Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 43

Thread: Is "Freedom" often just another term for "Control"?

  1. #10
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default

    Well, some time in the second trimester the fetus CHOSE to be a female. LOL. Good one, Big.

  2. #11

    Default

    Matclone, I'm pretty sure that you had to "claim" land and "improve" it in some way to gain ownership back in the time period you were refering to.
    There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

  3. #12
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default

    I just can't get over the fact that some individual can prevent me or anyone else from walking on some field JUST BECAUSE he says it is his.

    I can understand when it is used for growing something or for some industry but to simply exclude people who have every right by NATURE to walk the land as any other person is BEYOND ME.

  4. #13
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default

    Matclone, I'm pretty sure that you had to "claim" land and "improve" it in some way to gain ownership back in the time period you were refering to.

    That's what I said--except, if you didn't improve the land, it wasn't necessarily taken away from you. The City of Denver was founded, as I understand it, when some guys planted some stakes. Now, these guys had more right to the land than the Arapahoe tribes that had used this land for years before?
    Last edited by matclone; 04-22-2007 at 01:04 PM. Reason: to clarify

  5. #14
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default

    I just can't get over the fact that some individual can prevent me or anyone else from walking on some field JUST BECAUSE he says it is his.

    Big, that's the history of European peoples, no? Before, individuals made this sort of claim, monarchs did. We're probably emulating the monarchs. Anyway, the notion of of the "right to exclude" from property is very strong in this land, and is well supported by our laws and traditions--whether it seems right or not.

  6. #15
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default

    It's funny, cause there are limits on what you can do with your property. For example, there's famous case in Iowa where an old farm couple, had a house they weren't living in. People kept coming in and taking stuff from the house. The couple got fed up and set up a booby trap. It caught a trespasser--he got shot in the leg or something, and almost lost it as a result. The court (our law) decided property owners can't do this. If it had been a shorter person (a kid, for example), he could be dead. Anyway, I've mentioned this case to others before, and some vehemently argue the property owners have the right to set the booby trap. Go figure.

    Also, with ownership comes some level of responsibility. Property owners should know they have some level of responsibility for "kid magnets" like swimming pools or other hazards.
    Last edited by matclone; 04-22-2007 at 01:40 PM.

  7. #16
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default

    Well, there was much more freedom to use the land for public's pleasure in Soviet Union than in America. There were still private houses outside big cities but no right to own huge chunks of land.

  8. #17
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big View Post
    Well, there was much more freedom to use the land for public's pleasure in Soviet Union than in America. There were still private houses outside big cities but no right to own huge chunks of land.
    And so if you're arguing that that is a better way to use land, I would tend to agree (in theory anyway). But most wouldn't. You're bucking hundreds of years of tradition.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the land in Russia was pretty much all owned by the czar (or at least he thought so) prior to the Russian revolution. So when the revolution occurred, it was probably easier for people to accept the idea that the land belonged to everyone--because no one had ever "owned" property before. By contrast, in the U.S. we have a long tradition of ownership (and corresponding right to exclude) by individuals, and I expect we'll be fighting over property rights for generations to come.
    Last edited by matclone; 04-22-2007 at 01:38 PM.

  9. #18
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default

    All true matclone. I think the reason many Americans blindly support American laws of property ownership is because the other way is associated with Commmunism, meaning a very bad thing.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •