgotten how to protect ourselves that things like
9/11
> >happened.
>
> According to this, you'd have no problem with me attacking you for
> wanting me off the property that I built my house on in the above
> example.

Well, no, but there's no accounting for the bizzare way in which some people
make inferences.

> >> >> I presume that you are again talking about taxation, and again
> >> >> making the inaccurate equation "taxation = stealing" that right
> >> >> wing nutjobs so love to do. You're wrong, simple as that, but
> >> >> you'll never be convinced of it.
> >> >
> >> > You're right. It's not stealing. It's extortion.
> >>
> >> More malarkey. This isn't even up to your usual low standards.
> >
> >You only fail to grasp this because you are an intransigent collectivist.
>
> Without taxes we have no enforcement of laws beyond might makes right.
> Are you comfortable with this?

Are you comfortable with the fact that you make wildly illogical leaps based
on nothing except your own lack of imagination?


Shayne Wissler
 
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:14:01 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> >"Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern Americans" can.
>> >It's individuals that own not collectives. I own my house and the land it's
>> >built on, not you and your mob.
>>
>> Yet it's the laws of this mob that allow the concept of ownership.
>
>The mob can either respect or trample my rights. That doesn't mean it
>creates or owns them. Just because a mob can declare someone a witch and
>burn them doesn't mean it has a moral right to do so.

True enough, yet it's the laws of the society, of which the mob is a
large part, that define ownership.

>> An interesting approach. Say for example you buy a hundred acres or
>> so, 50 of which were forested and not under development. Would you
>> have a problem with me knocking down some trees, setting up a house
>> and some fields on 10 of those acres and claiming ownership? By your
>> own definition you don't own them.
>
>Your question is confused. If I didn't own them then neither did the person
>I bought them from, so why did I pay him for them in the first place?

According to today's laws, I can own land that I don't develop.
According to your definition of ownership, if it isn't developed it
isn't owned.

>> >I don't care about what color a person is, but if all he's doing is
>> >wandering around shooting things that doesn't give him ownership of all the
>> >land he's wandering around on. Nor does he have special rights just because
>> >there are 10,000 other people that happen to be his same color doing the
>> >same thing.
>>
>> The nobility of Europe wouldn't agree with you at all. Hunting
>> preserves were quite common and were most definitely owned by the
>> local noble, despite the fact that they weren't lived in or
>> cultivated.
>
>So?

So this concept of ownership of land despite it not being developed is
hardly new. It also comes from the culture that the Europeans came
from so it wasn't new to them either.

>> >I wouldn't defend every action they undertook, but if you look at history
>> >you'll find real justification for most of what they did. To the extent that
>> >they came, built settlements on uninhabited areas (and a wandering Indian
>> >doesn't constitute habitation), and defended those settlements against
>> >attacks they were doing everything right. To the extent that they made
>> >pre-emptive attacks on known aggressors they were doing things right. It's
>> >the fact that we've forgotten how to protect ourselves that things like 9/11
>> >happened.
>>
>> According to this, you'd have no problem with me attacking you for
>> wanting me off the property that I built my house on in the above
>> example.
>
>Well, no, but there's no accounting for the bizzare way in which some people
>make inferences.

It's just that your concept of ownership is so far out of whack with
anything that I've ever come across before.

>> Without taxes we have no enforcement of laws beyond might makes right.
>> Are you comfortable with this?
>
>Are you comfortable with the fact that you make wildly illogical leaps based
>on nothing except your own lack of imagination?

There are no leaps. Everything is based on the information and ideas
that you are presenting. If taxes are extortion, it's clear you don't
think they should be paid. Without taxes, there is no law enforcement
beyond the thugs you can hire to enforce your desires. Which is great
until you run across someone with more or better armed thugs than you.
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking
Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4016
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Brandon Sommerville <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are no leaps. Everything is based on the information and ideas
> that you are presenting. If taxes are extortion, it's clear you don't
> think they should be paid.

it's not about whether they should be paid, but the context of how the money
is collected. i receive benefits from my taxes that i certainly believe are
worth it and would be willing to pay for willingly but the fact that i goto
jail if i refuse to pay makes it extortion. the moral aspect of the
question revolves about how payment is extracted not around what the money
is used for -- which may very well be moral, and in fact desirable. in
larger terms is an ethical, desirable result steming from an unethical
action ok?

> Without taxes, there is no law enforcement
> beyond the thugs you can hire to enforce your desires. Which is great
> until you run across someone with more or better armed thugs than you.

no one said to do away with law enforcement. the statement was about
income taxes. there are other ways to fund law enforcement.

