No.
some government lands are even more private
-Imp
Why is it so important to you?
I’d say “yes”. Otherwise how would national boarders exist? Wouldn’t it just be a patchwork of people owning stuff?
I hope you are asking a moral / ethical question as opposed to an arbitrary legal question.
No because the government is not an individual.
What we call “government” is simply a metaphysical concept to describe the actions of a group of people.
To illustrate, if the tax-man and the garbage collector and the park ranger and the police officers and the soldiers all went on strike, there would be no practical government.
No because some of that land was stolen.
The action of theft negates legitimate ownership.
In the US, the government owns land. Like National Parks, for instance. The government also holds a limited right to all land in the country, if not the land itself. Think “imminent domain”.
Shit, not this again.
Think, if a robber steals Faustus’ land, the robber now owns Faustus’ land. How easy!
Legitimate or not every land now owned has been stolen.
Sammy - I’m not making a judgement about the legitimacy of imminent domain laws, I am only describing them.
I think you’ve got some anger issues.
I thought that US national parks are now under UN ‘environementalist’ jurisdiction…?
This:
is a splendid example of what happens when people muddy the waters of legitimate claims to ownership by simply “describing them” in their own clear words.
No, you are not describing anything. You are just switching words around and hiding the true nature of the claims to ownership.
Thanks, Doc!
Not necessarily but let us assume you are correct in describing every single patch of land on the globe as having been once stolen. In other words, the current claims are that of stolen property.
Moving forward, we must accept that the vast majority of legitimate owners – we can call them the victims of theft – have abandoned their claims because they are long dead. Unless the rightful heirs reclaim their ancestral land, the current holders of the land are as good as having homesteaded the land.
Land is ‘legitimately’ owned according to the rules of a government, moral system, gut feeling, boxing match… take your pick.
Some heir tries to claim my land, that heir will join their ancestor penniless. You snooze you lose, move your feet lose your seat, finders keepers, imminent domain. I stole nothing I don’t give a rats butt, if someone stole this place before me, the Gov’t says its mine therefore it is mine by rights title and deed and payment. Too darn bad for the heir. I am sure somewhere down the line someone stole land from my ancestors, so what it belongs to someone else now. big frigging deal. If you can’t hold it you lose it. This world is not made for coddling and pacifists. Although many do try to change that. what happened before me and what others have done, I am not responsible for. I hold no guilt for what my ancestors have done or others have done. I am only responsible for me.
Tortoise, all Governments are that way from cities on up, every country, every nation, every empire, every kingdom.
So , you learn to deal with it, don’t let it stop you, depress you or make you hateful. You live and prosper in defiance of that crap. Don’t let them make you quit.Remember the best flowers used manure.
Well thats good to hear. As long as the people keep trying and fighting for better ways Gov’ts will be forced to try and improve. Power will sacrifice power, to keep power.
SIATD - I don’t know where you got that one from. Are you serious?
Sammy - my assumption was that every reader understood “imminent domain” or could reach Google if they cared to. I was responding to Tortoise - as is often the case, I didn’t even read your prior post. I honestly don’t know why I read any of them.
Must be that boyish charm of yours.
Tortoise-
In this post I drop your original question of property (“surface rights” is what citizens have, so I’ve heard), because I think I see the real bone you want to pick. I think your ethical fears go like this . . .
*The surface of powerful culture advertises itself as an empathetic search for justice.
*Powerful culture is founded on blatant rejection of ethics (justice) for conquering a domain toward a dynasty or group of some sort- then enforcing its conquest through violence (getting petty joys like rape and senseless torture along the way) and coercing its people through subtle compromise.
I accept these two facts to be true. I also accept these two facts to be true.
*Human beings are conquerers to the bone. Trying to change this is like trying to convert a fish into a banana. It could perhaps eventually be done, but aren’t you better off just forgetting the fish and making a banana?
*Human beings are useful for specific purposes for a time. They can produce more intelligent life which can populate extraterrestrial regions. That sounds pretty cool. The question is wheather the combination of their creations and their own rebellion can force their grubby hand to relinquish what they then soil by touching and trying to “own.”
In short: Human beings have a Midas touch followed by a reverse Midas touch. Something, including our own members, have to catch it in its pre-retroactive cycle.
As a result of these facts.
Use your innate conquering ability to exploit others and grow powerful. Share your power with those dynasties or groups that want to work with you as you ignore your aberrations of pillaging and torture done behind closed curtains.
Still . . . simply remember. Something has to neutralize or even destroy us when our greater achievements start to become a new method of unjustified dictation and perverted quasi-primitive pointless chaos.
There’s nothing wrong with imminent domain laws. If you’ve read the 2nd Treatise, look up the term “spoilage” and consider it as a thing that can be discovered within evolving circumstances. It will make sense.
What’s wrong with imminent domain laws is when a private property is taken for private use and not public use (the result of a recent erroneous Supreme Court decision). You’ll note that spoilage references a relationship with the rest of the society at large within the state of nature, and public use comes out fine. The end result is the maximization of liberty, assuming the project supplanting the original property is necessary, and fulfills the role of government.
And this is coming from a libertarian/conservative, btw.
Deadly serious - the UN environmentalists have been on a land-grab mission for at least a decade if not longer. The principle being that they, on the basis of ‘expert’ opinion from the IPCC and similar bodies, know better than the majority of people what should be done with their land. Since they cannot be trusted to treat the land properly they should no longer have the right to look after it as they see fit and suffer the consequences. Instead, a series of dummy corporations, international quangos and people with no sincere authority or responsibility will look after the land as they see fit, but it’ll be the locals who’ll have to deal with the consequences when/if it goes wrong.