Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old Yesterday, 06:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I'm pretty sure his point is "property rights are a complicated full of grey-area concept, not an absolute."

I also almost responded pointing out that adverse possession is a thing, as is eminent domain, and both can coexist with a fairly strong concept of property rights, but not an absolute one.

The point is that sometimes property rights conflict with other important principles and something has to give. And when the thing that gives is the absoluteness of property rights, they still exist.
Right. Thanks!
  #102  
Old Yesterday, 06:48 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I'm pretty sure his point is "property rights are a complicated full of grey-area concept, not an absolute."

I also almost responded pointing out that adverse possession is a thing, as is eminent domain, and both can coexist with a fairly strong concept of property rights, but not an absolute one.

The point is that sometimes property rights conflict with other important principles and something has to give. And when the thing that gives is the absoluteness of property rights, they still exist.
Not being a lawyer, I'll need a scenario applicable to looted colonial artifacts.

[tongue-in-cheek] Perhaps a case where one invades a house, kills the owner, and refuses to return the stolen goods to the son?
__________________
This is not me being a nice person, this is me conforming to boards rules.
  #103  
Old Yesterday, 07:08 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
Not being a lawyer, I'll need a scenario applicable to looted colonial artifacts.
What about looted colonial land?

If the British museum has to give art back to countries, does the United States have to give all the land back to the Native Americans?

That's consistent with the idea that property rights are either absolute or meaningless. I can see the moral case for it too. But, well: good luck.
  #104  
Old Yesterday, 07:19 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,268
If your argument against First Nations' land reclamation is "Tough luck" then we have our answer in response to my question on the 'reality' of ownership. Property rights exist... or they don't.
  #105  
Old Yesterday, 07:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
If your argument against First Nations' land reclamation is "Tough luck" then we have our answer in response to my question on the 'reality' of ownership. Property rights exist... or they don't.
No, that's not true. Ok, look at the Americas. Altho indeed the "white man" took most of the last from the natives- various tribes were warring and moving around. Not really anything left of the clovis people. Do we "give it back" to the last Amerind tribe holding it, even tho they took from another tribe, who took it from another tribe and so forth.


England? First populated by Homo antecessor who were wiped out by the Beaker culture , who were wiped out by the Celts, who were invaded by the Anglo-Saxons, who were invaded by the Norse (many of whom stayed) and the Normans. So who owns England? Beaker culture? Anglo-saxons, Celts, and Normans have to leave? They have only been there for a couple thousand years.

Other than a few places, there is no land that hasnt changed hands due to war over and over and over.


Property rights aren't a issue of "Property rights exist... or they don't". There's a lot of grey area.

And you still havent answered my question about selling property? is that OK? Gifting? Inheriting?
adverse possession?
eminent domain?
  #106  
Old Yesterday, 07:55 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, that's not true. Ok, look at the Americas. Altho indeed the "white man" took most of the last from the natives- various tribes were warring and moving around. Not really anything left of the clovis people. Do we "give it back" to the last Amerind tribe holding it, even tho they took from another tribe, who took it from another tribe and so forth.
Land can easily be shared in such instances or can be agreed upon, but what you are suggesting is that no ownership exists outside of what the US government confiscated which is a different kettle of fish.
Quote:
England? First populated by Homo antecessor who were wiped out by the Beaker culture , who were wiped out by the Celts, who were invaded by the Anglo-Saxons, who were invaded by the Norse (many of whom stayed) and the Normans. So who owns England? Beaker culture? Anglo-saxons, Celts, and Normans have to leave? They have only been there for a couple thousand years.

Other than a few places, there is no land that hasnt changed hands due to war over and over and over.
Are any displaced people here are claiming ownership to land that they don't live on? Do the people living there descend from these inhabitants? This sorts that out by itself.

Quote:
Property rights aren't a issue of "Property rights exist... or they don't". There's a lot of grey area.

And you still havent answered my question about selling property? is that OK? Gifting? Inheriting?
adverse possession?
eminent domain?
Claiming rights over looted relics due to theft and murder is what it is. I'm not sure what other right you are claiming exists outside of this.

Last edited by orcenio; Yesterday at 07:58 PM.
  #107  
Old Today, 01:18 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
The English fight for honor, the French fight for glory but the Americans fight for souvenirs.
This sounds about right. Every combat vet I knew brought back trinkets or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The Americans fight to win.
Not since 1945. The Pentagon has been victory-averse since they stopped being the Dept of War. Winning a war is no good for continuing careers and procurement. We create enemies so the funds keep flowing despite public disapproval. Congress hasn't declared war since 4 July 1942; the US hasn't scored a win post-WWII. Coincidence?

One truism remains: Sucks to lose. The winners will take what they want. Losers must regain power before they can regain takings.

Mea culpa: We (wife & I) have accumulated much ethnic art & crafts of the Americas, often at auctions run by Cherokees. The best stuff dried up awhile back, attributable to the success of NA casinos. Tribes got rich and started buying-back what their prior generations had sold for survival - hopefully mostly intact. We've seen buyers and sellers ripping feathers from baskets and weavings after rumors of federal inspectors looking for "endangered" artifacts.

UK will return the Elgin Marbles when Brexit leaves the realm bankrupt. Just wait.
  #108  
Old Today, 01:41 AM
outlierrn is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,745
Returned to whom? The Taliban destroyed 1700 year old statues of buddha. Not the same as the OP, for sure, but something to consider.
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #109  
Old Today, 01:48 PM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
Land can easily be shared in such instances or can be agreed upon, but what you are suggesting is that no ownership exists outside of what the US government confiscated which is a different kettle of fish.
Are any displaced people here are claiming ownership to land that they don't live on? Do the people living there descend from these inhabitants? This sorts that out by itself.

Claiming rights over looted relics due to theft and murder is what it is. I'm not sure what other right you are claiming exists outside of this.
Sorts itself out? Okay, so the only way to keep the land is to wipe out any potential claimants. Then you can keep it. So the First Nations would get a pass because there's no trace of their predecessors, but the European colonists are out of luck. Right......
  #110  
Old Today, 02:02 PM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
Sorts itself out? Okay, so the only way to keep the land is to wipe out any potential claimants. Then you can keep it. So the First Nations would get a pass because there's no trace of their predecessors, but the European colonists are out of luck. Right......
Well I'd agree to give land to the corpses too, but I doubt they have much need for it.

Last edited by orcenio; Today at 02:05 PM.
  #111  
Old Today, 05:48 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
Well I'd agree to give land to the corpses too, but I doubt they have much need for it.
Your unusual idea of property rights is turning into a hijack, perhaps start a new thread, eh?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017