www.ditl.org

Well we have such problems in the US. the last one that I recall ending in a fire fight was 2002.

"We taking this land"
"NO YOU'RE NOT"

Lots of bangs followed. Not sure how many people got hurt, no one died. But the family in question was granted pardon later that year.

Problems like this are common enough in the midwest and the Rockies.

mlsnoopy wrote:

That's why the guy in the office would catch a 7.62 in his face the first time he went to look out his window. Then, the guy they replace him with. Then, anyone they send to my land would meet nasty surprises, and all of their equipment would end up mysteriously destroyed. Forcing people off of their land is a bit of a sore point with me.

Instead of getting a brande new house and a fat check, you would go to prisone, a well thougt out plan.

Just because it isn't the smart thing to do, doesn't mean it isn't the right thing.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Just because it isn't the smart thing to do, doesn't mean it isn't the right thing.

So being a selfish git is the "right" thing to do is it?

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Just because it isn't the smart thing to do, doesn't mean it isn't the right thing.

So being a selfish git is the "right" thing to do is it?

I don't even know what a git is, but I think you're confused about what I was saying. I'm saying it's wrong for the Government to take the property you own and worked on for a long time. So see, I'm not supporting the selfish side.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:I don't even know what a git is, but I think you're confused about what I was saying. I'm saying it's wrong for the Government to take the property you own and worked on for a long time. So see, I'm not supporting the selfish side.

Exactly. Would anyone here not object if someone walked into their house and took everything they own, because it's for some "greater good"? What about your spouse? If someone decided taking them from you is for the "greater good", you'd shrug and agree?

mlsnoopy wrote:Instead of getting a brande new house and a fat check, you would go to prisone, a well thougt out plan.

Yeah, and if no one stands up against injustice, we'll all be completely mind-wiped slaves with no rights whatsoever in a few generations.

Would anyone here not object if someone walked into their house and took everything they own, because it's for some "greater good"?

While I wouldn't be jumping up and down with joy at the prospect, as long as I was compensated and relocated to a new home I wouldn't particularly mind. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If giving up my house can benefit thousands of people on a daily basis, what gives me the right to say no?

What about your spouse? If someone decided taking them from you is for the "greater good", you'd shrug and agree?

In what situation would this occur? The only one I can think of is if she's a criminal. Would you seriously object to the police locking up your spouse if she was a criminal? If so, then you need to get your priorities straight.

Yeah, and if no one stands up against injustice, we'll all be completely mind-wiped slaves with no rights whatsoever in a few generations.

Slippery Slope Fallacy, anyone?

Rochey wrote:While I wouldn't be jumping up and down with joy at the prospect, as long as I was compensated and relocated to a new home I wouldn't particularly mind. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If giving up my house can benefit thousands of people on a daily basis, what gives me the right to say no?

Because it's your stuff. What if some of it is personal? I have things that have such personal value, I would attack without hesitation if someone tried to take it. Some things can not be replaced.

In what situation would this occur? The only one I can think of is if she's a criminal. Would you seriously object to the police locking up your spouse if she was a criminal? If so, then you need to get your priorities straight.

What if the laws are injust? Political prisoners come to mind. Yeah, I would object rather harshly. My priorities are quite straight.

Slippery Slope Fallacy, anyone?

Believe what you will.

I apologize if I'm coming off a bit harsh; it's just that this is a really sore issue with me, given my heritage, and I believe in personal rights quite strongly. Plus, I'm stressed out, in a foul mood over personal events. No offense intended to anyone.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Exactly. Would anyone here not object if someone walked into their house and took everything they own, because it's for some "greater good"? What about your spouse? If someone decided taking them from you is for the "greater good", you'd shrug and agree?

If your not being compensated, it's called theft. The spouse point is a red herring as no one is advocating taking your wife away.

Yeah, and if no one stands up against injustice, we'll all be completely mind-wiped slaves with no rights whatsoever in a few generations.

Exchanging your land/house for a more than fair settlement is injustice?

Rochey wrote:
While I wouldn't be jumping up and down with joy at the prospect, as long as I was compensated and relocated to a new home I wouldn't particularly mind. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If giving up my house can benefit thousands of people on a daily basis, what gives me the right to say no?

