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.
There are those who believe there should only be so many square feet allowed per person. Large houses would house larger families and poor large families would be government subsidized to buy or rent the homes that small families or single people would have to leave for smaller digs. Of course enough money or authority could buy one's way out of this law.
Car ownership would be gone. Shared self driving vehicles only in the future. Owning cars would be too unaffordable and lots of red tape. Except for some people of course.
In some European countries people are encouraged to invite refugees into their homes and some residents have been displaced from apartments to house refugees. Hotels with empty rooms have been forced to house them.
We have homeless, underemployed, jobless, refugees, if we don't do something we will get there. We will be "strongly encouraged" to share our property with whomever is deemed to need it.
Self driving cars will not be a thing for a LONG time. But yes owning huge swaths of land by a relativly few families or churches is a major issue. We have already reached the west coast, mapped the globe with google earth, this is it, now all that is left is management of said land as the population contines to grow. Eventually there will have to be some major depopulation event but somehow the good lord Jesus has seen it fit to let things keep going peacefully, giving people the grace to get into heaven before the crap hits the fan, kind of like in the dark ages how they were allowed to go on for a LONG time before a correction, so long that labor had absolutly no leverage what so ever which is why there was a serf class, kind of like we are getting now. Over abundance of labor, under abundance of land, leads to suffering or conflict.
Because rather than taking the commonsensical stance that people are not property, it makes more sense to take the nonsensical stance that we are all self-owned property?
Meh, it's semantics.
I'm not concerned about it.
It's the principles behind the terms that carry weight.
I believe each individual has the right to control their body as they see fit as long as they don't...drumroll for Chi...violate the non-aggression principle!
The primitive hunter had rights too if you intrude on my hunting grounds I kill you
To say Native Americans had no sense of land ownership is incorrect
I think the Commies tried sharing land in Russia and Cuba and people starved. Who owns the farmland in Venezuela, by the way? I'm surprised the govt hasn't confiscated it.
Just saw a man walk up my neighbor's beach stairs/boardwalk to urinate on his land. Why? It's not a public beach. There are no restrooms. THAT'S one of the many reasons why oceanfront property owners don't want the public using their privately owned dry sand beach.
Just saw a man walk up my neighbor's beach stairs/boardwalk to urinate on his land. Why? It's not a public beach. There are no restrooms. THAT'S one of the many reasons why oceanfront property owners don't want the public using their privately owned dry sand beach.
That's going to do wonders for your property value.
Seriously though, that's disgusting. I'd record the violators and post it to social media.
That's going to do wonders for your property value.
Seriously though, that's disgusting. I'd record the violators and post it to social media.
Happens all year long. This isn't a public beach. There are no restrooms. And people wonder why owners don't want anyone specifically uninvited using their land? Unreal.
I agree it sucks that people are uranating where ever, but this is a catch 22. Should only the affluent be able to access the beach (other than for the very limited over crowded public access)?
If there are no public rest rooms then people have to urinate where ever if they are camping or having a bon fire etc. Why should the affluent be the only ones with access to the ocean without having to huddle inside a postage stamp public access beach?
IF people want to camp out on the beach for a few days, have a bon fire and some beers why should wealthy ocean front land owners be able to kick everyone else off?
I agree it sucks that people are uranating where ever, but this is a catch 22. Should only the affluent be able to access the beach (other than for the very limited over crowded public access)?
Of course not. That's why PUBLIC beaches exist which include restroom facilities.
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.
Because rather than taking the commonsensical stance that people are not property, it makes more sense to take the nonsensical stance that we are all self-owned property? 
