Dominoes - Pay a little more

[Old Greg]

What you are referring to, with respect to air, are commonly referred to as easements. Air is also a super-abundant resource, for which economisation is unimportant, as is the case with sunlight. If someone were to obstruct the sun or drain all the air out of the world by some magic device, that could be argued to be a violation of an easement, because usage was actually being made of that resource. How would such an easement arise with respect to land that has never even been tread upon? I mean, the logical leap here is to go from the fact that easements can arise, to the view that such an easement has arisen with respect to land, even when it is in an untouched state.

The fact is, the 'commons' have already been seized even when no such pre-existing relationship can be shown to exist.

So it's ok for Parliament to grant common land to individuals?

[AtW]

So it's ok for Parliament to grant common land to individuals?

Yes, it's fine - leave Gentile alone!!!

[doodab]

Domino's pizzas are still overpriced tulipe

I will have a nice Waitrose one when I get home. My first for 2 years, apparently I'm allowed to eat them now to get my strength up.

[Old Greg]

I will have a nice Waitrose one when I get home. My first for 2 years, apparently I'm allowed to eat them now to get my strength up.

When you get home after exploiting healthcare paid for by taxation stolen under threat of violence from Spontaneous Order and Zero Liability?

[Zero Liability]

So it's ok for Parliament to grant common land to individuals?

I must've been very careless if I let that implication slip from what I said. Firstly, one would need to establish it is a commons, presumably by something a little more solid than mere verbal declaration by the government (although they clearly think these are binding and have the force of arms to ensure these declarations are obeyed), or the genocidal behaviours of the monarch's ancestors who 'conquered' this land. If I understand it correctly, the current Queen can't even claim this much. Parliament's authority is pretty much inherited from the monarchy's, i.e. the family with title to the kingdom obtained through blood, and if not this, then through pure verbal declaration on behalf of a supposed majority. So we aren't on very solid ground, to begin with.

If we were talking about land that was appropriated by individuals, perhaps through easements, that was then granted to the government (freely, not under duress), we could begin from there, but is there any such land in existence?

This is why this route is rather hopeless, you're better off trying to evoke the figment of the social contract.

When you get home after exploiting healthcare paid for by taxation stolen under threat of violence from Spontaneous Order and Zero Liability?

And most of the population, who consent to a couple of uses of their tax pelf but not the majority they are actually put to use for. Or are you under the pretense that a) we live in a representative ochlocracy (democracy) and b) that a majority imposing its will somehow gives rise to a legitimate argument, as opposed to a logical fallacy?

In truth, the costs of policies are highly dispersed and the benefits heavily concentrated, which is how lobbyists get their hooks into people's money with precious little opposition. Even better if you can finance it through inflation or debt, the former of which is very difficult to trace and the latter of which is deferred to the future.

[Old Greg]

I must've been very careless if I let that implication slip from what I said. Firstly, one would need to establish it is a commons, presumably by something a little more solid than mere verbal declaration by the government (although they clearly think these are binding and have the force of arms to ensure these declarations are obeyed), or the genocidal behaviours of the monarch's ancestors who 'conquered' this land. If I understand it correctly, the current Queen can't even claim this much. Parliament's authority is pretty much inherited from the monarchy's, i.e. the family with title to the kingdom. So we aren't on very solid ground, to begin with.

If we were talking about land that was appropriated by individuals, perhaps through easements, that was then granted to the government (freely, not under duress), we could begin from there, but is there any such land in existence?

This is why this route is rather hopeless, you're better off trying to evoke the figment of the social contract.

I am talking about land which was common (or not owned I you prefer) which was then allocated to an individual by an Act of Parliament. Does that Act and subsequent violent seizure by an individual and his forces constitute the rightful acquisition of property?

[Zero Liability]

I am talking about land which was common (or not owned I you prefer) which was then allocated to an individual by an Act of Parliament. Does that Act and subsequent violent seizure by an individual and his forces constitute the rightful acquisition of property?

Whom is it being seized from if it is unowned? This is what I am trying to establish. Is an existing ownership relationship being frustrated, or not? If not, there is no issue. Ideally, it'd be better if it sold it and redistributed the proceeds to those it taxes.

If there is one, it is no different to a Monarch granting conquered lands to their most gifted psychopaths.

[doodab]

In a truely free society violence is as legitimate as anything else. It's only by paying our taxes and joining the biggest bullies gang we get to avoid dealing with it directly. Some places don't have that option, and I'm glad I don't live there.

[Zero Liability]

In a truely free society violence is as legitimate as anything else. It's only by paying our taxes and joining the biggest bullies gang we get to avoid dealing with it directly. Some places don't have that option, and I'm glad I don't live there.

And what is to stop them from turning on you, as they surely do and will if necessary?

To give an example, if they decide they cannot finance the obligations of the state to those to whom (they consider) it is due (or not), and decide to write them off or pay them in heavily inflated money, how have you benefited? They don't respect any limitations.

We're currently living in pretty good times, where they don't have to resort to these measures, largely due to central banks which are very obliging handmaidens to the government. What happens when things turn sour, their handmaidens become impotent and they don't want to let go of the luxurious lives they've become accustomed to?

Violence is 'legitimate' and so is defending from it. If it were limited to defending you from violence, I'd have less of an issue with it, but of course it isn't.

[Old Greg]

Whom is it being seized from if it is unowned? This is what I am trying to establish. Is an existing ownership relationship being frustrated, or not? If not, there is no issue.

If there is one, it is no different to a Monarch granting conquered lands to their most gifted psychopaths.

Consider the old rhyme:

They hang the man and flog the woman that steals the goose from off the common,
But let the greater villain loose that steals the common from off the goose.

The land was there (in a commonly owned state, I would say, and I think you would say in an unowned state) for ordinary people to supply food for themselves. Parliament decides that they will grant an individual the right to use force to seize it and deny people access to the land. I am asking whether this is a just acquisition of property or whether it should have remained in its previous state?