On 2006-Aug 06, at 08:06hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: 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". ^ <------ so true AGSC what can we do about that I do not know. ^ ^ Somewhere along the line you determined for yourself that I hate governments, Not true. I like self-government and I like governments that do what i think they should do. Which is protect human freedom. Yes, I used the word citizen, and I thank you for pointing that out. I have no use for the concept of citizenship and I will endeavour not to use the word in the future. AGSC ^ > 2^ Recently in Ohio the court ruled that "eminent domain" has > limits, so someone cares, This is pretty much self-evident. ^ not so, the Ohio Supreme court 'rolled back" the decision of the US Supreme court. So limits are not so '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. ^ < ------- I thought my comments made it clear that I am more than willing to struggle for all humans freedom , I am just not willing to follow statist, non- free rules. BTW, my concern of all humans freedom is self-serving. I do not believe I can be free unless everyone is free. ( give or take a few percentage points ) AGSC ^ Gerhard -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist Gus S Calabrese Denver, CO 720 222 1309 303 908 7716 cell Please include and do not limit yourself to "spam2006". I allow everything with "spam2006" in the subject or text to pass my spam filters. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist