(July 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The freedom to avail yourself of some piece of land that might be "owned" and thusly locked out to you under the ownership model.
I can avail myself of it under ownership model - by buying it.
(July 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.
The parallel to that under priority use model would be "have use right or don't have use rights". So they are pretty much equal at that point.
(July 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.
It wouldn't be up to you.
(July 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Same as we do so now. "The State v -insert here-"
Vehemently disagreed. The principles used in such cases right now won't be applicable under priority use model.
(July 20, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.
But under the priority use model, the logging rights would always be available. It is not government property and therefore it is not up to the government to grant or deny logging rights. Logging rights would be available to every logger and the only question would be who gets priority.
