Where does anyone get off restricting space to anyone?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:30:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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

I am its rightful owner.

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.

I'm happy we are unlikely to consider these future colonists to be the
rightful owners. Hopefully in the future our ethical standards will
have evolved away from any private ownership of land at all.

On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:51:31 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:30:58 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

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

I am its rightful owner.

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.

I'm happy we are unlikely to consider these future colonists to be the
rightful owners. Hopefully in the future our ethical standards will
have evolved away from any private ownership of land at all.

So, why haven't YOUR ethical standards already evolved away from private ownership of land?

You seem to think it acceptable for some human living in the future not to be allowed to own land, yet here you are OWNING land!

Explain.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 03:29:10 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So, why haven't YOUR ethical standards already evolved away from private ownership of land?

They have.

You seem to think it acceptable for some human living in the future not to be allowed to own land, yet here you are OWNING land!

I live within the constructs of my society, as anyone must. That
doesn't mean I can't argue for my society to change, however.

In article ,
Pastor Ravi Holy of Geity Spa wrote:


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...


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 GBP 763 million, and annual profit was GBP 19 million, a revenue surplus gain
(changed the pound sign to GBP-- mrr)
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.

19 out of 763, that is a ~2.5% return. And that is an improvement?

With normal valuations even royalty cannot get more than about 12 times
earnings. More like 9-10 in rural areas. Which would set valuation at
~220-ish at the most.

Or is this just a mismanaged politically-correct-run entity that is
screaming for some real capitalists to take over?

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.

Tax free status could change the multiplier to 16. At the most.

-- mrr

"Morten Reistad" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Pastor Ravi Holy of Geity Spa wrote:


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...


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 GBP 763 million, and annual profit was GBP 19 million, a revenue
surplus gain
(changed the pound sign to GBP-- mrr)
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.

19 out of 763, that is a ~2.5% return. And that is an improvement?

With normal valuations even royalty cannot get more than about 12 times
earnings. More like 9-10 in rural areas. Which would set valuation at
~220-ish at the most.

Or is this just a mismanaged politically-correct-run entity that is
screaming for some real capitalists to take over?

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.

Tax free status could change the multiplier to 16. At the most.


So you are saying the descendants of the indigenous people have the moral
right to take their birthright land back by bombing the buildings upon it.
McVeigh tried that in Oklahoma City in 1995 and was martyred in USP Terre
Haute by lethal injection. Might is right.
hetti

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:48:32 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 03:29:10 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

So, why haven't YOUR ethical standards already evolved away from private ownership of land?

They have.

You seem to think it acceptable for some human living in the future not to be allowed to own land, yet here you are OWNING land!

I live within the constructs of my society, as anyone must. That
doesn't mean I can't argue for my society to change, however.

There are currently plenty of people who don't own land, so what's your excuse?

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:07:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

There are currently plenty of people who don't own land, so what's your excuse?

Non sequitur.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 9:56:39 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:07:33 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

There are currently plenty of people who don't own land, so what's your excuse?

Non sequitur.

You evaded a simple question once again.

And your continued response of "non sequitur" simply makes you look childish, especially given your tendency to over-edit and quote out of context.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 07:26:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:

And your continued response of "non sequitur" simply makes you look childish, especially given your tendency to over-edit and quote out of context.

No, the fact that you don't recognize that your comment bears no
relationship to the discussion simply demonstrates your lack of
intellect.

On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:58:22 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 07:26:37 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

And your continued response of "non sequitur" simply makes you look childish, especially given your tendency to over-edit and quote out of context.

No, the fact that you don't recognize that your comment bears no
relationship to the discussion simply demonstrates your lack of
intellect.

You are continuing to evade this question:

"There are currently plenty of people who don't own land, so what's your excuse? "