Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love the "you don't understand because you aren't as smart as me" posts. Give me a break. It sounds like YOU don't know any better. There are many towns with desirable public land surrounding it in the US, like Flagstaff Arizona, where everyone lives in a tiny lot in town and is surrounded by millions of acres of beautiful forests nearly all for free public use (shooting, camping, hiking, hunting, star-gazing, firewood cutting, cattle grazing, whatever you want (cattle grazing not free). The people there love it this way. However, many Americans, like myself.. would rather have 20 acres of my own un-zoned land in Ohio to use however I want than 1/10 acre in Flagstaff surrounded by millions of public acres. Its a preference... it does not mean I don't "know any different", it means thats my preference for my life. Get off your high horse!
It's not about being smart. A caged kid raised in your average corn hole Ohioan town surrounded by no trespassing and no loitering signs will have certain outlooks imbedded in his brain for good. He may even like caged life, a can of beer, a TV, a lawn mover ... Go tell him about open spaces.
It's not about being smart. A caged kid raised in your average corn hole Ohioan town surrounded by no trespassing and no loitering signs will have certain outlooks imbedded in his brain for good. He may even like caged life, a can of beer, a TV, a lawn mover ... Go tell him about open spaces.
Ok, I guess we can't all be so enlightened. Just because you think you "understand" or that your eyes are open to some greater vision, does not mean its the one true and preferred option that everyone would choose if their eyes too "were opened". Obviously you have disdain for this little thing we call capitalism... that is your right, but its not going anywhere, and since you despise it so much, perhaps there is a tribe in Africa or South America that you can join and enjoy your "communal" land. Good luck either way... meanwhile I will enjoy my land and family and be happy... life is short and that is all that really matters anyways, be it an "imbedded" happiness or not.
Ok, I guess we can't all be so enlightened. Obviously you have disdain for this little thing we call capitalism... that is your right, but its not going anywhere, and since you despise it so much, perhaps there is a tribe in Africa or South America that you can join and roam the "free" land.
Land ownership is older than capitalism. Human social hierarchies tend to limit access to resources, this way few deserving individuals can force many of the less accomplished ones to work in order to gain access to survival basics (Like space). One doesn't have the right to exist unless his labor can be utilized by the anointed ones holding claims. Joining a tribe will be a problem though, especially in South America where local capitalists are mimicking England circa 1500 in order to create a good sized pool of the dispossessed, dependent sweat shop labor while appropriating all their land and resources. If you doubt that owning land is robbery, South America and Africa will be another destination for your educational trip. Indigenous people holding land in common will be exterminated and/or uprooted within a decade or two.
Capitalism is too wonderful for its own good though. A couple days of supply chain interruptions and I would not give a dime about your sacred property "rights", your property, your guns, law, etc. you'll be overrun and trampled into ground.
BTW, there is no need for snide remarks. We all exchange our opinions with perfect strangers on impersonal forums (isn't that wonderful or what?), me typing stuff you don't usually hear doesn't imply arrogance, enlightenment, or a moral crusade.
Last edited by RememberMee; 05-25-2012 at 10:14 AM..
A question for you...do you post it simply because you do not want activities that could alter the land (parties, motorized recreation, etc.), or do you post it because you want the land ALL TO YOURSELF and do not want ANYBODY on the land?
Would you be okay with the occasional (say, once every three days) passerby one of the trails that traditionally existed on your land, and does not come in view of any house?
now look what you've done, you've unleashed the king of the loonies
Ha.. ok well while others enjoy despising everything the world has become and wishing it was whatever romanticized past era or future utopia they wish it was, I am going to go enjoy this life, and enjoy the land I bought under the systems we currently have in place. To the OP, regardless or others' views of our current system, its what is in place, I would be more than happy to let you use my land for purposes you suggest if you respect the fact that is mine (under our current system ), and ask my permission. I have always had this approach with hunters. Others may not, that is there choice. If you don't like this, you should check out someplace like Flagstaff that has alot of "public" land. If society collapses, as Remembermee suggests, then we will cross that bridge when we get there, but thats not the original question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee
BTW, there is no need for snide remarks. We all exchange our opinions with perfect strangers on impersonal forums (isn't that wonderful or what?), me typing stuff you don't usually hear doesn't imply arrogance, enlightenment, or a moral crusade.
Sorry, but
Quote:
You don't understand my post because you don't know any different. It's like me describing Sun to a person who never left his cave.
and
Quote:
It's not about being smart. A caged kid raised in your average corn hole Ohioan town surrounded by no trespassing and no loitering signs will have certain outlooks imbedded in his brain for good. He may even like caged life, a can of beer, a TV, a lawn mover ... Go tell him about open spaces.
and
Quote:
South America and Africa will be another destination for your educational trip.
most certainly does. The idea that one can only think what they do because they don't know any better, is arrogant in my opinion.
