Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wildstar who wrote (326912)	12/8/2002 10:43:39 PM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

In your original example, you described the land as unowned. In reality, no land is unowned. It's ownership resides in either private hands or public trust. It is owned by either one person or all people--of whatever government entity exists there. So your responses did not actually cover all probabilities. In my example, you might say the natural right of a "people" was violated by an individual who took a bribe to allow "development" of land that was not his to "sell" in that way. Here's a somewhat more complicated example: Tribe A and Tribe B occupy the north and south respectively of the same country. Tribe A is the majority and in control of the government. They contract with an outside entity to develop a natural resource that is in the south where tribe B lives. The outside entity, under the protection of the army of Tribe A, develops the resource on Tribe B land and pays a fair market value to tribe A for the privilege. But Tribe A gives nothing to Tribe B, except to send the army to quell their protests. Is there fault here? Are natural rights being violated? Which ones and by whom?