Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone at the General Forum; Originally Posted by ShivaTD A person did not create the earth or the skies above with their labor and has ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 12:24 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,909
Thanks: 656
Thanked 6,875 Times in 4,931 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
A person did not create the earth or the skies above with their labor and has no right of property to it. A person, though their labor, can establish a "right to use" the land but they don't literally own it. As Locke explains if a person does not actively use the land they lose the right to even use it as the land returns to the "common" so that others can use it for their benefit and the benefit of society.
What...a...crock...of...SHlT!

If I sit on my ass on my land doing exactly diddly, nobody else has any right to my land, except he can claim so by stealing it, like the government sometimes does.

I detect no libertarian thought anywhere in this post: only liberalspeak.

Phoque Locke!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 12:26 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,315 Times in 1,841 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
The property owner was charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. In other words, a firearms violation. Nothing about destruction of private property.
True and that addresses the criminal charges but the owner of the drone can still file a civil lawsuit for compensation related to the destruction of personal property if they choose to do so. Destruction of property is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 12:44 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,570
Thanks: 10,268
Thanked 8,444 Times in 5,009 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
True and that addresses the criminal charges but the owner of the drone can still file a civil lawsuit for compensation related to the destruction of personal property if they choose to do so. Destruction of property is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.
"A person did not create the earth or the skies above with their labor and has no right of property to it. A person, though their labor, can establish a "right to use" the land but they don't literally own it. As Locke explains if a person does not actively use the land they lose the right to even use it as the land returns to the "common" so that others can use it for their benefit and the benefit of society"

You read too much Locke and not enough US law. Locke is not the law in the US. Nor has Locke been much of the law anywhere for a couple of hundred years.

Contrary to what you would like things to be, a person does not lose his right to his property through lack of use. You do have the property right granted upon the transfer of property. You can, if you so choose, recover and sell what's under your land, or sell the rights to do so. You can build structures that extend into the airspace over your land. You can even sell the rights to do so to another person. It matters not whether your claimed rights to quiet enjoyment come from your labor or from your purchase of the land with lottery winnings.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 12:46 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,315 Times in 1,841 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
What...a...crock...of...SHlT!

If I sit on my ass on my land doing exactly diddly, nobody else has any right to my land, except he can claim so by stealing it, like the government sometimes does.

I detect no libertarian thought anywhere in this post: only liberalspeak.

Phoque Locke!
In point of fact the word libertarian is based upon the root word "liberty" which is the freedom to exercise the natural (inalienable) rights of the person.

The fact that you or others believe in "ownership established by statutory title" that originated under the ideology of the "divine right of kings" that is juxtaposed to the "natural (inalienable) right of property" does not make my libertarian position any the less legitimate.

We can note one place in our laws that does support the natural right of property when it comes to land and that is our laws of "adverse possession" where title can be taken away and given to a person actually using the land.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 01:08 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,909
Thanks: 656
Thanked 6,875 Times in 4,931 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
In point of fact the word libertarian is based upon the root word "liberty" which is the freedom to exercise the natural (inalienable) rights of the person.
You do not strike me as a libertarian, since you have said in so many words that a person is not a person until he is born. That would mean a person had better spontaneously appear as a baby in order for human rights to be inborn in him.

With all due respect, go peddle your brand of freedom to somebody else.

You may correct me if I misunderstood what you meant by unalienable rights and their beginning in a human being. And please provide your proof of the error. Or not.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 01:27 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,570
Thanks: 10,268
Thanked 8,444 Times in 5,009 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
In point of fact the word libertarian is based upon the root word "liberty" which is the freedom to exercise the natural (inalienable) rights of the person.

The fact that you or others believe in "ownership established by statutory title" that originated under the ideology of the "divine right of kings" that is juxtaposed to the "natural (inalienable) right of property" does not make my libertarian position any the less legitimate.

We can note one place in our laws that does support the natural right of property when it comes to land and that is our laws of "adverse possession" where title can be taken away and given to a person actually using the land.
Again, you need to read the US law. Adverse possession only applies in a very limited set of circumstances. Briefly, the claimer must have openly and continuously and hostilely, meaning without the owners permission, for a given period of time, typically 18 years, used the land. Nothing to do with your labor. In fact, most adverse possession cases are the result of ROW's used by the public. It is for this reason that these pathways are often closed to the public for 1 day a year, thus restarting the clock.

Locke was addressing the feudal system, arguing that the nobility had no claim by right to land. That was 200 years ago. The closest the US ever got was our homestead system, whereby a person could claim certain lands in dedicated areas by abiding by certain conditions, which included building a home and working the land. However, there was never a claim made that you had a right to anyone's land simply by claiming you did. That includes flying your toy over my land simply because you want to.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 05:17 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,315 Times in 1,841 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
You do not strike me as a libertarian, since you have said in so many words that a person is not a person until he is born. That would mean a person had better spontaneously appear as a baby in order for human rights to be inborn in him.

With all due respect, go peddle your brand of freedom to somebody else.

You may correct me if I misunderstood what you meant by unalienable rights and their beginning in a human being. And please provide your proof of the error. Or not.
This misrepresents my position on person/personhood so let me be explicitly clear to erase any misunderstandings.

The US Constitution grants rights and protections based upon the definition of the "person" and the precedent for the legal definition of the "person" thoughout recorded history has always been that "personhood" is established at birth. This is a historical fact that not even the attorney's for the defendants (i.e arguing for the abortion laws) in Roe v Wade could dispute.

That does not imply that I support the legal definition, I don't, and I've long advocated that this legal precedent related to "personhood" be changed by the only means possible, a Constitutional amendment.

Even with that change there's still the pragmatic conditions related to the Inalienable (Natural) Rights of the Person, that would be granted to the preborn, that wouldn't change the fundamental criteria related to abortion as established in Roe v Wade. All we need to is look at the criteria for what establishes an Inalienable (Natural) Right of the Person.

An Inalienable (Natural) Right is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon any other Person, does not infringe upon the Rights of another Person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

The pre-born, existing within the body of the woman, is inherently dependent upon another person (i.e. the woman), inherently infringes upon the Rights of the another person (i.e. the woman), and also imposes involuntary obligations upon another person (i.e. the woman). The US Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, addressed these issues by establishing Rights for the pre-born based upon "potential personhood" of the fetus at natural viability so those issues of the "Rights of the Person" have already been addressed by the Supreme Court related to the pre-born in the womb.

So while we can, and should, change the legal precedent for "personhood" by a Constitutional amendment it doesn't really change anything related to the abortion issue or the Rights of the Pre-born that have already been protected based upon the "potential" personhood of the fetus at natural viability in Roe v Wade.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you apparently had.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 05:46 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,909
Thanks: 656
Thanked 6,875 Times in 4,931 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
An Inalienable (Natural) Right is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon any other Person, does not infringe upon the Rights of another Person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

The pre-born, existing within the body of the woman, is inherently dependent upon another person (i.e. the woman), inherently infringes upon the Rights of the another person (i.e. the woman), and also imposes involuntary obligations upon another person (i.e. the woman). The US Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, addressed these issues by establishing Rights for the pre-born based upon "potential personhood" of the fetus at natural viability so those issues of the "Rights of the Person" have already been addressed by the Supreme Court related to the pre-born in the womb.

Whatever clowns came up with this crap just shot to Hell the means for the human race to continue undisturbed. Of course a baby growing inside the mother is going to impose some extra effort by the mother for his care. What next unalienable right are these libertarians going to decree imposes "involuntary obligations upon another person"?

The conveniences made concrete, discovered by egotistic "liberals" to further their pursuit of hedonistic pleasures, might be never ending.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 06:04 PM
Lumara's Avatar
Belly Dance Queen
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Great Smoky Mountains
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,814
Thanks: 4,081
Thanked 3,433 Times in 1,686 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
You do not strike me as a libertarian, since you have said in so many words that a person is not a person until he is born.
First of all, there is nothing libertarian about progressivism, so the term "progressive libertarian" is an oxymoron. One cannot be both at the same time.

Second, I am a libertarian, and I find the claim ludicrous that rights apply to the unborn. The unborn are inside another's body and to claim that the alleged rights of a fetus should trump the rights of the woman carrying it is extremely misogynist. Once it is born, it deserves all the rights of any other individual, but before that it is a parasite, maybe a beloved parasite to some (for I loved my son before he was born and couldn't wait to hold him in my arms), but not someone who has earned rights.

Believing a woman has the right to self determination in all areas, including reproduction, is libertarian.
__________________
If I had a dollar for every gender, I would have two dollars.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 08-08-2015, 06:13 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,315 Times in 1,841 Posts
Default Re: Kentucky Man Arrested For Shooting Down Neighbor's Drone

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Again, you need to read the US law. Adverse possession only applies in a very limited set of circumstances. Briefly, the claimer must have openly and continuously and hostilely, meaning without the owners permission, for a given period of time, typically 18 years, used the land. Nothing to do with your labor. In fact, most adverse possession cases are the result of ROW's used by the public. It is for this reason that these pathways are often closed to the public for 1 day a year, thus restarting the clock.
You actually omitted one of the provisions for adverse possession. Not only must the person be accupying the land without permission the owner of the land must be also be aware of the occupation of the land.

Additionally I didn't state that the laws of adverse possession completely agreed with the "natural right of property" but they are based upon the "natural right of property" of the person.

For example, let's take the person that notifies the owner and then manages to build a home and live on the land, in spite of all the obstacles, for the required period of time in "hostile" possession of the land. The "adverse possession" laws would grant them title to the land the house is on and a reasonable amount of surrounding land. If on the other hand they not only build a house but also farm 40 acres of that land under the laws of adverse possession they would own not just the land the house is on but also the 40 acres they farm as well.

It is the building of the home and occupying the home and/or the farming of the land that establishes the "right of title' based upon our adverse possession laws. The fact that we build in high legal hurdles to that does not disparage the principle of adverse possession based upon the natural right of property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Locke was addressing the feudal system, arguing that the nobility had no claim by right to land. That was 200 years ago.
Our statutory laws related to land and natural resources are based upon the feudal system and they never changed when the United States separated itself from the rule of a monarch in 1776. Under the feudal system the monarch owned everything, land, natural resources, and even the people (that's why they were subjects and not citizens) based upon the "divine right of kings" where "god" granted ownership of everything to the monarch (or so the monarch claimed and used military force to implement). The monarch, to secure their power, granted "titles of nobility" and with that title of noblity also came title to land and natural resources (and the people).

That didn't change when the US was founded because now the government, in place of the monarch, granted by title the ownership of land and natural resources to individuals although the formal titles of nobility were officially abolished. In the Southern states some individuals were even granted "title to people" (i.e. the slaves) and even the "title of nobility" continued to exist where the formal titles like duke and earl were simply replaced by the informal title of "master" on the plantations.

Today there isn't one inch of privately held land or any natural resource that the people can use without the "granting of title" to it by our government. We even have title to land where the title to natural resources has not been granted by our government (e.g. water "rights" where people in many locations are prohibited from drilling for water on their property).

There is fundamentally no difference today when it comes to "title" for land and/or natural resources granted by our government when we compare it to the feudal system where the monarch, as the head of government, also granted that title. You are correct that Locke argued against the statutory ownership of property established by title under the feudal system but government granted title still exists as the only means of ownership of land and natural resources in the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
The closest the US ever got was our homestead system, whereby a p oferson could claim certain lands in dedicated areas by abiding by certain conditions, which included building a home and working the land.
Homesteading was still based upon the feudal system where the government granted title to the land albeit with conditions being imposed (just like the monarch demanding fealty from the nobility when granting title to land and natural resources).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
However, there was never a claim made that you had a right to anyone's land simply by claiming you did.
I never claimed that. What I stated is that if a person stopped using the land then effectively they abandoned the land and no longer had a natural right of property to it. Locke expressly established this in Chapter 5 of the Second Treatise of Civil Government.

Quote:
Sec. 38. The same measures governed the possession of land too: whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed, and make use of, the cattle and product was also his. But if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, and might be the possession of any other.
John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 5

I refer to this as the "use it or lose it" criteria for the natural right of property. If a person doesn't use the land then they lose any right to it. They've effectively abandoned the land by not using it and that which is abandoned can be possessed by anyone else willing to use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
That includes flying your toy over my land simply because you want to.
Show me on any title to land where it provides title to the air. Some titles provide title to natural resources on or within the land, some deny title to those natural resources, but no title to land includes any provisions granting title to the air. No person has statutory title to the air of the Earth because the air belongs to everyone.

Not even our government claims title to the air but it does rightfully prohibit the pollution of the air because no person has the right to dispoil or destroy that which they do not own. Our government also imposes some limitation on the use of the air for safety and security reasons (e.g. airspace restrictions) but it still doesn't claim actual ownership of the air.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
arrested, down, drone, for, kentucky, man, neighbor, shooting

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0