I think we've reached an impasse here and unless we are ready to discuss the detailed aspects of priority use model and how they relate to minutiae of Contract Law and politics, I don't think we can resolve it.
I think it is necessary and I don't think that Terms of Service would provide sufficient alternative to all the principle provided by the concept of ownership. I consider ownership to be a central and critical concept within contract law and I believe its removal would result in some major rewrite of the law.
Something was left unspoken - its called the concept of eminenet domain and it usually applies to natural resources and real estate. It assumes that the government is the original owner of the land and rather than selling it to private owners, it has leased it to them - with certain conditions regarding its usage and with the right to reclaim it if need be. Under these circumstances the government can grant or revoke logging rights on what would otherwise be private property. Where the concept of eminent domain not applied, every logger would have logging rights on his private land.
In principle, not in practice. While people review government's overall performance every five years or so, they are not involved in its day to day functions and have little say in how it allocates individual resources.
The basis right now is ownership. Which won't be available under your model.
I disagree. I don't think that it is compatible.
(July 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's not necessary in the way we're invoking it to contract law though. In lue of having ownership rights you simply have a TOS on the property. Well delineated and well defined.
I think it is necessary and I don't think that Terms of Service would provide sufficient alternative to all the principle provided by the concept of ownership. I consider ownership to be a central and critical concept within contract law and I believe its removal would result in some major rewrite of the law.
(July 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So rights you don't have even after having bought said property? All rights persuant to that usage doesn't follow from anything I;ve said - or anything you've said genk. Something has been left unspoken and assumed.
Something was left unspoken - its called the concept of eminenet domain and it usually applies to natural resources and real estate. It assumes that the government is the original owner of the land and rather than selling it to private owners, it has leased it to them - with certain conditions regarding its usage and with the right to reclaim it if need be. Under these circumstances the government can grant or revoke logging rights on what would otherwise be private property. Where the concept of eminent domain not applied, every logger would have logging rights on his private land.
(July 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -answerable to we the people, of course./
-and so..ultimately the authority is "we the people".
In principle, not in practice. While people review government's overall performance every five years or so, they are not involved in its day to day functions and have little say in how it allocates individual resources.
(July 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The same authority as now, the same basis as now in effect (thought not in every principle). I'd probably impose stricter regulations of just what sort of authority government had...but it's again free for discussion.
The basis right now is ownership. Which won't be available under your model.
(July 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: By default, allowed/not allowed is a meaningless concept. "If there were no authority then no claim could be said to have authority". Another empty truth. Fortunately priority use is compatible with our current "authority" in any case.
I disagree. I don't think that it is compatible.
