Political Crossfire Forums

[Free Thinkr]

thintheherd wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: While you may recieve the "fruits of labor", you also would be stealing from society. For example, that seed you used came from a tree that did not belong to you, which came from a tree that a different person owned, etc...until the ancestral tree was not owned by anyone. (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

If we state that man can not "own" land because land was not created by man than where do we stop man's right of ownership at?

Major
You never truly own matter. It can neither be created nor destroyed. What you may own is the value of the result of your labor upon existing matter; you may fashion wood into a chair, for example, and you would be entitled to the value that arose from its being a chair. Now, as far as depriving others of matter, this is only problematic in the event that such matter is scarce; while you use air, you don't need to compensate anyone for it, because it is abundant, and therefore has no value. Some things that nature provides are scarce, and therefore have a value. In such a case, society should be compensated an amount equal to its value when such matter is used.
Hmmmm...

Didn't someone take this to it's logical conclusion and get lambasted for it just a bit ago?
No, they made an illogical leap, which was corrected.

Quote: You just reinforced the very same conclusion.
What conclusion is that?

Quote: 'Private ownership is for suckers and everything of importance is better served if controlled by the collective you call society.'
Strawman.

Quote: Get it right again did I? Now what does that remind me of.........?

One of these, I suppose.

[thintheherd]

Boulderdash... you changed your land argument to one of matter.

[zero18]

[quote="MajorWoody"] zero18 wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Yes they do. They have an eaqual right to own land. All they need do is purchase it.

Purchase from who? Who's the original owner of natural land?

Quote: Originally from the US government.

The US government acquired much of the land it claimed through conquest and violating treaties with the American Indians. The government is not the rightful owner to the land.

Quote: They might not be the ones to orignally own it but they are the ones to acquire it and keep it protected.

Just because you can acquire something by stealing it doesn't make it right.


Quote: Do you think that if the US was ever overtaken by foreign enemy that your land deed would be worth anything?

What would the foreign enemy care about my previous land deed with the US government if it no longer has power?

[Free Thinkr]

thintheherd wrote: Boulderdash... you changed your land argument to one of matter.
I've defined land many times on these boards. I'll do so once again: all matter that is not a human, or fashioned for human use by labor. Land is matter in its natural state, in other words.

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: While you may recieve the "fruits of labor", you also would be stealing from society. For example, that seed you used came from a tree that did not belong to you, which came from a tree that a different person owned, etc...until the ancestral tree was not owned by anyone. (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

If we state that man can not "own" land because land was not created by man than where do we stop man's right of ownership at?


Major
You never truly own matter. It can neither be created nor destroyed. What you may own is the value of the result of your labor upon existing matter; you may fashion wood into a chair, for example, and you would be entitled to the value that arose from its being a chair. Now, as far as depriving others of matter, this is only problematic in the event that such matter is scarce; while you use air, you don't need to compensate anyone for it, because it is abundant, and therefore has no value. Some things that nature provides are scarce, and therefore have a value. In such a case, society should be compensated an amount equal to its value when such matter is used.

Ok, so let's see if we can follow your logic.

I take some lumber and I take some steel. Should I pay some social tax because I am taking matter away from others so they can't use it?

Regardless, I take these material and make a pair of cutting shears. If I want to sell it who determines the price? I do. correct? I mean if I wanted to sell it for $1K, that's my perrogative right?

Now, let's say I take some land. I cut all the trees down and level the earth so I could make something out of it. Under the LVT who determines that value? I would assume it would be the market and I would have to sell it at that price regardless because the market could just price me off of my land. In reference to those shears I don't have to pay a tax, so if I don't want to sell them I don't have to, why? I still have taken value from society.


Major

[MajorWoody]

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Yes they do. They have an eaqual right to own land. All they need do is purchase it.

Purchase from who? Who's the original owner of natural land?

Originally from the US government.

The US government acquired much of the land it claimed through conquest and violating treaties with the American Indians. The government is not the rightful owner to the land.

Wrong, he who can hold onto the land is the rightful owner.

If the UN decided that the US is not the rightful owner of American land then they have every right to try and take it from the US and give it back to the Native American people.

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: They might not be the ones to orignally own it but they are the ones to acquire it and keep it protected.

Just because you can acquire something by stealing it doesn't make it right.

No, but being able to hold onto it makes it theirs nonetheless.


zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Do you think that if the US was ever overtaken by foreign enemy that your land deed would be worth anything?

What would the foreign enemy care about my previous land deed with the US government if it no longer has power?

Exactly my point.

It is the government in power who owns the land, which for the moment is the US government. And the US government has given the US people the right to purchase land.


Major

[LeopardPM]

[quote="zero18"] MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Yes they do. They have an eaqual right to own land. All they need do is purchase it.

Purchase from who? Who's the original owner of natural land?

Quote: Originally from the US government.

The US government acquired much of the land it claimed through conquest and violating treaties with the American Indians. The government is not the rightful owner to the land.
I agree - to a point: In a perfectly just and moral society, the heirs of the folks whom had the land stolen from them have a legal case to reclaim their ownership... since most are in abstentia, or have no recognizable method of determining ownership, then the land became 'unowned' and was then appropriated by government.

Imagine a person living out west, owning a plot of land. He is killed (murdered) and had no offspring - what happens to the land? It reverts back to being unowned until someone homesteads it and that act of homesteading is just. Now, if the man had an heir, then the heir has rights to reclaim the land, negating the homesteading and all subsequent ownership transfers - until that point, where the heir comes forward, all ownership of the land ARE just and rightful. Depending on socially accepted and derived rules, it may be that only the direct, next generation, of the original landowner may put forth a claim - not his subsequent offspring.

Quote: Quote: They might not be the ones to orignally own it but they are the ones to acquire it and keep it protected.

Just because you can acquire something by stealing it doesn't make it right.
of course, which is why all property which can be proven 'stolen' should be returned.

Quote: Quote: Do you think that if the US was ever overtaken by foreign enemy that your land deed would be worth anything?

What would the foreign enemy care about my previous land deed with the US government if it no longer has power?
which is why force is totally anti-rights: the use of force necessitates the abridgment of rights, property and otherwise.

[zero18]

LeopardPM wrote: to justly own a product, you must also own all of the inputs including resources which went into the product. Did you own the original seed?

No, you don't own the original seed. As I already pointed out, it all goes back to the fruits of labor concept so when I take my time and labor to care for the seed it becomes mine.



Quote: Whatever argument that can be made for the LVT, it can also be made for ALL matter - we didn't create it, so we can't own it, only rent it from... 'society'?

Don't individuals build houses? Don't individuals plant trees? Once again, refer back to my argument on fruits of labor and explain to me how natural land can be the product of human labor.



Quote: Society doesn't own anything, isn't real or alive, only living things can own. Since living things MUST own things to survive, then it is implied that we must be able to do so: own the berry we eat, own the land beneath our feet, own the rock we take to build our houses, own the water, air, earth, and space. If the people in a group (society) cannot own, then the group itself cannot be said to own - from where does this extra right come from? All of the rights and powers of society must be derived from the individual rights and powers of each man.

I think you're confused about the difference between Lockean equal rights which recognizes that land rights are not a collective right, but an individual right that is separate from the collective, and Marxist thought which promotes the "rights" of the collective. Marx would argue that no one has a right to land unless society gives it to him. Henry George and most other Classical Liberals would say that one does not need permission to use land but also recognize that one also must not interfere with the equal rights of other individuals to also use land. Geolibertarians outright reject Marxist ideology and the fact that Henry George and Karl Marx strongly disagreed on the rights issue demonstrates a clear division.

[MajorWoody]

zero18 wrote: LeopardPM wrote: to justly own a product, you must also own all of the inputs including resources which went into the product. Did you own the original seed?

No, you don't own the original seed. As I already pointed out, it all goes back to the fruits of labor concept so when I take my time and labor to care for the seed it becomes mine.

So if I cut down trees and level the land and put down seed and create a beautiful lawn do I get to decide how much that land is worth under the LVT?

Because if I nuture and grow the seed until it is a tree and then chop it down do I not get to set the price of that lumber?



zero18 wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Whatever argument that can be made for the LVT, it can also be made for ALL matter - we didn't create it, so we can't own it, only rent it from... 'society'?

Don't individuals build houses? Don't individuals plant trees? Once again, refer back to my argument on fruits of labor and explain to me how natural land can be the product of human labor.

How about leveling the land? or was all land just ready to be built upon?



zero18 wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Society doesn't own anything, isn't real or alive, only living things can own. Since living things MUST own things to survive, then it is implied that we must be able to do so: own the berry we eat, own the land beneath our feet, own the rock we take to build our houses, own the water, air, earth, and space. If the people in a group (society) cannot own, then the group itself cannot be said to own - from where does this extra right come from? All of the rights and powers of society must be derived from the individual rights and powers of each man.

I think you're confused about the difference between Lockean equal rights which recognizes that land rights are not a collective right, but an individual right that is separate from the collective, and Marxist thought which promotes the "rights" of the collective. Marx would argue that no one has a right to land unless society gives it to him. Henry George and most other Classical Liberals would say that one does not need permission to use land but also recognize that one also must not interfere with the equal rights of other individuals to also use land. Geolibertarians outright reject Marxist ideology and the fact that Henry George and Karl Marx strongly disagreed on the rights issue demonstrates a clear division.

Yeah, an I don't like either. :-D


Major

[zero18]

MajorWoody wrote: I agree with Leopard here.

While you may recieve the "fruits of labor", you also would be stealing from society.

Geolibertarians don't believe in collective rights so they don't recognize the "rights of society". What they do recognize are common rights, as in the natural equal rights of every individual.



Quote: For example, that seed you used came from a tree that did not belong to you, which came from a tree that a different person owned, etc...until the ancestral tree was not owned by anyone.

Geolibertarians do not promote stealing so I don't get your example. If someone else grew the tree then that tree is their private property. If I find a tree that has naturally grown in the forest and cut it down to make firewood, that firewood is my private property.




Quote: (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

Like the natural land, water and soil are common rights. Society does not have the right to tell me I can't use it.

The sheers i either produced myself or bought from someone who did, therefore its my private property.



Quote: If we state that man can not "own" land because land was not created by man than where do we stop man's right of ownership at?

Think of land like air. We all have a right to use it (common right) but none of us have a right to deny it to others. We use our common rights of land, air, water, etc. to produce private property (such as a house, orchard, etc.)

[zero18]

thintheherd wrote: Didn't someone take this to it's logical conclusion and get lambasted for it just a bit ago?

You just reinforced the very same conclusion.

'Private ownership is for suckers and everything of importance is better served if controlled by the collective you call society.'

Get it right again did I? Now what does that remind me of.........?

Once again, geolibertarians do not believe society owns anything. Please research common rights.

Did you know that the founder of the Libertarian Party is a geolibertarian?

"What kind of taxation is least harmful?....My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation." ~ David Nolan

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: While you may recieve the "fruits of labor", you also would be stealing from society. For example, that seed you used came from a tree that did not belong to you, which came from a tree that a different person owned, etc...until the ancestral tree was not owned by anyone. (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

If we state that man can not "own" land because land was not created by man than where do we stop man's right of ownership at?


Major
You never truly own matter. It can neither be created nor destroyed. What you may own is the value of the result of your labor upon existing matter; you may fashion wood into a chair, for example, and you would be entitled to the value that arose from its being a chair. Now, as far as depriving others of matter, this is only problematic in the event that such matter is scarce; while you use air, you don't need to compensate anyone for it, because it is abundant, and therefore has no value. Some things that nature provides are scarce, and therefore have a value. In such a case, society should be compensated an amount equal to its value when such matter is used.

Ok, so let's see if we can follow your logic.

I take some lumber and I take some steel. Should I pay some social tax because I am taking matter away from others so they can't use it?
No. Lumber and steel are not land, but products of labor (wealth). If it was the case that trees or iron ore were sufficiently rare to have a value (say you might be inclined to buy forest land or a section of land that contained an iron vein), you'd be taxed once, according to that value.

