Where does anyone get off restricting space to anyone?

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:34:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Or maybe
even jail, given your clear sociopathy.

Oh, come now. *His* kind of sociopathy is the kind shared by the people who are
running the country. They don't lock people up for that, they give them
high-paying jobs on Wall Street and kindred places for it.

John Savard

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:18:42 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:34:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It would appear that you are a hypocrite since you now occupy land that, until
a few centuries ago, had not yet been "claimed" by a country or a "company."

Logic and reason are not your strong points, are they?

While I would say that accusing you of being a hypocrite is a bit much, I
wouldn't say his statement is devoid of logic.

It is *possible* to believe that stealing the Americas and Australia from their
indigenous peoples was wrong without having to demand that they be returned to
the descendants of their original owners.

It is possible to believe that. But not believing it doesn't make
someone a hypocrite. Except in the mind of a madman, of course.

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:20:00 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:34:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Or maybe
even jail, given your clear sociopathy.

Oh, come now. *His* kind of sociopathy is the kind shared by the people who are
running the country. They don't lock people up for that, they give them
high-paying jobs on Wall Street and kindred places for it.

No, I think he is a genuine sociopath, which most people running the
country are not.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:34:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

It would appear that you are a hypocrite since you now occupy land that,
until
a few centuries ago, had not yet been "claimed" by a country or a
"company."

Logic and reason are not your strong points, are they?

While I would say that accusing you of being a hypocrite is a bit much, I
wouldn't say his statement is devoid of logic.

It is *possible* to believe that stealing the Americas and Australia from
their
indigenous peoples was wrong without having to demand that they be returned
to
the descendants of their original owners.

And do the descendants of the indigenous people (who remain indigenous) have
the moral right to take their birthright land back by bombing the buildings
upon it?
Seems to me the compromise solution is for the descendants of the foreign
invaders to pay ground rent to the injun chief's descendants, thus elevating
the indigenous people's descendants to the status of the Duke of Cornwall,
Prince of Wales and Heir to the English and Scottish throne, whose tax-free
income comes from ground rent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall
The Duchy of Cornwall (Cornish: Duketh Kernow) is one of two royal duchies
in England, the other being the Duchy of Lancaster. The eldest son of the
reigning British monarch inherits the duchy and title of Duke of Cornwall at
the time of his birth, or of his parent's succession to the throne. If the
monarch has no son, the estates of the duchy are held by the crown, and
there is no duke. The current duke is Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales.

The principal activity of the duchy is the management of its land and
properties. The duchy has a financial investment portfolio and owns land
totalling 531.3 km2 or 205.1 sq mi.[1] Nearly half of the holdings are in
Devon, with other large holdings in Cornwall, Herefordshire, Somerset and
Wales.[2][3] For the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, the duchy was valued
at £763 million, and annual profit was £19 million, a revenue surplus gain
of 4.1% from the previous year.[4] The duchy also exercises certain legal
rights and privileges across Cornwall, including some that elsewhere in
England belong to the crown. For the County, the Duke appoints a number of
officials and is the port authority for the main port of the Isles of
Scilly.

The government considers the duchy to be a crown body and therefore exempt
from paying corporation tax. The tax position of the duchy has been
challenged by British republicans.

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:18:44 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:34:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:02:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

It would appear that you are a hypocrite since you now occupy land that, until
a few centuries ago, had not yet been "claimed" by a country or a "company."

Logic and reason are not your strong points, are they?

While I would say that accusing you of being a hypocrite is a bit much, I
wouldn't say his statement is devoid of logic.

Presumably, he would not currently be occupying or owning the land had France (or Spain) not "claimed" it in the absence of any other obvious "ownership." The land might have since been owned/sold/bought often enough that it would now seem to be adequately "laundered," at least in his mind.

It is *possible* to believe that stealing the Americas and Australia from their
indigenous peoples was wrong without having to demand that they be returned to
the descendants of their original owners.

Anyone, regardless of ancestry, can now own a portion of the lands in question. Had history played out any differently, none of us would have been here to argue the point. Problem solved?

If peterson thinks that it would be wrong for a government or other entity to occupy and then claim the Moon, he should then have the courage of his convictions and not now be in possession of land which some say was "stolen" by governments and other entities.

On Friday, November 21, 2014 2:41:00 AM UTC-5, Pastor Ravi Holy of Geity Spa wrote:


And do the descendants of the indigenous people (who remain indigenous) have
the moral right to take their birthright land back by bombing the buildings
upon it?

No, each human has the same natural rights as any other, provided that he or she respects the natural rights of all others.

Seems to me the compromise solution is for the descendants of the foreign
invaders to pay ground rent to the injun chief's descendants,

So, if one indigenous tribe took land from another indigenous tribe shortly before losing it for good to the Spanish, who really has claim to that land?

And what of people who are descendants of both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples? Do they get only a percentage of the rent? Or do they have to pay too?

(Fauxcahontas might very well wish to receive the full rent in any case.)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:11:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If peterson thinks that it would be wrong for a government or other entity to occupy and then claim the Moon, he should then have the courage of his convictions and not now be in possession of land which some say was "stolen" by governments and other entities.

Get some help, man!

On Friday, November 21, 2014 9:53:15 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 03:11:49 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

If peterson thinks that it would be wrong for a government or other entity to occupy and then claim the Moon, he should then have the courage of his convictions and not now be in possession of land which some say was "stolen" by governments and other entities.

Get some help, man!

I don't need any help, dude, but you sure do.

Here goes:

Move back to where your ancestors were living before they came to America, and give your land to someone whose ancestors had been living here all along.

Otherwise admit that a hypothetical space colonist or industrialist can make whatever claim they want on places and objects in space, assuming that they could do so without government funding.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:13:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Move back to where your ancestors were living before they came to America, and give your land to someone whose ancestors had been living here all along.

Otherwise admit that a hypothetical space colonist or industrialist can make whatever claim they want on places and objects in space, assuming that they could do so without government funding.

Are you incapable of grasping that ethical standards evolve? That we
have better ethics today than in the past? That's what was ethical in
the past (taking land by force, slavery, etc) is no longer that way?

I'm happy that we no longer consider claiming land to be the right way
of doing things. That doesn't mean that we owe any apologies for how
things worked in the past.

On Friday, November 21, 2014 11:13:03 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:13:13 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Move back to where your ancestors were living before they came to America, and give your land to someone whose ancestors had been living here all along.

Otherwise admit that a hypothetical space colonist or industrialist can make whatever claim they want on places and objects in space, assuming that they could do so without government funding.

Are you incapable of grasping that ethical standards evolve? That we
have better ethics today than in the past? That's what was ethical in
the past (taking land by force, slavery, etc) is no longer that way?

I'm happy that we no longer consider claiming land to be the right way
of doing things. That doesn't mean that we owe any apologies for how
things worked in the past.

It still isn't too late for you to return your land to its "rightful" owners and "go back to where you belong."

Otherwise, admit that a hypothetical space colonist or industrialist can make whatever claim they want on places and objects in space, assuming that they could do so without government funding.