User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:14:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it’s ok to admit that as a society, we got something right in the US when it comes to public land and property rights. Most of our iconic and stunning landscapes are protected in perpetuity and available for use by all citizens, while there is still vast areas available for private citizens to own for their exclusive use and benefit. Sure, it could use some minor refinement/clarification in areas like corner crossing. But overall it’s a pretty fucking awesome system. We should be proud of it and fight to keep it that way. It sure beats anywhere else on the planet that’s for sure. It’s exclusive to western civilization, and was devised during its peak, and I think that says something. I've been to Africa and various parts of Asia. Socialized land ownership isn't exclusive to our society. I've been in African parks, I've been in Asian parks, there are public places, to some extent, all over the world, western civ or not. And it's not the great idea you think it is. As long as I live here and get told that I 'share ownership' of all of these grand free places, yeah, I'll use them, but they're no better than the same lands owned by a private entity. Here in the largely private south, there are bazillions of acres of private lands people lease for recreation every year, and have a great time doing it, and some of them are kept in very 'natural' states, and you have no moral footing upon which to argue that such an arrangement is inferior to socialized land ownership. To the contrary, it's a far more equitable system. But again, do note carefully that you're trying conspicuously hard to impose the 'our public lands are awesome' viewpoint on this thread. I get that you like free access to land. You've mentioned it before. But that's not really an argument here. I mean, I think you're wrong, as we've discussed before, but right or wrong, it's not really relevant. The corner-crossing argument would be exactly the same if private interests bought the landlocked parcel. They'd come crying for an easement and GD would be saying 'You knew it lacked access when you bought it!'. And for once, GD would be right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:16:09 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah, so now you're the hero Nah. But I've noticed how hard you are striving to make this about me, not property ownership. The ad hominems started many pages ago and they're nothing new. I can sit here and point them out all day long, if that's all you have (and it really is, at the end of the day). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:22:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nah. But I've noticed how hard you are striving to make this about me, not property ownership. The ad hominems started many pages ago and they're nothing new. I can sit here and point them out all day long, if that's all you have (and it really is, at the end of the day). A plane violated my owned airspace today. How much should I sue for? And, yes, my deed does include an elevation because above that set amount is part of a possible flight path. So, my deed has an elevation restriction as to what I own. The problem with this case is the checkerboard concept and enforcement of this lawsuit would essentially landlock millions of acres of public land. That is not the intent. In AZ, this pattern is common on some lands that I hunt. It is checkered between tribal and public lands. You can hunt tribal after paying for their license or you have to just hunt public. Using this court case, the tribe could essentially take over all the public land parcels by prohibiting access to their land without buying a license. A simple solution would be to create a law that allows access to public land. Some states have it and it is an easy solution to people like those in the lawsuit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:23:50 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. I don't believe that. Public land is an oxymoron. Property is private or it really isn't property at all. (Warning: the following is a hypothetical) But even if I *did* believe it, and conceded your point (and I do not) I would argue that having 'public' property enmeshed in such a mess was never a good idea, and should have been fixed, and should still be fixed, using whatever process possible that does not infringe upon the real rights of the adjacent owners. Further up the page someone posted a brilliant solution: "No access by the public except from access points open to all the public". I'd be fine with that. It does no violence to the rights of the adjoining owners, yet does cut off the implied free stuff they get, which is apparently what everyone here hates. It solves the stated problem without infringing upon the real rights of the neighbors. It doesn't solve the problem of public access to landlocked lands, which I suspect is the real problem (there's a deer! I want to shoot it! Muh 'murican free huntin' heritage!) but that would, require greater changes, such as.... ......just sell the landlocked parcels and put the money towards other public lands (again, I object, but less so than I object to the landlocked parcels) with secure access. Or write them off as nothing more than grazing lands (terrible solution, but whatever). Or set up a self-serve 'copter rental kiosk with a giant drone to drop off hunters. Swipe your credit card and the drone flies you straight up, over ten feet, and straight back down. Double-swipe on the way back and it'll also carry your dead deer. Absurd, but legal and peaceful, and again, I will die on the hill of 'legal and peaceful'.  So wait, if land isn’t owned by “someone” it just ceases to exist!? Like, vanishes like the fart in the wind? It seems the the hypothetical realm is where you are stuck, so I’m not surprised you asked me to go there. Also, eminent domain was established in the original bill of rights. The founders themselves, arguably the most important figures in western civilization, believed that it was perfectly acceptable to take private property for the collective good of society as long as the owners were compensated appropriately. I don’t think they would call addressing this issue via an eminent domain easement “violence.” Most here are arguing just for allowing foot access from one public parcel to the next, but it seems it would be just fine per the founders if we did exactly what this bill says and created an easement that allowed roaded access at the corner. They still have exclusive access to ether 100% or 99.9% of their land, regardless of how this goes down. They still own 100% of it any way it goes down. Meanwhile if it doesn’t get addressed, the rest of us may lose 100% of our access of the land we collectively own. I know I won’t change your mind, but I doubt anyone watching thinks you have a logical argument at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:25:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nah. But I've noticed how hard you are striving to make this about me, not property ownership. The ad hominems started many pages ago and they're nothing new. I can sit here and point them out all day long, if that's all you have (and it really is, at the end of the day). Two things: 1 - I know you want to keep the issue your motte. I would too. But its faulty logic that you choose to continue to embrace even when pointed out. 2 - Pointing out your faulty logic isn't an ad hominem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:30:41 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also, eminent domain was established in the original bill of rights. The founders themselves, arguably the most important figures in western civilization, believed that it was perfectly acceptable to take private property for the collective good of society as long as the owners were compensated appropriately. I don’t think they would call addressing this issue via an eminent domain easement “violence.” There are only so many ways I can say this (though I'll happily keep trying): When you speak of 'collective good of society' over the private property rights of individuals, you lose me. I will never support such a thing, and while you can rail against me for the next 1000 pages, I won't support it, and you are wrong to do so. And no, this isn't hypothetical. If it were hypothetical this thread wouldn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:31:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A plane violated my owned airspace today. How much should I sue for? And, yes, my deed does include an elevation because above that set amount is part of a possible flight path. So, my deed has an elevation restriction as to what I own. If you're serious, then I fully support your right to sue. *shrug* See how easy that is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:34:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are only so many ways I can say this (though I'll happily keep trying): When you speak of 'collective good of society' over the private property rights of individuals, you lose me. I will never support such a thing, and while you can rail against me for the next 1000 pages, I won't support it, and you are wrong to do so. And no, this isn't hypothetical. If it were hypothetical this thread wouldn't exist. “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”-5th Amendment of the US constitution. If the founders didn’t intend for the government to be able to set aside property for public use, why did they explicitly state in the bill of rights they could do so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:35:38 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So wait, if land isn’t owned by “someone” it just ceases to exist!? Like, vanishes like the fart in the wind? To clarify - you should have been taught this at some point in life - sigh, publics schools - but land doesn't cease to exist if it isn't owned. It's still land, it's just not real property. From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_property In English common law, real property, real estate, immovable property or, solely in the US and Canada, realty, is land which is the property of some person and all structures (also called improvements or fixtures) integrated with or affixed to the land, including crops, buildings, machinery, wells, dams, ponds, mines, canals, and roads, among other things. The term is historic, arising from the now-discontinued form of action, which distinguished between real property disputes and personal property disputes. Personal property, or personalty, was, and continues to be, all property that is not real property. In countries with personal ownership of real property, civil law protects the status of real property in real-estate markets, where estate agents work in the market of buying and selling real estate. Scottish civil law calls real property "heritable property", and in French-based law, it is called immobilier ("immovable property"). Emphasis mine, of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:37:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”-5th Amendment of the US constitution. If the founders didn’t intend for the government to be able to set aside property for public use, why did they state in the bill of rights explicitly state they could do so? The people who wrote the bill of rights weren't God. They were human, and subject to error. I'm more of an Articles of Confederation type person, and have stated such before. The Constitution also granted a power to tax, and that was the real fly in the soup. They could have done better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:39:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The people who wrote the bill of rights weren't God. They were human, and subject to error. I'm more of an Articles of Confederation type person, and have stated such before. The Constitution also granted a power to tax, and that was