JohnnyWeedSeed lives in one of those silver trailers you see way way off in the distance in the desert. LOL Sorry - I'm done here - it's like arguing with a Trump lover!
By my logic the government can not own land because the government is illegitimate. The government stole the land from the natives but that does not make them the rightful owners.
Actually I live in a nice house in Colorado Springs. And I'm a proud anarchist who is obsessed with the truth. P.s. Fuck trump!
by your logic, all you have to do to be the rightful owner is pull out your gun and squat, or remove the people you do not believe are the rightful owners like we did to the natives /circularlogic
Not so my good man. If one sets up shop on an unoccupied piece of land, used that land and makes a profit from that land without infringement on others then they own that land. That's my logic.
I guess this debate will go nowhere with statists. I do not recognize the government as a legitimate authority any more than I recognize an 8yr old bully as the owner of the playground. Any appeal to the authority of government will be brushed off of my shoulders as ash from a fire.
like the land the government owned, and was making a profit on with hunting licenses and shit, that they infringed upon by burning /circularlogic
Read my above post. The government can not own land. The government does not produce anything therefor can not produce the value needed to buy the land. This is like me robbing your house, selling all of your shit, using the money to buy your house from the bank and then evicting your ass.
A blade just sent me this link. It is interesting and proves that the government is once again breaking their own laws by claiming ownership of the land. teamlaw.net/land.htm
If the government is illegitimate of course you're going to believe that but that's a silly 4 year old reaction to a complicated situation. That's the political equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling to drown other people out. Regardless of whether or not you believe there should be a government there clearly is one which has a vested interest in controlling land and making sure it is not abused. I understand you're an anarchist but I think it's beyond to silly to support these guys. They ignored laws that have legitimate reasons and now they have to face the consequences. It they really want to protest anything it should be mandatory minimum sentencing because that's why they have to go to jail again. All in all you can't have a functioning government if people break laws and then take over federal buildings to get people released, without any consequences.
So how would one know if the land is occupied without government records? By your reasoning if I had a hundred acres of woods, no house on it, and was saving it for my children's inheritance, a squatter could come in and take a portion of it. All he would have to do is build a cabin and a garden. If I was up in years, I may never see him until after he was well established. . In essence, he would be able to steal my land.
So, if I own 40 acres and my house and yard occupy 2 acres, it's ok for strangers to squat on the rest of my land if they set up shop, and make a profit?? I don't fuckin think so.
Went into my real estate manual for this Adverse possession is actually legal and government regulated lol Too much to type Squat for 18 years and you own it
Thanks, I know there are squatters rights laws on the books, but Johnny feels it should be widespread and the law of the land. In some places I believe it can be in as few as 7 years. Edited to add: Note the requirement to pay taxes during that time.
Yea i believe that says it's 7 if you're willing to pay the back taxes But taxes are theft! squatting until you own it isn't though
I found some more info that relates to the poaching allegations. This is a copy of the final decision to deny renewal of grazing rights and delves into the poaching. By several witness accounts this wasn't about shooting deer without proper tag, they shot and left for dead several deer then set the fire to cover it up. http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL-Decision-Ha... Regardless of how a person feels about shooting out of season or without proper tag (which I too have mixed thoughts about), the arson was a bad deal covering up a bad deal.
I don't see how these people are terrorists. They have not harmed any innocent people or even used any force yet to my knowledge. Their problem is with the government, not citizens.
When a group of unknown size and unknown firepower has taken over any federal building with plans and possibly some equipment to aid a years-long occupation - and when its representative tells reporters that they would prefer to avoid violence but are prepared to die - the kind of almost-uniform delicacy and the limits on the language used to describe the people involved becomes noteworthy itself. What would you call them if they were of Sudan descent and were protesting for more immigration visas, same armament?