BS: ...this land is private property

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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/