wait wait. what?Originally posted by kertejud2
The only real mistake was not getting rid of the original inhabitants (I don't hear the Beothuks complaining).
I wear mine every day
I bought one but have not worn it
I was thinking about buying one
Never occured to me
wait wait. what?Originally posted by kertejud2
The only real mistake was not getting rid of the original inhabitants (I don't hear the Beothuks complaining).
The original inhabitants of North America didn't believe in real property, the idea land belonging to anybody is an Asian and European construct so when the English and French came, it was basically calling dibs. Instill the legal system that enables the ownership of land and the next thing you know, you've got a country. The British didn't control a quarter of the world because they fought for every inch, they just claimed it. Or bought it. Or rented it, then fought anybody who got in the way.Originally posted by mx73someday
Why not?
And there's a pretty good chance that you're living on land that was purchased from a company as well, so its only fair that you abide by the rules of the owners who's property you're on.
Oh just think of all the land disputes that could have been avoided if the Europeans had just finished what they started, wipe out entire groups of people and hope nobody notices, or at least not care if they do so that it doesn't cause ownership problems in the future.Originally posted by maxomilll
wait wait. what?
(I'm being facetious, BTW).
So you agree with the idea that no one but a small group of people called government actually own anything in the world? People can claim that they own private land, but it is not in fact their land because the government is the true owner. Doesn't this mean that individuals have no actual property rights in the region called Canada?Originally posted by kertejud2
And there's a pretty good chance that you're living on land that was purchased from a company as well, so its only fair that you abide by the rules of the owners who's property you're on.
This is certainly what I believe, but I'm curious to know if you think the people called government actually provide individuals any property rights at all. And another question, what would be so wrong if individuals had full control (property rights) over their own land?
No, I'm saying that "people called government" are what invented the rules for ownership in the first place.Originally posted by mx73someday
So you agree with the idea that no one but a small group of people called government actually own anything in the world?
Depends on how you want to define property. The "region called Canada" uses common law, which means you don't own the land. You sort of do, but not really. You can own what's on the land and have various rights protecting that property.People can claim that they own private land, but it is not in fact their land because the government is the true owner. Doesn't this mean that individuals have no actual property rights in the region called Canada?
Basically we have property rights in the "region called Canada," the issue is what kind of property you have...common law is so fickle.
See above.[b]This is certainly what I believe, but I'm curious to know if you think the people called government actually provide individuals any property rights at all.[b]
Because its not their land. It belongs to the Crown. I'd have no problem with people having full control of their own land, but all the land in the "region called Canada" is claimed.And another question, what would be so wrong if individuals had full control (property rights) over their own land?
I think ownership is as old mankind and so are property rights. The part that is new is that governments are starting to let individuals exercise them....barely.Originally posted by kertejud2
No, I'm saying that "people called government" are what invented the rules for ownership in the first place.
Well I would argue that you don't own what's on the land. Government still decides what you can and can't do with the "property" above the land. This is not individual ownership, ownership implies full control over property. Do you disagree?
You sort of do, but not really. You can own what's on the land and have various rights protecting that property.
Well this is a nice surprise, I was expecting you to be against the concept of individuals truly owning their property. Do you have a problem with "the Crown" selling parts of Canada to individuals, with full property rights?
Because its not their land. It belongs to the Crown. I'd have no problem with people having full control of their own land, but all the land in the "region called Canada" is claimed.
Its clearly not as old as mankind since there are tribes the world over who came under other people's controls because the concept didn't exist. There is also no universal property law or idea, only ones that exist in the various legal systems around the world.Originally posted by mx73someday
I think ownership is as old mankind and so are property rights. The part that is new is that governments are starting to let individuals exercise them....barely.
Not really. Property has many different definitions, its an issue of semantics and a legal debate. Using your definition while I do not have individual ownership over real property, I do have individual ownership over many kinds of personal property.Well I would argue that you don't own what's on the land. Government still decides what you can and can't do with the "property" above the land. This is not individual ownership, ownership implies full control over property. Do you disagree?
Yes I do. I have a big enough problem with the state selling public assets nevermind giving up sovereign land and everything it yields.Well this is a nice surprise, I was expecting you to be against the concept of individuals truly owning their property. Do you have a problem with "the Crown" selling parts of Canada to individuals, with full property rights?