Gus S Calabrese wrote:

> 1^  It is not more complicated than the government has given itself the
> power to take anything a citizen owns.

The concept of "owning" land is intimately linked to have a "military" to
"defend" its boundaries. This is either your personal "military", or it is
the government's "military". (Note that I'm not using "military" in the
sense it is used in a modern nation. The way I use it includes every form
of using violence for a purpose.) Other than by force of that "military",
you don't own land. 

So a citizen (and you used the right word here) only owns something because
of the government. No government == no citizen. No government == no
"military" to defend the ownership. 

Ownership is closely tied to groups (aka "mobs"). Ownership is only a valid
concept as long as a group defines and adheres to rules about ownership.
Everything we "own" we took from somewhere. This gets easily forgotten in
our virtual money world, but that's the essence. It all started with taking
something without paying anything. You grow food on "your" land? You just
"took" that land, without paying (aka stealing). If it wasn't you, it was
someone from whom you bought it (or from whom they bought it). You bought
leather clothes? Someone just took the hides from somewhere, without paying
(aka stealing). It's all based on a rather arbitrary definition of
"ownership". 


> 2^  Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain"  has  
> limits, so someone cares,

This is pretty much self-evident. /Everything/ has limits. The only
struggle is to determine where exactly they are. And from what you say, it
seems you don't think it's worth it to participate in that struggle.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist