RE: Do We Own?
July 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2013 at 5:23 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(July 20, 2013 at 4:59 pm)genkaus Wrote: For example? / We do? I don't.The freedom to avail yourself of some piece of land that might be "owned" and thusly locked out to you under the ownership model.
Quote:Its not deferment that's valuable here but the choice of deferment. You are not being forced to defer under the ownership model, but you are being forced to "use it or lose it" under priority use model.Agreed, that would be whats forced. On the other hand, under the ownership model you wither "own it or don't have such a choice". That's similarly forced.
Quote:No its not. What's being chalked up to the government is using possibly corrupt reasons for exercising its right to defer - a right not available to it under priority use.I appreciate the way we've tied this in with "rights not available" - and I'd like to think that the same would occur to me if the roles were reversed. Probably not though. In any case, this all falls to the same as above.
Quote:And we are back to square one. The point I'm making is that it is that the current system is not similar to priority use system - for the reasons I've already given.There is nothing essentially different between the way a black powder rifle and a modern rifle operate. Nevertheless, if you want to take a round out of a black powder rifle and make it work in a modern rifle..some changes will have to be made. You've given dissimilarities, I've given similarities. On the balance of it you or I may feel that the scales for either tilt in our favor. I'm torn, as devils advocate here - so my opinion is likely to be biased and useless for such a summary.
Quote:They'd still end up the bigger problem.No bigger a problem than John Q could be under such a system - unless they're given special access and advantage - which I wouldn't be giving them.
Quote:And how exactly would it be enforced in the priority use system?Same as we do so now. "The State v -insert here-"
Quote:By its very nature, the "highest level of environmental controls" is a compromise. It is used when the need for development is great enough to justify a certain amount of damage to the environment and the controls are just a way to minimize it. Under the ownership model, even the compromise would be limited - certain sections of environment must remain inviolate. The same cannot be enforced under priority use.Of course it could be. The terms of use on the contract (from your proposal) are handled the same under priority use as they are now. If logging rights are not available - logs stay thick on the ground.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