& for the record -- on land owership -- i believe it was stolen from the
native americans.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>STUPID TRANSPORTATION vs. SMART TRANSPORTATION
>
>Some just got and grab more oil to keep the gas-guzzling SUVs alive,
>others provide CHOICES. What would you rather have?

I've got choices. I choose my gasoline-powered vehicles.

>Transportation Alternatives
>
>There are a number of beneficial forms of transportation that make our
>lives easier, reduce congestion, reduce our dependence on cars &
>foreign oil, are safer & less costly, and help save the planet:
>
>1. TRAINS - Futuristic High-Speed trains like the Eurostar (pictured
>above), the French TGV (right), & the Bullet train; Regional trains;
>Monorails; Light rail; Trolleys; & Peoplemovers. Clean electric trains
>are a major form of daily transportation all across Europe, and are
>the single most powerful transportation choice that can solve serious
>mobility, environmental, economic, health, and social problems on a
>global scale.

High speed trains cost a fortune to build and maintain. Even with
heavy state subsidies, they cost a fortune to ride on. And their
fixed routing makes them extremely inflexible. Regional trains, same
thing except they are more economical to ride; their infrequent
operation and schedules, not to mention routing make them far less
convenient than the automobile. Light rail and trolleys are transport
with all the disadvantages of both buses and trains, except for the
diesel stink. Trains solve nothing.

>2. BICYCLES - A major form of daily transportation in many countries.
>Towns and cities have to be made bicycle-friendly to encourage their
>wide use.

Great if you don't mind sweating in the summer, freezing in the
winter, not to mention getting soaked in the rain. And your commute
will likely take a lot longer, and forget about carrying anything
significant.

>3. SCOOTERS - Electric and push types are heavily used in urban areas
>as daily transportation.

*snicker*

>4. ROLLERBLADES - Used in urban areas by many as daily transportation.

All the disadvantages of bicycles, plus slower and more dangerous.
Not to mention illegal in many cities. At least you don't have to
worry much about where to put them. And I say this as an inline
skater myself.

>5. WALKING - An often forgotten way to get around because so many
>places have been made hostle to pedestrians. Still the preferred
>choice in dense urban areas.

Great, if you ain't going far. Like from your car to the door.
 
"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:14:01 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> >"Native Americans" can't own property any more than "modern Americans"
can.
> >> >It's individuals that own not collectives. I own my house and the land
it's
> >> >built on, not you and your mob.
> >>
> >> Yet it's the laws of this mob that allow the concept of ownership.
> >
> >The mob can either respect or trample my rights. That doesn't mean it
> >creates or owns them. Just because a mob can declare someone a witch and
> >burn them doesn't mean it has a moral right to do so.
>
> True enough, yet it's the laws of the society, of which the mob is a
> large part, that define ownership.

Rational men define ownership by reference to natural law, which includes a
man's right to pursuit of his own life. This is how property rights are
derived and defined: in reference to the individual's needs for furthering
his own life.

> >> An interesting approach. Say for example you buy a hundred acres or
> >> so, 50 of which were forested and not under development. Would you
> >> have a problem with me knocking down some trees, setting up a house
> >> and some fields on 10 of those acres and claiming ownership? By your
> >> own definition you don't own them.
> >
> >Your question is confused. If I didn't own them then neither did the
person
> >I bought them from, so why did I pay him for them in the first place?
>
> According to today's laws, I can own land that I don't develop.
> According to your definition of ownership, if it isn't developed it
> isn't owned.

Well, I'm not talking about "today's laws".

> >> The nobility of Europe wouldn't agree with you at all. Hunting
> >> preserves were quite common and were most definitely owned by the
> >> local noble, despite the fact that they weren't lived in or
> >> cultivated.
> >
> >So?
>
> So this concept of ownership of land despite it not being developed is
> hardly new. It also comes from the culture that the Europeans came
> from so it wasn't new to them either.

I still don't see why you're talking about it. Perhaps you're under the
mistaken impression that I'm advocating European laws?

> >> >I wouldn't defend every action they undertook, but if you look at
history
> >> >you'll find real justification for most of what they did. To the
extent that
> >> >they came, built settlements on uninhabited areas (and a wandering
Indian
> >> >doesn't constitute habitation), and defended those settlements against
> >> >attacks they were doing everything right. To the extent that they made
> >> >pre-emptive attacks on known aggressors they were doing things right.
It's
> >> >the fact that we've forgotten how to protect ourselves that things
like 9/11
> >> >happened.
> >>
> >> According to this, you'd have no problem with me attacking you for
> >> wanting me off the property that I built my house on in the above
> >> example.
> >
> >Well, no, but there's no accounting for the bizzare way in which some
people
> >make inferences.
>
> It's just that your concept of ownership is so far out of whack with
> anything that I've ever come across before.

