Do We Own?

[genkaus]

- exactly. If you can't buy it, you can happily go avail yourself of jack shit.

The same problem would apply in priority use model. After all, you can't expect to have use rights to everything.

Any principle in use for contract law is applicable. After all, getting that "winning bid" to generate a claim has to be made official.

Its not. Because ownership is a basic principle within contract law. Therefore, any principles within contract law pursuant to ownership would not be applicable.

Why, under the ownership model logging rights aren't always available either - even if you own the property.

Because it is assumed that it was originally government property and thus only government would be able issue or curtail rights associated with it. Since, under priority usage, the concept of property doesn't apply all forms of usage and therefore all rights pursuant to that usage would automatically be valid.

No more their property than ours, no. They'd have their own contract to fulfill as administrators. I don;t see why logging rights -have- to be included in priority use (though I would...but I'm a stickler...I'd insist that the logging be sustainable..lol).

Right now, the government is deemed the ultimate owner and therefore the ultimate authority as to the usage of the natural resource. So, it can grant or refuse permission regarding its use by issuing logging rights. Under priority use, there is no ultimate authority to declare what is or isn't allowed (or if you say there is, then what is the legal basis for that authority?). By default, all forms of usage are allowed. Therefore, logging rights automatically become a part of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The same problem would apply in priority use model. After all, you can't expect to have use rights to everything.

.....right, it's a wash.

Its not. Because ownership is a basic principle within contract law. Therefore, any principles within contract law pursuant to ownership would not be applicable.

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.

Because it is assumed that it was originally government property and thus only government would be able issue or curtail rights associated with it. Since, under priority usage, the concept of property doesn't apply all forms of usage and therefore all rights pursuant to that usage would automatically be valid.

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.

Right now, the government is deemed the ultimate owner

-answerable to we the people, of course.

and therefore the ultimate authority as to the usage of the natural resource.

-and so..ultimately the authority is "we the people".

So, it can grant or refuse permission regarding its use by issuing logging rights. Under priority use, there is no ultimate authority to declare what is or isn't allowed (or if you say there is, then what is the legal basis for that authority?)

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.

By default, all forms of usage are allowed. Therefore, logging rights automatically become a part of it.

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.

[Whateverist]

I would just say we are justified to remake this convention for the general good.

I would say we are not. Because its not a convention that can be remade on whim.

Of course not, silly. That's where the guillotines would come in.

You'd have to be more specific about what other atrocious acts you have in mind. I'm open to tinkering.

How about slavery? That'd be a good idea. After we've stolen all that money from the rich, we can make them our slaves. Only those who agree to be slaves, ofcourse. The others would have to be killed, ofcourse, since they are most likely planning to bring future harm upon the society. And since neither the wealth or the numbers of top 1% is sufficient, let's extend that to 10%. Sure, one section of the society is suffering unjustly, but over all everyone else is better off - so its all for the greater good.

That's the spirit. Glad to have you on board!

[genkaus]

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.

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.

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.

-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.

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.

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.