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.
To hell with the flu shot. I'm going to Walgreens and asking if they have a shot that will protect me against Stockholm Syndrome. It's rampant in here.
I think these people just prefer being abused. They're all basically battered spouses who insist they still love their abuser.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 3 days ago)
35,614 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50634
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
It doesn't matter if it's federal, state, or local--property rights, as they are based on natural law, are absolute, and NO ONE has the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their own property.
There is nothing "natural" about our property rights.
Private property rights are a government construct. You have to tell the government who owns the property, and if someone comes on they wish not to have on their property, you can call an arm of the government to have them removed.
Nothing, whatsoever, natural about that. Property rights are wholly a societal agreement.
And that's why you can't raise pigs in a neighborhood, or run a restaurant out of your house. Or build too close to the road.
Property rights are based on Natural Law--not a piece of paper written by people. The Constitution neither gives nor protects rights; rights are inherent by virtue of being born.
Not 16 acres, no one can operate on 16 acres of land by themselves.
In such a case those trees were part of the community as they helped clean the air of c02 emissions and spread natural welfare.
The idea that two people had a piece of paper claiming 16 acres to themselves and then used it to harm others through external affects isn't freedom as it regulates the freedom of everyone as a whole.
Sounds like they only cut down exempted trees and that their property is also exempt..so doubly exempt. They will have to go to court and have a jury trial just to establish that the law does not apply to them.
There is nothing "natural" about our property rights.
Private property rights are a government construct.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The State is a work of fiction, and by nature can't have "constructs."
Quote:
You have to tell the government who owns the property, and if someone comes on they wish not to have on their property, you can call an arm of the government to have them removed.
You don't "have" to do anything except eat, hydrate, and go to the bathroom.
It is the sole responsibility of the property owner to remove trespassers, up to and including deadly force. Not the State.
Quote:
Property rights are wholly a societal agreement.
There is no such thing as a "societal agreement," just as there is no such thing as a "social contract."
Quote:
And that's why you can't raise pigs in a neighborhood, or run a restaurant out of your house. Or build too close to the road.
Or in this case denude a property of trees.
In a free society you could do whatever you want with your own property.
Not 16 acres, no one can operate on 16 acres of land by themselves.
In such a case those trees were part of the community as they helped clean the air of c02 emissions and spread natural welfare.
The idea that two people had a piece of paper claiming 16 acres to themselves and then used it to harm others through external affects isn't freedom as it regulates the freedom of everyone as a whole.
Sounds like we need an involuntary centralized authority to determine how much land a man can operate on by himself.
King Winterfall, can a man operate on 4.5 acres? 7.2 acres? 14.9 acres? 1.1 acres?
Bestow upon us your infinite wisdom on this matter. Us serfs await your decree.
Not 16 acres, no one can operate on 16 acres of land by themselves.
In such a case those trees were part of the community as they helped clean the air of c02 emissions and spread natural welfare.
The idea that two people had a piece of paper claiming 16 acres to themselves and then used it to harm others through external affects isn't freedom as it regulates the freedom of everyone as a whole.
With a crew of workers 16 acres could easily be operated.
The trees were invasive species. They want to replace them with a Christmas tree farm.
How is using their land to plant trees harming others?
Sounds like they only cut down exempted trees and that their property is also exempt..so doubly exempt. They will have to go to court and have a jury trial just to establish that the law does not apply to them.
Or we could be adults and say nothing applies to a man who hasn't consented to it.
Sounds like we need an involuntary centralized authority to determine how much land a man can operate on by himself.
King Winterfall, can a man operate on 4.5 acres? 7.2 acres? 14.9 acres? 1.1 acres?
Bestow upon us your infinite wisdom on this matter. Us serfs await your decree.
I say .25 of an acre. In the name of "fairness."
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.