Quote: Regardless, I take these material and make a pair of cutting shears. If I want to sell it who determines the price? I do. correct? I mean if I wanted to sell it for $1K, that's my perrogative right?
You could ask whatever you like; whether or not you could sell it for that much would depend on what others are willing to pay. As far as acquiring the materials in the first place, any value that society was denied in the taking of the materials would be covered in a severance tax.

Quote: Now, let's say I take some land.
Take?

Quote: I cut all the trees down and level the earth so I could make something out of it. Under the LVT who determines that value? I would assume it would be the market and I would have to sell it at that price regardless because the market could just price me off of my land.
Under the LVT, you'd pay a tax proportional to the land in its natural state. If you could get people to pay you in addition to that, that amount would determine the value of your "improvements."

Quote: In reference to those shears I don't have to pay a tax, so if I don't want to sell them I don't have to, why? I still have taken value from society.
The materials you used to create the shears will have been taxed upon extraction.

[MajorWoody]

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: I agree with Leopard here.

While you may recieve the "fruits of labor", you also would be stealing from society.

Geolibertarians don't believe in collective rights so they don't recognize the "rights of society". What they do recognize are common rights, as in the natural equal rights of every individual.

So, what makes your beliefs more correct than Marxists?

That is one of the arguments that a few people put out there a while ago; that people can not own land, now that is your opinion and you are entitled to that but I am entitled to my opinion and until you can convince the majority in a representative democracy the opinion that currently stands will continue to be law.

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: For example, that seed you used came from a tree that did not belong to you, which came from a tree that a different person owned, etc...until the ancestral tree was not owned by anyone.

Geolibertarians do not promote stealing so I don't get your example. If someone else grew the tree then that tree is their private property. If I find a tree that has naturally grown in the forest and cut it down to make firewood, that firewood is my private property.

What if I wanted to cut down that tree? You beat me to it, so you have "squatters" rights. If more than 2 people want a particular tree shouldn't they have to pay a tax?

zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

Like the natural land, water and soil are common rights. Society does not have the right to tell me I can't use it.

The sheers i either produced myself or bought from someone who did, therefore its my private property.

I cut a tree down on a plot of land and built my house upon it, is that not now my private property? Either way, you are depriving others of using that particular substance, be it water or land.


zero18 wrote: MajorWoody wrote: If we state that man can not "own" land because land was not created by man than where do we stop man's right of ownership at?

Think of land like air. We all have a right to use it (common right) but none of us have a right to deny it to others. We use our common rights of land, air, water, etc. to produce private property (such as a house, orchard, etc.)

So, if I produce private property, then why would I have to get rid of it?


Major

[Free Thinkr]

I found this claim curious:
MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: The US government acquired much of the land it claimed through conquest and violating treaties with the American Indians. The government is not the rightful owner to the land.

Wrong, he who can hold onto the land is the rightful owner.

If the UN decided that the US is not the rightful owner of American land then they have every right to try and take it from the US and give it back to the Native American people.
Rightful? So, if I kill your family and claim your land, I'm a "rightful" owner? It may well be the case that I'm the defacto owner, but rightful? That's a bastardization of the term.

MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Just because you can acquire something by stealing it doesn't make it right.

No, but being able to hold onto it makes it theirs nonetheless.
But rightfully? That's the issue at hand. Not what is, but what should be. A society built on injustice is doomed to failure. That's point of all this.

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: While you may recieve the "fruits of labor", you also would be stealing from society. For example, that seed you used came from a tree that did not belong to you, which came from a tree that a different person owned, etc...until the ancestral tree was not owned by anyone. (Even if you cross-pollinated different seeds to "create" your seed, you didn't create the seeds used to create your seed) You also didn't create the water you used to water it, the soil you planted it in has been there since the formation of the planet therefore you could not own that. How about the shears you used to prune it? Did you make them? How about the wood and iron used to make them?