I'd be happy to answer questions about it if you can restrain yourself from
putting words in my mouth or drawing my conclusions for me. But basically:
each of us has a right to life, which means a right to pursue and sustain
that life, which implies a right to the products of our own efforts to
sustain it, such as the particular area of land we maintain in order to
live. It also means that you don't own land just because you looked at it,
sat on a rock, or picked a berry. (On the other hand, if you're camping out
on land no one owns, no one else has the right to kick you off of it).

> >> Without taxes we have no enforcement of laws beyond might makes right.
> >> Are you comfortable with this?
> >
> >Are you comfortable with the fact that you make wildly illogical leaps
based
> >on nothing except your own lack of imagination?
>
> There are no leaps. Everything is based on the information and ideas
> that you are presenting. If taxes are extortion, it's clear you don't
> think they should be paid.

No. You merely lack the imagination to think of alternative forms of
taxation. Which by itself isn't a problem, it's only a problem that you feel
certain that there are no alternatives. It's a common mental disease: to
dogmatically limit the one's conception of the world to one's own miniscule
imagination. I'm not sure whether it's curable.


Shayne Wissler
 
DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> you want people to pay for
> their own parks too?

Um, we *do.*



John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
 
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:57:10 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> True enough, yet it's the laws of the society, of which the mob is a
>> large part, that define ownership.
>
>Rational men define ownership by reference to natural law, which includes a
>man's right to pursuit of his own life. This is how property rights are
>derived and defined: in reference to the individual's needs for furthering
>his own life.

And the natives hunted through the forests, thus requiring the forests
to further their own lives.

>> According to today's laws, I can own land that I don't develop.
>> According to your definition of ownership, if it isn't developed it
>> isn't owned.
>
>Well, I'm not talking about "today's laws".

So do you or do you not feel that a person can own land that is not
under immediate use for the "furthering of his own life"?

>> So this concept of ownership of land despite it not being developed is
>> hardly new. It also comes from the culture that the Europeans came
>> from so it wasn't new to them either.
>
>I still don't see why you're talking about it. Perhaps you're under the
>mistaken impression that I'm advocating European laws?

What laws are you advocating? It appears to be "might makes right",
or "possession is nine tenths of the law". If I'm wrong, then please
feel free to correct me.

>> It's just that your concept of ownership is so far out of whack with
>> anything that I've ever come across before.
>
>I'd be happy to answer questions about it if you can restrain yourself from
>putting words in my mouth or drawing my conclusions for me. But basically:
>each of us has a right to life, which means a right to pursue and sustain
>that life, which implies a right to the products of our own efforts to
>sustain it, such as the particular area of land we maintain in order to
>live.

Okay, suppose you have an area that you deem to be yours. I leave my
area because there's no room for me there anymore due to increasing
population pressure and set up shop in yours. Is this a problem for
you?

>It also means that you don't own land just because you looked at it,
>sat on a rock, or picked a berry. (On the other hand, if you're camping out
>on land no one owns, no one else has the right to kick you off of it).

If people have hunted through woods (hunting for survival, not
pleasure) for generations, they are using that land. The fact that
they haven't parceled it up and built on it doesn't mean that the land
doesn't play a significant part in their survival.

>> There are no leaps. Everything is based on the information and ideas
>> that you are presenting. If taxes are extortion, it's clear you don't
>> think they should be paid.
>
>No. You merely lack the imagination to think of alternative forms of
>taxation. Which by itself isn't a problem, it's only a problem that you feel
>certain that there are no alternatives. It's a common mental disease: to
>dogmatically limit the one's conception of the world to one's own miniscule
>imagination. I'm not sure whether it's curable.

Taxation of some sort must exist, other wise we end up with anarchy.
What other means of taxation do you suggest?
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking
Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks
http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4016
 
"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[...]

> What laws are you advocating? It appears to be "might makes right",
> or "possession is nine tenths of the law". If I'm wrong, then please
> feel free to correct me.

He's advocating a lobotomized version of the long discredited "terra
nullius" argument.

[...]

>> No. You merely lack the imagination to think of alternative forms of
>> taxation. Which by itself isn't a problem, it's only a problem that
>> you feel certain that there are no alternatives. It's a common
>> mental disease: to dogmatically limit the one's conception of the
>> world to one's own miniscule imagination. I'm not sure whether it's
>> curable.
>
> Taxation of some sort must exist, other wise we end up with anarchy.
> What other means of taxation do you suggest?

He isn't. All taxation schemes ultimately rely upon the threat of state
sanction, otherwise people could simply choose not to pay. Don't get stuck
in this rathole with him. He's only going to play semantic games whilst
avoiding this fundamental truth.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back