 sj |
||
|
||
BS: ...this land is private property
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST, GUEST,09 Mar 16 - 05:14 PM Date: 16 Mar 16 - 05:26 PM @Jack Campin "The word or name "Gambella" means nothing to me. I could never have mentioned it." So you hadn't read the article you linked above? This one: https://ig.ft.com/sites/land-rush-investment/ethiopia/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Mar 16 - 05:13 PM What do you expect me to do, Dicky Pons Asinorum — modestly conceal such knowledge as I may happen to possess? — as invariably do such uber-modest good-ole-boys as yourself, perhaps! Dream on, My Dear-ickle Duckidaddles! ☺☺☺☺☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Mar 16 - 03:51 PM I came across an article that said that Cruz and Rubio were attacking Trump for Trump's support of continued government ownership of federal land in Nevada. For once, I agree with Trump. I don't want to see giveaways or bargain sales of government land. Leave it for the animals, the flowers, and for very restricted human use. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the Intel Quad Core Date: 16 Mar 16 - 01:31 PM Sometimes I get forgetful or forgiving, Metro, and expect civilised human standards of you. You of course like to brag about your linguistic excellence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Jack Campin Date: 15 Mar 16 - 07:35 PM Jack Campin over his Gambella link earlier The word or name "Gambella" means nothing to me. I could never have mentioned it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Jack Campin Date: 15 Mar 16 - 07:33 PM Meanwhile in Scotland (again via Andy Wightman), how the Duke of Buccleuch conceals his wealth: http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4454 It used to be said in the 19th century that the Duke of Buccleuch could travel from Aberdeen to England without ever leaving his own land. Not much has changed except for the ever-thickening web of lies around it. You can bet that the US hereditary aristocracy does exactly the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Stu Date: 10 Mar 16 - 11:08 AM Ooops! Forgot to credit that, it was written by Jim Causley. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Stu Date: 10 Mar 16 - 11:07 AM "The land doesn't recognise the lines that humans draw" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,09 Mar 16 - 05:14 PM Date: 10 Mar 16 - 04:28 AM not entirely retrospective since it was still going on in Lloyd's lifetime and into the early 20th century. It was Garrett Hardin's usage that I thought was relevant (to what Steve was saying, though he has since qualified his view). However... It is still going on all over the developing world where governments are trying to find ways of funding things from their own economies rather than relying on aid. Things that most people would regard as basic rights, many included in the Millenium Development Goals. Progress to MDG (and onwards) being funded largely by aid. Aid that gives the 'developed world' huge political influence over developing countries One aspect is whether or not smallholding really is more efficent at producing food from a given area of land than commercial farming. How is Mugabe's plan working out? I suspect it is hard to know without detailed 'on the ground' knowledge because, as with the Enclosure Acts, the narrative we get is biased by the political views of its source. One narrative on the Enclosure Acts is that big farmers did get rich and people were forced to leave the land and become cheap labour in the factories (who's owners also got rich). Along with that though the UK developed an economy that put food on the workers tables, and in the 19C gave us imrpved health and primary education. For the rest of the eventual benefits see the MDG - things that it benefits our politicians if developing countires get through aid. It is very complicated and political rhetoric rarely helps. I am the GUEST who snapped at Jack Campin over his Gambella link earlier. (Are you reading Jack ?) I was surprised at that from him becuase he seems very well read about many issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Mar 16 - 04:00 AM Steve: I appreciate the force of your arguments. Not necessarily entirely convinced ("privilege" as used is one of those loaded and tendentious terms imo); but shall mull over the question. My my, how much time dear old Dicky Pons-Asinorum expends being 'disappointed' in me. And how very witty of him to address me by the first word of the name of Cousin Louis B's company. All rather flattering, really. ≈☺-M-☺≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Dave Date: 10 Mar 16 - 03:19 AM Hmm... Guest, it looks from that link as if Lloyd was trying desperately to find some retrospective justification for the Enclosure Acts, not entirely retrospective since it was still going on in Lloyd's lifetime and into the early 20th century. The Enclosures were the real tragedy, not the Commons which they destroyed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:34 PM Someone made his car and his trousers, which their labour earned them the right to sell them to him in order to make a living. No-one ever made the river or the land. My house and my trousers are mine because I bought them from someone who either made them or who had bought them from someone who made them, or because I made them myself. But no-one made the land or the river. You are right-wing because you can't see the difference, whereas I can. You think that some kind of privilege of birth entitles him to own the river and the land, whereas I I think that they belong to me as much as to anyone else, because no-one made them. That isn't to say that someone shouldn't have the reasonable right to a piece of land over which they have expended genuine blood, sweat and tears in order to improve it, or that we shouldn't allow responsible bodies to look after and develop land for the benefit of us all in general. I don't do anarchy, but I don't do privilege either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Mar 16 - 08:24 PM I get really frosted when I travel the U.S. east coast, because so much of the coastline is private property. Same with the Great Lakes. Here in California, the entire coastline is supposed to be accessible to the public. There are rich property owners who try to get around that, but the shoreline is open to all for the most part. I don't know what the laws are in Oregon, but it seems very easy to get to the shore wherever I've been - and I've taken U.S. 101 on the beautiful drive along the Oregon Coast a number of times. I have a passion for lighthouses, which were all built by the taxpayers. It's really frustrating not to be able to get to them. I have to add that there's something wonderful about the National Parks of the U.S. The National Park service has been able to take custody of many of the most remarkable places in the U.S., and to make them available to all. I spent last Thursday viewing the wildflowers in Death Valley National Park. The experience was incomparable. Take a look at my photos - Click (also Anza Borrego Desert State Park). -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Donuel Date: 09 Mar 16 - 07:52 PM I was interested in who owns the coast and Jack Campin found out that a virtual cover up has begun in the last 2 weeks by Google. Unless I was hoodwinked this information by Jack Campin is a great opening chapter for top shelf investigative journalism. Sorry Joe Offer for my informal posting. I just don't have the time or inclination to research, foot note or supply numerous links. Still I admire the care you put into mudcat contributions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the Intel Quad Core Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:26 PM No Metro, your wilful ignorance of the law is showing again. You need to look up the difference between animals ferae naturae and mansuetae naturae. I am disappointed in you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:14 PM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Mar 16 - 01:37 PM No they're not -- any more than his car or his trousers are. Or than your car or your house or your trousers are his. Silly-ass! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Mar 16 - 06:37 AM Well if someone's stupid enough to think they own vast tracts of wilderness, that's fine with me as long as they maintain the roads and trails and allow unfettered access to all parts of it. By which I don't mean irresponsible access. I live in a country that has large areas I'm not supposed to go on in case I disturb pheasants, grouse and deer and whose gamekeepers routinely exterminate rare raptors, and I'm not allowed to fish the rivers because someone richer than me has claimed all the salmon and trout for himself. That man made neither the wilderness nor the rivers flowing through it. They're mine as much as his. And I think I might value the wildlife a damn sight more than he does, on the whole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Mar 16 - 10:24 PM I made a circuit of the southern two-thirds of California over the last two weeks, and I went past the properties of a number of large landowners. I first went to Mission San Antonio, which is surrounded by property which was once owned by newspaperman William Randolph Hearst. Hearst sold off a huge portion of the estate to the U.S. Army in 1940, and that became Fort Hunter Liggett. The Hearst family still owns most of the land from the fort to the ocean, thirty-five miles away. The "Hearst Castle" near the ocean now belongs to the State of California; but most of the Hearst land is untouched and undeveloped, and provides great habitat for wildlife. The Army land is under consideration for transfer to the National Park Service. It includes the gorgeous "Hacienda Milpitas," which was built by Hearst as a hunting lodge. The Hearsts also own a large estate in Northern California, near Mount Shasta. It's supposed to be an architectural masterpiece, and I'd love to see it. Oilman J. Paul Getty owned land from the San Diego Freeway to the Malibu coast in the Los Angeles area, with a villa on the ocean that resembles a villa from Pompeii - it's now a museum for antiquities, and there's a new museum above the freeway that houses the bulk of the Getty collection. The estate, now owned by the Getty Foundation, preserves a huge amount of mountain wildlife habitat in the middle of the Los Angeles megalopolis. Land once owned by Howard Hughes also provides open space and wildlife habitat in the L.A. area. And then there's the Tejon Ranch, on the Interstate 5 Grapevine pass just north of Los Angeles. I think the property was once a Spanish Land Grant. It's still a working ranch, but it preserves a lot of valuable open space for the near-extinct California Condor. Can't say I know much about large, privately-owned land parcels outside of California and Hawaii, but I do know that in those two states, the huge private properties have served to preserve habitat for native fauna and flora. I'm sure there are landowners who have destroyed the land they own, but there are also many large landholdings that do a lot of good for all of us. I really like the idea of public land ownership, but many public lands in the U.S. are open for mining and oil drilling and cattle grazing and hunting and those damn four-wheel-drive vehicles. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:20 PM Well, Metro, have you bothered to consult history to see how well your relative was generally regarded? You DO remember some of my back-story don't you? And my conscience is clear whereas your should trouble you. I don't suppose it will, but it should. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:15 PM Donuel says: My non existent sources and I am almost always wrong. I rely on audio memory more than not, while my hearing is below 50 %. I am not likely to find a cure for language dyslexia in this lifetime so do not expect improvement. I'm sorry, Donuel, but I think that much of what you present as factual is incorrect. You and I often agree on the general ideas, but you do not help your case by presenting information that is consistently incorrect. This time, you started off by saying Hawaii had five islands, one of which was privately owned. Hawaii has well over 100 islands, so many that experts can't agree on how many. And while the 6th and 7th-largest islands (which are quite small) are over 90% privately owned, they have areas that are owned by the State of Hawaii. If you don't know something, why give us incorrect information under the guise of facts? I belong to a group that operates a homeless shelter, and I often speak at public meetings on behalf of the shelter. I make sure the information I give is accurate, even when it makes us look bad. We have a very well-intentioned supporter who also speaks in support of the shelter, but she invariably gives incorrect information. We all cringe whenever she gets up to speak, because her misinformation likely to harm our cause more than help it. Speak from what you know - don't manufacture information and issues. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:44 PM He thinks 'Metro-Goldwyn' a joke, by the way, I take it, due to the coincidence of my initials. In fact -- (despite diffce in spelling — some of my cousins in US still spell it with an a in 2nd place; like my cousin Danny Mayer, who was a dancer in the sewer in Guys & Dolls, and whom I met when he was over here in Judy Garland's company the year she died) -- Louis B Mayer [the M part of Metro Goldwyn Mayer] was my paternal grandfather's first cousin, so my first-cousin-twice-removed; so the initials not so adventitious after all. Louis B was born in Minsk; my grandfather Morris Mayer in Bucharest, Romania: altho in different countries, they are only a couple of hundred km apart, as ref to google maps will show. ♫So starve on, starve on, Richard B Way up on your plinth...♫ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST, Richard Bridge etc Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:35 PM Being the charitable left winger that I am I hasten to assure Metro-Goldwyn that he need not concern himself, and indeed to suppress an uncharitable impulse towards him not least in his capacity as a doyen of philological fog and exhibitionism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:14 AM Thanks for elucidation, Mr RB. Appreciate your implied compliment as to my customary grammatical usage, which was indeed marred on this occasion by a typographical omission. Oooohh dearie·weary·me! Mea maxima culpa!···in ♠♠♠! Have generally understood that the concept of 'freehold' implies legal ownership to all practical intents & purposes. It is of course a truth universally acknowledged that lawyers would all starve if the wording of any law or act were ever actually to mean what it appears to mean. Would the thought of Mr RB's starving cause me any distress or concern? Hmmm -- glad someone asked that... ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:07 PM Not so. Apparently, someone once scored 230. But listen. It's all bollocks. I got 188 when I was ten and I don't give a shite. It's a meaningless scale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST, Richard Bridge on the Intel quad-core Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:59 PM AFAIK the highest possible IQ is 160 or 162. http://mentalfloss.com/article/73556/11-year-old-just-earned-highest-iq-score-possible |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:05 PM I tell a lie. It was 188. "Was" could well be the operative word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:02 PM Joe Offer has a "preconception" of Donuel's posts. That is a very bad idea. Donuel is the finest loose cannon on this board, often impenetrable, often not quite the ally you may wish for, apparently offbeat on occasion, but never less than intriguing. And he's a bloody liar when he says his IQ is 88. As if it matters anyway. Mine was 182 in the early 60s which was so good that I'm frightened of ever having it measured again. ;-) Eysenck was a bit of a fascist anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the AMD quad core Date: 07 Mar 16 - 02:14 PM MGM, you said "Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM ... But the fact remain that one can OWN land under our laws. It might not in your opinion be right that this should be the case; but such, alas for you, it is. You are rather reminding me of the famous yokel in the old joke, asked the way to somewhere, and replying "Well you can't start from here". ''' ≈M≈" Uncharacteristically for you, your grammar is awry as well as your law. You probably meant to say "the fact remains". Which it doesn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Donuel Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:11 PM Teribus, long ago I was under the impression you were an American and now I am not sure.. You already know about the burning of the rain forest. What is it that you want to say directly. Oblique messages go over my head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Donuel Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:01 PM Yes Joe Offer; My non existent sources and I am almost always wrong. I rely on audio memory more than not, while my hearing is below 50 %. I am not likely to find a cure for language dyslexia in this lifetime so do not expect improvement. Your posts on the other hand are always correct and at their best are eloquent sermons. With an IQ of 88 it should be apparent I am doing the best I can. If you wish to honor me by quoting me, plies include my commas |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:00 AM I suspect, MGM, that the esteemed MrB is referring to freehold & leasehold being both forms of tenure under the crown rather than of outright ownership. But as they say; IANAL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Mar 16 - 05:43 AM RB -- Regret have not the remotest inkling what of mine you refer to. But never mind, eh? ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network Date: 07 Mar 16 - 04:06 AM MGM - you need to check English land law. The only allodial land in England is the Kennedy Memorial on Runnymede. All other land is held under (reformed) feudal tenures directly or indirectly of the Crown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,H.H.H. jr. Date: 06 Mar 16 - 03:50 PM Re: Desert Folk, I'm getting a triplewide like Gov Huckbee's Mobile Mansion when I hit the Jackpot and the Junk Cars are for my Car Museum and the Other Trash well if you don't have anything nice to say... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Stu Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:52 AM I wear a flat cap, Donegal tweed is my favourite. I've a cloth cap since school and will wear one until the day I die. Best. Hat. Ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:12 AM I've still got my school cap from 1966, never been worn, except in jest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Mar 16 - 08:14 AM I wouldn't. I'd make bloody sure my cap was left at home if I ever suspected I might be in his vicinity. Come to think of it, I haven't had a cap since 1967. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Stu Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:58 AM "Also extremely pleased that I do not live in your mean world of spite and envy." It's world of wonder and discovery, tempered by the attitude of those whose sense of entitlement and self-worth who con the gullible and self-hating millions into servicing their unsustainable, selfish and uncaring sub-society. "Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords" Blimey, what a shower. I wouldn't doff my cap to that lot either. Good on you Tezza, there's hope for you yet. I'd doff my cap to you though mate, no worries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:44 AM I already have done. 😂😂😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:35 AM "Anyone who thinks that people who were born rich deserve having caps doffed to them requires a brain transplant." Take that up with Raggytash he clearly thinks that caps should be doffed when he goes by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Mar 16 - 06:20 AM Anyone who thinks that people who were born rich deserve having caps doffed to them requires a brain transplant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Dave Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:55 AM ""47% of the Amazon Rain Forest is now destroyed in relation to its pristine state 100 years ago." So did they have it right 100 years ago? What is it that has changed over that 100 years?" The clue is in the word pristine. Nature had it right. God had it right. Take your pick. Whats clear is that the change since then is a result of human intervention, which is not good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:56 AM But surely, Teribus, if you were wearing a hat you would have raised it [see my last post] to any lady you met, royal or not? ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Teribus Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:54 AM You'd have lost your bet GUEST,Shimrod - 05 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM, but there again Shimrod you could have absolutely no idea of the situation and circumstances under which I met them (Another one I met but missed out was the late Queen Mother - lovely lady, full of fun - didn't have to doff my hat to her either.). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:34 AM I took my hat off at a funeral the other day ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Mar 16 - 01:19 AM Re hats: I always raise [or at least touch & ½-lift], mine to any female acquaintance I may chance to meet & greet, as gentlemen of my generation were brought up to do. It is likewise, I believe, regarded as a customary courtesy to bare one's head in the presence of royalty. I was once meeting some friends off a train at Ely (Cambridgeshire) Station when I found a crowd assembled round the entrance; and on enquiry learned that HM Queen was visiting the city for some ceremonial purpose, so joined the group. As she emerged, I instinctively took off my hat, and, as I was standing fairly far forward, was aware of a sort of sussuration behind me as other men did likewise. I regard that as one of the virtuously exemplary acts of my life. YMMV! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:43 PM Donuel says: Well posted Joe offer complete with multiple links that show the 7th largest island to be private and not the 5th largest as I said. In fact Joe has formed a inflammatory pre conception of my posts that is not in keeping with reality. Joe, check your ideas about making/keeping federal land private. You are on the slippery slope of becoming a Texas and Oregon terrorist sympathizer. Yes, Donuel, I confess I do have a preconception of your posts. Experience has shown me that the data you provide, which is almost almost undocumented, is almost always wrong. While I may question what you say and may ask for proof, I never attempt to refute your data unless I have documentation. I said, "I rather like the fact that the people of the U.S. own huge portions of land in the West." Maybe that isn't as clear as I thought it was. If I said "I rather like the fact that the people of the U.S. collectively own huge portions of land in the West," would that make more sense? Whatever the case, I like the fact that much of the Western U.S. is government land, managed for the common good instead of to serve the interests of a wealthy few. I spent the last week driving through huge expanses of government-owned desert. There were wildflowers everywhere, and very few buildings or electric wires. It was absolutely beautiful. But for miles and miles around Reno and Las Vegas and most desert cities, there are five-acre plots peppered with mobile homes and junk autos and other trash - and plastic grocery bags everywhere. If we were to break our nation into parcels and distribute it evenly to the public, the whole nation could become a dump. I think people should live in communities, and vast areas should be left open for all to enjoy. But the same thing can be accomplished by private ownership, if the owner is benevolent. The emerging land conservancies are doing a wonderful job of this. I have belonged to the Nature Conservancy for at least two decades. It has protected huge areas and preserved them for wildlife and nature. Here's an interesting article about Ted Turner and other large landowners: -Joe- P.S. By the way, I saw the 6th largest island in Hawaii. It wasn't very big. The four biggest ones are quite large. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM " ... I have met the Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords and I as I did not doff my cap to any of them ..." I bet, though, that you bowed and grovelled and curtsied like a simpering, grinning mad thing, didn't you Teribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:18 PM teribus - are you a very angry man? what's the matter? we are all friends (?) here . get it off your chest..... |