If we state that man can not "own" land because land was not created by man than where do we stop man's right of ownership at?


Major
You never truly own matter. It can neither be created nor destroyed. What you may own is the value of the result of your labor upon existing matter; you may fashion wood into a chair, for example, and you would be entitled to the value that arose from its being a chair. Now, as far as depriving others of matter, this is only problematic in the event that such matter is scarce; while you use air, you don't need to compensate anyone for it, because it is abundant, and therefore has no value. Some things that nature provides are scarce, and therefore have a value. In such a case, society should be compensated an amount equal to its value when such matter is used.

Ok, so let's see if we can follow your logic.

I take some lumber and I take some steel. Should I pay some social tax because I am taking matter away from others so they can't use it?
No. Lumber and steel are not land, but products of labor (wealth). If it was the case that trees or iron ore were sufficiently rare to have a value (say you might be inclined to buy forest land or a section of land that contained an iron vein), you'd be taxed once, according to that value.

Ahh, so it takes this subjective meaning of "rarity" to decide what will be taxed?

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Regardless, I take these material and make a pair of cutting shears. If I want to sell it who determines the price? I do. correct? I mean if I wanted to sell it for $1K, that's my perrogative right?
You could ask whatever you like; whether or not you could sell it for that much would depend on what others are willing to pay. As far as acquiring the materials in the first place, any value that society was denied in the taking of the materials would be covered in a severance tax.

So, why aren't we just taxed once in the purchase of land?

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: Now, let's say I take some land.
Take?

Puchase.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: I cut all the trees down and level the earth so I could make something out of it. Under the LVT who determines that value? I would assume it would be the market and I would have to sell it at that price regardless because the market could just price me off of my land.
Under the LVT, you'd pay a tax proportional to the land in its natural state. If you could get people to pay you in addition to that, that amount would determine the value of your "improvements."

Except, if someone wanted to put a highrise where my house was, my "improvements" would mean diddly. And I thought the market decided what the land is worth? The natural state would never change, so shouldn't the tax always stay the same?

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: In reference to those shears I don't have to pay a tax, so if I don't want to sell them I don't have to, why? I still have taken value from society.
The materials you used to create the shears will have been taxed upon extraction.

Why once? The materials will be removed from common use forever, not just at purchase, why not just tax the land once during extraction? Either way they are unusable to society.


Major

[zero18]

MajorWoody wrote: So if I cut down trees and level the land and put down seed and create a beautiful lawn do I get to decide how much that land is worth under the LVT?

Because if I nuture and grow the seed until it is a tree and then chop it down do I not get to set the price of that lumber?

You don't decide the LVT, the market does.



[quote]How about leveling the land? or was all land just ready to be built upon?]/quote]

Whatever is the product of your labor is yours. You don't own the air around you, but when you breathe it in it becomes yours. Same concept.



Quote: Yeah, an I don't like either. :-D


Well not saying you have to but I think Henry George was one of history's greatest economists and many free market-loving economists and political philosophers agree including Milton Friedman, David Nolan, Fred Foldvary, Winston Churchill, and many others. Have you ever read any works by Henry George?

[MajorWoody]

Free Thinkr wrote: I found this claim curious:
MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: The US government acquired much of the land it claimed through conquest and violating treaties with the American Indians. The government is not the rightful owner to the land.

Wrong, he who can hold onto the land is the rightful owner.

If the UN decided that the US is not the rightful owner of American land then they have every right to try and take it from the US and give it back to the Native American people.
Rightful? So, if I kill your family and claim your land, I'm a "rightful" owner? It may well be the case that I'm the defacto owner, but rightful? That's a bastardization of the term.

If there was no law and I was powerless to do anything then yes you would be the owner of my land. You only have things as long as you can keep them, that is why man created government, to give the populace a sense of protection from those more powerful than them.

Free Thinkr wrote: MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Just because you can acquire something by stealing it doesn't make it right.

No, but being able to hold onto it makes it theirs nonetheless.
But rightfully? That's the issue at hand. Not what is, but what should be. A society built on injustice is doomed to failure. That's point of all this.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that life isn't fair? Or how about only the strong survive? We are only able to keep what we can protect, that is the sad truth.


Major

[pyrophasma]

Just had a funny thought with taxes.

I imagined if I had jus hired some dude to mow my lawn. Afterwards, I ask him 'What's the goin rate for the job you just did?' And he says 'Oh, bout $50.'

I start to hand him $50 bucks, then he stops me. He says 'But, I'm gonna charge you 20% of your income.'

Man, that'd be funny.

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Geolibertarians don't believe in collective rights so they don't recognize the "rights of society". What they do recognize are common rights, as in the natural equal rights of every individual.

So, what makes your beliefs more correct than Marxists?
What makes yours more correct? That's a long discussion, and probably belongs in the philosophy forum.

Quote: That is one of the arguments that a few people put out there a while ago; that people can not own land, now that is your opinion and you are entitled to that but I am entitled to my opinion and until you can convince the majority in a representative democracy the opinion that currently stands will continue to be law.
What about humans? Can you own humans? If the laws allow it, does that somehow make it legitimate? The problem is that there is no basis for land ownership.

MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Geolibertarians do not promote stealing so I don't get your example. If someone else grew the tree then that tree is their private property. If I find a tree that has naturally grown in the forest and cut it down to make firewood, that firewood is my private property.

What if I wanted to cut down that tree? You beat me to it, so you have "squatters" rights. If more than 2 people want a particular tree shouldn't they have to pay a tax?
Absolutely. Let's say the two of you get together and bid against one another for the right to cut that tree down; that process determines the tree's value in its natural state. Normally things like trees wont have any value, because they're no sufficiently scarce for people to bother bidding against one another. That's why air has no value or sand has no value. Land, on the other hand, is sufficiently scarce, and varies greatly in utility, which compells people to pay large amounts for certain parcels of land. This value was not created by any individual, and does not belong to any individual.

MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Like the natural land, water and soil are common rights. Society does not have the right to tell me I can't use it.

The sheers i either produced myself or bought from someone who did, therefore its my private property.

I cut a tree down on a plot of land and built my house upon it, is that not now my private property?
The land? No. The improvements are.

Quote: Either way, you are depriving others of using that particular substance, be it water or land.
As long as there is equally good of those resources available to others, that's perfectly fine. It's only when the resource is scarce, and therefore has a value, that the tax need be invoked.

MajorWoody wrote: zero18 wrote: Think of land like air. We all have a right to use it (common right) but none of us have a right to deny it to others. We use our common rights of land, air, water, etc. to produce private property (such as a house, orchard, etc.)

So, if I produce private property, then why would I have to get rid of it?
You wouldn't. Private property being the fruit of your labor, of course.

[Free Thinkr]

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: I found this claim curious:
MajorWoody wrote: Wrong, he who can hold onto the land is the rightful owner.

If the UN decided that the US is not the rightful owner of American land then they have every right to try and take it from the US and give it back to the Native American people.
Rightful? So, if I kill your family and claim your land, I'm a "rightful" owner? It may well be the case that I'm the defacto owner, but rightful? That's a bastardization of the term.
If there was no law and I was powerless to do anything then yes you would be the owner of my land. You only have things as long as you can keep them, that is why man created government, to give the populace a sense of protection from those more powerful than them.
Uh, you didn't answer the question. No doubt I would be the owner; I'm asking you if I'd be the rightful owner. In my mind, I clearly wouldn't be.

MajorWoody wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: But rightfully? That's the issue at hand. Not what is, but what should be. A society built on injustice is doomed to failure. That's point of all this.
Didn't your mother ever tell you that life isn't fair? Or how about only the strong survive? We are only able to keep what we can protect, that is the sad truth.
No, it's not the sad truth. In a state of anarchy, it perhaps would be; fortunately, our ancestors established a government with the express intention to recognize rights, and secure them. From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Emphasis mine. The point of government is to secure rights; my point is that, in making land private property, our founding fathers inadvertently failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. It's a simple enough matter to correct; but first, the governed must recongnize this injustice.