The right? Howabout the fact that you own the house. You've worked on it for who knows how many years? Does your home lack any sentimental value whatsover? If so I pity you. For me my home was like a sanctuary where I don't have to deal with the rest of my life. I hate that I have to leave it at the end of the month. If I could fight it I would, but I just don't have the money to fight it.

What about your spouse? If someone decided taking them from you is for the "greater good", you'd shrug and agree?

In what situation would this occur? The only one I can think of is if she's a criminal. Would you seriously object to the police locking up your spouse if she was a criminal? If so, then you need to get your priorities straight.
[/quote]

If you really love your spouse you would do anything you could to keep him or her from going to jail.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Because it's your stuff. What if some of it is personal? I have things that have such personal value, I would attack without hesitation if someone tried to take it. Some things can not be replaced.

Ah, so you're a selfish git as well. Rochey proposes the example of a road being built, which would be a great economic boost to the area, and you're responding with "MINE, MINE, MINE!" Provide evidence why the fact that a given piece of land has been owned by you family for a generation or two is good reason to deprive the rest of the area of this economic boost.

What if the laws are injust? Political prisoners come to mind. Yeah, I would object rather harshly. My prioities are quite straight.

Moving the goalposts much? And if the criminal in question is a murderer? A rapist? Are your priorities straight now?

Slippery Slope Fallacy, anyone?

Believe what you will.

If you want to disagree, then prove that accepting just compensation in return for having your house demolished for a road will inevitably lead to the population becoming "mind-wiped slaves with no rights".

Cpl Kendall wrote:If your not being compensated, it's called theft. The spouse point is a red herring as no one is advocating taking your wife away.

Compensation is irrelevant when it comes to sentimental items. I was trying to allude to the emotional impact; not that I care about anything I own more than people I love, but heritage is important, and emotional attachment is not a thing to be waved away. I guess you'd say that the theft and subjugation of the Commanche was justified because it's been a benefit to so many more people?

Exchanging your land/house for a more than fair settlement is injustice?

It is if you don't choose to sell it.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:The right? Howabout the fact that you own the house. You've worked on it for who knows how many years?

The scenario proposed includes just compensation in return for your property. Try again.

Does your home lack any sentimental value whatsover? If so I pity you. For me my home was like a sanctuary where I don't have to deal with the rest of my life. I hate that I have to leave it at the end of the month. If I could fight it I would, but I just don't have the money to fight it.

My home does hold sentamental value, because it's where I and my familly live. For no other reason. My house, on the other hand, is a pile of bricks and mortar that keeps the weather out. If you can't distinguish between the two then I pity you.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Compensation is irrelevant when it comes to sentimental items. I was trying to allude to the emotional impact; not that I care about anything I own more than people I love, but heritage is important, and emotional attachment is not a thing to be waved away. I guess you'd say that the theft and subjugation of the Commanche was justified because it's been a benefit to so many more people?

No my obtuse friend, you were not compensated fairly. What exactly is so important about items? They can be replaced and new memories made. Remembering your history is important but not when it turns into a sense of entitlement as it has in the First Nations communities.

It is if you don't choose to sell it.

You can stay and block the development. People did this when the rail lines where run across, they had to put up with trains but they stayed.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Because it's your stuff. What if some of it is personal? I have things that have such personal value, I would attack without hesitation if someone tried to take it. Some things can not be replaced.

Ah, so you're a selfish git as well. Rochey proposes the example of a road being built, which would be a great economic boost to the area, and you're responding with "MINE, MINE, MINE!" Provide evidence why the fact that a given piece of land has been owned by you family for a generation or two is good reason to deprive the rest of the area of this economic boost.

It's the government that is being greedy. It's legally your house. What right do they have to take it? And just how much of a difference will a single road destroying a single house make? Shave off a few minutes? And, there is an actual real life example. For years my hometown has considered building a road through a single house blocking the way through a park. When the current owner bought it he was warned that they were considering the road. Later when they wanted to build the road he refused to move. When it was taken to court the city couldn't prove that the road would be a big enough benefit to take this man's house from him and destroy it.