3 ms·

If a party owns land the US, by what moral authority can they block others access to it? By what moral authority can they demand rent on threat of eviction? Why

If a party owns land the US, by what moral authority can they block others access to it? By what moral authority can they demand rent on threat of eviction? Why wouldn't any democratic agency simply have the right to take it from them without compensation? The reason this is a deeply interesting topic is because there are exceptionally strong claims to property rights made in the US and that same property was almost entirely all stolen in the recent past. And because one gets such inconsistencies as claiming the theft occurred in the "mists of time" when, by definition, the constitution itself is further back in those same mists of time. And the logically absurd (and patently false claims) that one can't locate a parcel's original possessor therefore some arbitrary purchaser down an illicit chain can make nearly unlimited exclusive claim to owning it. And of course endless use of tu quoque. So the authors intention is an utterly uninteresting red herring. It is a remarkable opportunity for thoughtful people to examine their own inconsistent views. The rest will simply shut their ears and convince themselves their is no reason for contemplation.

arethuza 12y ago
"by what moral authority can they block others access to it" Actually, here in Scotland there is a fairly widespread recognition (apart, perhaps, from some large landowners) that a lot of land was acquired by rather dubious means. I think this provides a fairly decent justification for the "right to roam" we have over most land.
clavalle 12y ago
>that same property was almost entirely all stolen in the recent past. Was there some sort of native American title office that the European settlers missed? Was every square mile of what would become the United States occupied, used, and accounted for? The English were brutal, no doubt about it, but the French, for one, lived for a couple of centuries side by side with many native peoples in frontier areas without forcefully taking land and treating the natives as a population of people to be dealt with on an equal footing. There was plenty of room for everyone and huge areas of unclaimed, un-worked, un-owned land in every meaningful sense of the word.
- whybroke 12y ago
  And it wasn't just low intensity use by French trappers alongside natives but even higher intensity use such as the US southern states along side Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole agricultural societies that was working perfectly well [1] (until it was annihilated by Andrew Jackson et al contrary to a supreme court decision prohibiting it) And indeed those tribes very much had land title offices, legal system and even constitutions echoing the US document.[2] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#Treaties_and_government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#Treaties_and_governmen...

arethuza 12y ago

"by what moral authority can they block others access to it" Actually, here in Scotland there is a fairly widespread recognition (apart, perhaps, from some large landowners) that a lot of land was acquired by rather dubious means. I think this provides a fairly decent justification for the "right to roam" we have over most land.

clavalle 12y ago

>that same property was almost entirely all stolen in the recent past. Was there some sort of native American title office that the European settlers missed? Was every square mile of what would become the United States occupied, used, and accounted for? The English were brutal, no doubt about it, but the French, for one, lived for a couple of centuries side by side with many native peoples in frontier areas without forcefully taking land and treating the natives as a population of people to be dealt with on an equal footing. There was plenty of room for everyone and huge areas of unclaimed, un-worked, un-owned land in every meaningful sense of the word.

whybroke 12y ago
And it wasn't just low intensity use by French trappers alongside natives but even higher intensity use such as the US southern states along side Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole agricultural societies that was working perfectly well [1] (until it was annihilated by Andrew Jackson et al contrary to a supreme court decision prohibiting it) And indeed those tribes very much had land title offices, legal system and even constitutions echoing the US document.[2] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#Treaties_and_government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#Treaties_and_governmen...