They are even more guilty, as they have been profiting from it. It's like the difference between a slave buyer and a slave seller: we know the seller has been a slave owner, the buyer so far only intends to be one. I sometimes get fan mail from people who prove you wrong. It is fact.
The people of the town of Brington, through their elected representatives, can certainly choose to dispose of a portion of their land. The people of Brington would not let someone just freely walk onto their land and set up a farm. They would deny the wanderer access to that which nature has provided.
yes it is human and animal nature. If a lion pride uses land for a home it will kill other lions that try to take it away. If a animal is occupying a piece of land other animals know to respect that and find another piece of land to occupy. A person is not a person without the right to personal space.
No, because they are aware that it is not their land, and it would be pure evil to sell off all future generations' rights to liberty for current considerations. It's not their or anyone else's land, as I have informed you dozens of times, and you always just ignore. Nope. Flat false. He is the one who will deprive others of access to what nature provided by setting up his farm, as you know perfectly well. The town of Bringiton simply has a mechanism to defend its citizens against such thieving, and to secure and reconcile the EQUAL rights of all to what nature provided for all. If anyone such as this wanderer wants to exclude others from the land, there has to be a mechanism to do it fairly, respecting the equal rights of all. The town has such a mechanism in place. The wanderer does not. He simply intends forcibly to deprive others of their liberty to use the land without making just compensation. He is the one depriving others of the land, not the town, which has a mechanism to ensure everyone has free, secure tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity. You know this.
So the town of Brington should pay who exactly for the right to exclude this wanderer and all others from free access to their land?
Yes, and so? What immutable wisdom is to be drawn from this one-liner? We do not live nomadic lives in caves. Humans have evolved to form societies and lately even "market-economies". With its own set of rules that should be observed, but are not, to arrive at fairness and equitable treatment of all its members ...
Could you be more specific? Because the Great Recession is due to the non-oversight of SubPrime loans. Iow, the Fed should have been all over the banksters for having promoted a wild-rush for such loans where the proper oversight rules were not being applied. (That is, evaluation of the borrower's ability to repay the loan.) That, to me, the culprit is lack of regulation. For you it is tantamount to un-regulation. There's a subtle difference between the two oversights. Not much difference admittedly. But the fact of the matter is that deregulation would have legally permitted the banksters to NOT look carefully at a borrower's ability to repay the debt. Which, after all, was the real reason that caused so many debt-failures and, by consequence, gutted some very large lenders - thus triggering the Great Recession. Why am I making a point of this. Because the Great Recession is nothing more than a maudlin repeat of the Great Depression that happened because of the same mistake. The lack of oversight of the lending market by the FRB ... From the FRB's web-site here, an admission by Bernanke, NB: Trump's BigThing nowadays is deregulation that is happening across the board with as much depth and reach as possible. So, Americans are being endangered with deregulation of regulations the passage of which was intended to protect not just markets but humans!
what could be fairer than Republican capitalism wherein every economic transaction occurs only when both parties to the transaction agree that it is a fair transaction and then voluntarily complete the transaction. To a libcommie a transaction is fair when one party has a gun to the the other parties head forcing him to complete the transaction.
total perfect 100% lie of course. At time of collapse Fan/Fred owned 75% of the Alt A and sup prime loans. In short, liberal govt oversight, purchase and guarantee of those loans caused those loans to be made when the Republican free market obviously would not have made those loans.
People don't have to pay for their rights -- unless they've been forcibly removed and given away to landowners and other greedy, privileged parasites, of course. The town government's job and duty -- not its right -- is to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. Free access to land (natural liberty) is necessarily non-exclusive, as access to land was for our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors for millions of years. However, exclusive land tenure is needed to secure the producer's valid property in fixed improvements he has made; it also necessarily removes others' natural liberty to use that land. As the natural right to liberty (i.e., free, non-exclusive access to land) can't co-exist with exclusive land tenure, it can't co-exist with property in fixed improvements. It is government's job to reconcile these irreducibly conflicting rights and secure liberty and justice for all. As property in fixed improvements is in the general interest, government must find a way to allocate secure, exclusive tenure so as to both secure property in such improvements and justly compensate all whose liberty rights are consequently abrogated. You favor the capitalist "solution" in which those rights are ignored, and their removal uncompensated -- i.e., the effective enslavement of the landless for the unearned profit of landowners. A genuine, just solution secures everyone free, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to opportunity, and requires those who wish to exclude others from more of the good land than their equal share to make just compensation to the community of those thus excluded.
No, it also provides everyone with liberty to use everything else nature provides -- the entire physical universe aside from other people and the products of their labor -- according to their natural capacity.
No, by those best able to make productive use of it, as shown by their willingness and ability to pay everyone else the most for excluding them.
I don't think you're understanding my question. The town of Brington, not the government, I'm talking about the whole town as a group. So when this entire group of people, via their agents, prevent a person from accessing what nature provided, aren't they violating others' rights to liberty?
Then it is probably nonsensical. The town can't do anything merely as a group. They're just a set of people who happen to live in the same area. But they want an economy above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages, so they establish a government to administer possession and use of the local land in the interest, and to secure and reconcile the equal rights, of all. I've explained how it does so. Of course, same as anyone else who forcibly excludes others from land. That's why those who get the benefit of exclusive tenure owe just compensation to the community of those excluded -- which community also provides the exclusive tenure, and associated benefits in the form of services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities.
So, despite post after post complaining about land ownership, you merely want to force a different land ownership? It's like a Digger without a spade!
No, it would be disingenuous, to say the least, for you to claim that the landholder owns the land, given that he has to keep paying the market rent for it permanently, or lose his tenure. It would likewise be disingenuous, to say the least, for you to claim that the town owns it, given that they can't sell it to anyone else or exclude any citizen who moves into the area from using their equal exempt share of it for free. Better than a troll without a clue.
