SSDR wrote:@SolarCross,
No, but many others' families have.
Many? Uness you are thinking of muslims or Indians or something I don't see how it is "many"? Have you any stats on that?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
SSDR wrote:@SolarCross,
No, but many others' families have.
SolarCross wrote:If you live in a house and you lock the doors at night and you exercise any authority over who can enter that space and what they do there then you are a filthy hypocrite.
SolarCross wrote:When the bird temporarily leaves the nest to find food he does not think "it is not my nest anymore".
The same goes for ants or beavers. The attachment is actually not dependent solely on possession just like with humans. You are wrong again.
SolarCross wrote:Compensation may be fairly owed to the rightful owner of the thing of which he is deprived.
So if I have a ball and you don't and the school bully deprives me of it then it is to me not you that compensation is owed.
You however make the perverse claim that everyone who owns land owes you for "depriving" you of that land
but that can only work if you were the original owner
and you are not.
This is pofo but even on pofo you are literally the only pofotard screaming at the birds for depriving you of their nests.
SolarCross wrote:@Truth To Power What they built occupies a space.
And yes territorial animals do imagine they own a space which is why they chase away rivals to it.
Rancid wrote:It is certainly the most ideal way. But is it the most practical?
Truth To Power wrote:Or if someone is deprived of something they didn't own, but would otherwise have been at liberty to use. An example would be the sidewalk in front of your house. You don't own it, but you have a liberty right to use it. If someone forcibly deprives you of your liberty to use it, and demands you pay them for using it, they are committing a crime -- extortion -- against you unless they make acceptable compensation.
Truth To Power wrote:No, that's just objectively false, as proved above. I don't own the earth's atmosphere, but if you deprive me of my liberty to use it, and demand I pay you rent for air to breathe, you are nothing but a filthy, evil, murdering thief, just like a landowner forcibly depriving the others of their liberty to support themselves using what nature provided for all.
Truth To Power wrote:I don't have to own something to have a liberty right to use it. Our remote ancestors did not have to own land to have a right to use it, or to be harmed by those who forcibly deprived them of their liberty by appropriating the land as private property. I don't own the alphabet, or the number 3, but I have a right to use them, and anyone who claimed them as his private property and demanded I pay him rent for permission to use them would be an evil, filthy, thieving, vicious murderer. Give your head a shake.
Of course you have to lie about what I have plainly written. It is inevitable. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies.
Truth To Power wrote:But they don't imagine they own the space, only what they built there.
Truth To Power wrote:No, they do not imagine they own it. They know if they want to exclude others, they have to chase them off by force. Ownership is possession defended by others, not just the possessor. That's the difference between the human institution of property and mere brute, animal possession. You don't want to have to keep others off your land by force yourself. You want government and the community to do it for you; you just don't want to pay justly for the benefits you reap from their efforts. You are merely greedy for unearned wealth, like any landowner. Simple.
Pants-of-dog wrote:But it is interesting how badly Anglos treat anyone who does not agree with their land paradigm.
Truth To Power wrote:The concept of owning land as private property originated with the Romans. Before that, it was always understood that land was a communal resource that landholders only had exclusive tenure on under certain conditions. Apologists for landowner privilege like to trot out Latin legal expressions like "res nullius" as if they were magical incantations learned at Hogwarts.
Sumerian and Akkadian boundary inscriptions commonly in-cluded general "curses" against boundary crossers. The Akkadianverb meaning "to cross," like the English "trespass," sometimes con-notes immorality.'0 8 All four major Mesopotamian codes include pro-visions that condemn trespassing.
SolarCross wrote:No, it is ubiquitous and definitely older. It is at least as old as Sumer the first city dwelling civilisation. Arguably many animals do it too, those that are not completely nomadic.
-----------
@Truth To Power
If you would like to try to be less ignorant you could try reading this:
Ancient Land Law: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thanks.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And what exactly is your claim? That our current ideas about private land ownership come from ancient Mesopotamia?
SolarCross wrote:No, [private property in land] is ubiquitous and definitely older [than pagan rome]. It is at least as old as Sumer the first city dwelling civilisation. Arguably many animals do it too, those that are not completely nomadic.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And what exactly is your claim? That our current ideas about private land ownership come from ancient Mesopotamia?
SolarCross wrote:This:
Do you have amnesia?
Indictments have occured in Arizona over the fake[…]