Question for strict Consitutionalists

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

The premise of this thread is completely moronic. The Native Americans did not "own" the land prior to the pilgrims settling here because they had no central unified government. They simply inhabited the land. How does a person pay rent for something that is not owned?

That is why It was a supposition.

I also am beginning to find it interesting that being an inhabitant does not imply ownership.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Exactly! And I gave a simple yet not precise answer to this question:

'Would our Constitutional Government have prospered paying rent to the Indians?' Here it is:

'I believe so! I am a great fan of division of labor and non-zero-sum games. We would probably be all better off. It really is a vague and impossible question to really answer.'

My point simply was that co-operation with the Indians would have been better for all of us in the long run. Since your so hidden in your motive for this thread and failed to make any clear points - trolling - it is ridonkulous to specualte on such matters esp. since everyone knows that you just want to rant on RP.

Cooperation has nothing to do with rent. You either don't know what it is or have decided to talk about something else.

Not Exactly! - There is a difference between rent and division of rent - whatever that is Once again my point simply was that all parties, in the long run, would have been better off if we co-operated (rent being one aspect of that) with the Native Population. Natives did not own all of North America and co-operation worked when implemented. Furthermore, the Constitution granted limited geographical jurisdiction for the Federal Government.

You brought up labor which has nothing to do with rent. Why are you implying I am the problem? I started a thread to talk about rent, and you went off topic and insulted me. Though the way you think the Indians did not own all the land seems quite arbitrary.

I did answer - you did not like that it fell outside your troll strategies. LMAO - now I am the troll! That is a good one.

But one
thing I will take your advice on is to leave this failed thread.

Again, off topic and with an insult. The first one was about being a troll, then an off topic comment about 150 years prior not leading to the Constitution and then finally just calling me a liberal or some other crap. Then you started about the division of labor when the topic was on rent. You are the troll.

[AuDiBelle]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

That is why It was a supposition.

I also am beginning to find it interesting that being an inhabitant does not imply ownership.

Well I suppose there are squatters' rights. Aside from that, form a government and organize your army to defend your property from invaders. Otherwise, deal with the consequences.

You just made me think of something equally moronic though. Maybe the first humans that set out and spread out should have paid rent to the plants and animals that inhabited the land before them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by whatyousay

Well I suppose there are squatters' rights. Aside from that, form a government and organize your army to defend your property from invaders. Otherwise, deal with the consequences.

You just made me think of something equally moronic though. Maybe the first humans that set out and spread out should have paid rent to the plants and animals that inhabited the land before them?

Adverse possession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will agree paying ground rent is moronic. However that is what we do now. Most of that goes to finance. However I am glad Mercia chimed in. When people make real arguments, it advances the topic. He has made it clear to me that the strict constitutionalists propose to do the effective equivalent of allowing king George, and the royals of the British empire, citizens. Any of their claims on wealth will also be upheld. Since the original Constitution had no anti-trust laws, are these to also be discarded?

If the Indians were in a position to charge rent, it would still never have been a British colony. However the US was still the victim of a British monopolist who wanted to control all trade. That is of course economic rent.