Land "ownership" is a theft, simple. Just imagine time when the very first tribesmen declared a piece of tribal land to be "his". I'm a thief, I have no trespassing signs since only neighbors do trespass, I may pay for this dearly, it's litigious and overall crazy society. Some people try to hide from that in their private compounds. Yet, parcellization of the land mass (bulk of which is owned by very few % of individuals) further contributes to craziness, misery and Prozac consumption. Humans simply don't feel "comfortable" in the countries where they have no right to occupy space regardless of their income and "ownership" status. It feels like you are a caged animal. Even if I'm an owner back in Ohio I feel caged in the vastness of Kansas, for example. So "owning" something is not a panacea. W. Europeans (with their high densities of population and communitarian history) have much saner trespassing laws. Owners, as a rule, have NO right to summarily restrict access to their extensive properties.
There is "small" difference between Europe and USA. Europe has a history of no string attached communal land ownership. Each village, town, city used (regrettably) to have sizable chunk of free for all to trespass land, it was regulated mostly by tradition. That was land for children and grown ups to play and to explore, that was the land that made paupers welcome. Keep in mind that England was not an exception. Confiscation of peasant communal land in 1500s preceded the rise of urban slums, Capitalism and Industrialism.
People who "designed" and run USA despite their claims to freedom etc. had fundamentally modern (as for 1700s) idea that only certain group of individuals (anointed by markets) has the right to occupy space, own, and rip other benefits of life. European non capitalist tradition for better or worse extended that right to everyone. That's why small towns USA today are so suffocating, they have no public land/space whatsoever. Poor excuses of heavily regulated 1 acre city parks don't even come close. And it's all by design. That's capitalism in a nutshell, annihilation of the commons is a must. And it's not country specific, if you look at the freshly capitalistic countries of Eastern Europe parroting USA styled economy they parcel out land and annihilate public space in the most unjust manner as we speak. Sanctity of private ownership is being born. And if you disagree with my statement "Land ownership is robbery", take an educational trip.
To put it into plain English, I think you're saying cities/close confines make people crazy? Or, more crazy than they might otherwise be due to a separation from nature?
My mother was where I was, grew up in socialism/communism. Yes, we had private property and yes, we respected it. However, almost all of nature was public for everyone to enjoy. I understand legally the concept of someone owning 5,000 acres with rivers and hills, however on a deeper level I find it incredibly flawed. Just like the Native Indians did when Europeans showed up.
OD
Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeze!
While prior to Europeans arriving in North America Native American Indians may not have held paper titles to land, they certainly did defend their territories from other tribes and used lethal force in so doing. Protection of game was protection of the tribe's survival. Nothing says "no trespassing" quite like burial grounds or a collection of scalps originating from the heads of feuding tribal members.
Man, don't play Rambo OK. You do realize that a determined attacker has a sizable advantage over the most deluded and armed land owner? What about multitude of attackers? Will you lecture them on sanctity of your rights? In my eyes you & me have no God given right to declare a square inch of this Planet to be "yours". You all in this thread act as though divine providence anointed you with the right to ownership. Nothing could be further from truth. Particular socio economic arrangements enforced by heavy police action gave you legal claim to that parcel in an exchange for certain sum of money. That's it. I don't find those arrangements fair, just or reasonable so don't ask me to respect "your rights", those are non respectable rights. Yet, I will not come close to your house, I will not destroy or even steal but forgive me for the "crime" of walking on 100 acre+ properties. Yes, I do "cost benefit analysis" of the "crime". Even more I do agree that "human condition" demands for one to have a place to call his own. Albeit, that need is grotesquely distorted by our particular economic system that disconnect and isolate people. Yet, if your condition demands 100 acre and up plots to feel "whole", sorry, I'll trespass without any "moral" concerns provided favorable cost-benefit analysis. Depending on the state of economy and police state many more people (some very nasty and mean) would trespass. You go, man, play Rambo on them. There is NOTHING except a threat of violence by STATE that protect your claims. It's not your arms, signs or dogs.
We are land creatures. None of us should be able to accumulate land, charge others for access to it, and keep that rent. None of us more entitled to land than others. Yes, laws may say otherwise. But I'm pretty sure there were laws demanding taxed paid to British Empire circa 1775. Concentration of land ownership is ongoing as we speak. Roughly 10% of landowners own 70% of land mass. What's next, 10% of the anointed owning 95% of land mass and less blessed ones attaching hot air balloons to their backs? That's the plan, huh?
Then come on......
Playing Rambo....Yep I think hubby and his boys do just that.
We are big land owners and so are his buds....and we live on the edge of 3500 acres of state land.
I think their little militia would hold their own.
Hubby's claim to fame is shooting a turkey at 50 yards with a bow.
Anyone who thinks that the public lands in this country consist of nothing but desert hasn't been paying attention to the land, never mind anything else. The vast majority of public lands are anything but.
That in and of itself is enough to cast doubt on the whole theory, because the theorist clearly is picking and choosing his data to fit the predetermined theory. Sloppy, at best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), and ask my permission. I have always had this approach with hunters. Others may not, that is there choice. If you don't like this, you should check out someplace like Flagstaff that has alot of "public" land. If society collapses, as Remembermee suggests, then we will cross that bridge when we get there, but thats not the original question.
spoiling the p.c. fantasy.......
