Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dt_3pin

  1. Ordered the Metolius Master Cams yesterday @ noon on their web site and requested ground shipping (est 4-10 days per order form), they showed up the next day.


    They rule - they absolutely rule.


    Q4T. Ordered some cosmetic blem Jaks this winter, regular shipping, and they showed up in Seattle the next day. Some dirt bag in a beat up van dropped them off.

  2. Wow. This thread sure turned into a fucking bummer. Dead kids. Cheating spouses. Can't we just stay focused on the fun stuff - you know, high-priced hookers and nudie pictures?

  3. While I'm thinking about it, what precisely do you mean by "land ownership"? Do you mean all interests in real property or just some of those rights? Property rights are often referred to as a bundle of sticks, with the right to occupy property being one "stick", the right to use property being another, the right to transfer bing another, etc. Thus, someone who owns the entire bundle can contract away some of the rights (the right of possession to a tenant, for example). In your hypothetical, would all rights in real property be exstinguished, or just some. It make a difference, as you can imagine.

  4. a) My thought experiment concerned the absence of LAND OWNERSHIP, not private property. In this hypothetical world, you could own any other kind of property.


    There is plenty of precedence for this. Water, mineral and airspace ownership are more often than not separate from land ownership. If airspace, and in some locales water rights, both necessary resources, cannot be privately owned (and our legal system seems to handle this in stride) why is land somehow fundamntally different? I argue that our current legal system is perfectly able to handle the instance where it isn't any different.


    b) I didn't state that the legal system wouldn't change, just that it need not change much.


    Those are my statements. I'm ready to be proven wrong.




    Just to clarify your terminology, by "land ownership" do you mean ownership of real (as opposed to personal) property? I apologize if I confused the discussion by using the phrase "private property" which is often used in constitutional jurisprudence, and in the constitution itself (see, e.g. the Fifth Amendment), to denote all property (whether real or personal) that is owned by individuals (as the Constitution recognizes that term) rather than the government.

  5. Private land ownership is not the basis of our legal system; the Constitution is. Our legal system would be little changed if land ownershp didn't exist.



    That's some Kevbone quality legal analysis there. :lmao:


    Can you rebutt it with more than a smiley?




    No, I didn't think so.


    How about you back up your contention that the US legal system would not change in the absence of private property so there is something to rebut. I can't imagine someone who has even a minimal working knowledge of constitutional and common law history making a statement like that.


  6. I see absolutely nothing wrong with pouring the stuff out. After all, it was sold illegally. Certainly this stuff shouldn't wind up in our salmon streams, however. I would think, then, for environmental reasons, that the state would allow the citizenry to volunteer as holding tanks.


    Brilliant. That would allow me to maintain my personal court mandated in-stream flows while serving a greater public good.




    While we may disagree on many things, I'm glad to have your support. This is an issue that transcends political ideologies and should resonate clearly in the heart of all Americans, whether effete, soy-latte sipping red-staters, or true-blue 'merican patriots.