the real fly in the soup. They could have done better. So you are so far down the rabbit hole that you are arguing the founders got it wrong. It’s ok, you’re not alone. I’ve gotten a lot of gun control advocates to the same place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:44:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you are so far down the rabbit hole that you are arguing the founders got it wrong. It’s ok, you’re not alone. I’ve gotten a lot of gun control advocates to the same place. You didn't get me anywhere. I've never made it a secret. The founders were fallible men. What's truly funny is that you'd laugh at the idea that they even possibly could have been wrong. Behold your gods. ETA: And again, everyone wants to make this about me, not the notion of private property rights (which you've already said you don't believe in, because of muh constitution and my eminent domain for deer huntin'). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:45:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But it *is* that simple. Access the public land any legal/ethical way you want, just don't cross the neighbor's property to do so. The neighbor owes you nothing (even if it would be nice and decent for him to help you). How do you access water-locked islands? You find a way to legally cross the water. You buy or rent a boat. Or learn to swim. In like manner, here, you need to buy or rent a helicopter, or learn to fly. Adjacent property owners are not required to help you. If you think otherwise, you have ran afoul of the legal concept that no thing can be a 'right' if it requires action or imposition on another's part. This concept wouldn't be hard if you didn't want it to be. The problem with seeing my point of view here, for most of you, is exactly and only this: If you saw it correctly, you'd have to renounce your claims to the property of another (the neighbor whose corner you want to cross). So you can't see it my way for the exact, precise, selfsame reason that the left can't see free-market healthcare: they'd have to relinquish their claims on the labor/property of others. Quote HistoryQuoted: But it *is* that simple. Access the public land any legal/ethical way you want, just don't cross the neighbor's property to do so. The neighbor owes you nothing (even if it would be nice and decent for him to help you). How do you access water-locked islands? You find a way to legally cross the water. You buy or rent a boat. Or learn to swim. In like manner, here, you need to buy or rent a helicopter, or learn to fly. Adjacent property owners are not required to help you. If you think otherwise, you have ran afoul of the legal concept that no thing can be a 'right' if it requires action or imposition on another's part. This concept wouldn't be hard if you didn't want it to be. The problem with seeing my point of view here, for most of you, is exactly and only this: If you saw it correctly, you'd have to renounce your claims to the property of another (the neighbor whose corner you want to cross). So you can't see it my way for the exact, precise, selfsame reason that the left can't see free-market healthcare: they'd have to relinquish their claims on the labor/property of others. We aren't the ones making it difficult.... We believe that you can take a step from one space, while not stepping on anyone else's land. No one said the neighbor owes us anything. Who's asking for help? Quoted: If there is an established easement allowing the general public to access a parcel of land, the ranchers shouldn't have a leg to stand on here, and that is a separate issue - but speaking in general terms, such easements don't seem to be very common. As for your argument that you can *cross* private ground without it being trespassing if you manage not to *touch down* in the process.....the courts in western states have never seen it that way. I have pointed this out repeatedly. The land was bought in good faith by the current owners (unless you're looking at legacy ranches owned by the same family for over a century...) with the understanding that they were buying title to the land and the space immediately above it, even at the corners. I will defend them, even if GD thinks me a bastard for it. Property rights for you, property rights for me, property rights for bastards, even when the masses hate it. Anything less and we no longer have a civil society. That's a hill I'll die on. The courts get things wrong all the time. If this was so sacrosanct, we wouldn't be here today, talking about it. Rulings change all the time. Things go before courts everyday, some make it to the supreme court. Markets deal with these changes every day, and outfitters should not be the exception. Quoted: Western civilization hinges on the broader issue - and you're on the wrong side of it. You could improve your position, if you wanted to. Or not. Your call. I've said this before, the rest of the country has figured this out, and while the country is imploding, it's not because of the fact people step over people's property. It's not going to be the downfall. We got this one handled believe it or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:49:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this was so sacrosanct, we wouldn't be here today, talking about it. You're here precisely and only because it's sacrosanct, and you want it destroyed. How much clearer can this be? The neighbors have rights, that extend in an imaginary wall, of sorts, around and above their property, and you want it torn down. And you're angry because it's considered sacrosanct in western states, and has been for a long, long time, far longer than the lifespan of any named human who owns any of the lands in question. Behold, the leftism of the right. Over a deer. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:49:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You didn't get me anywhere. I've never made it a secret. The founders were fallible men. What's truly funny is that you'd laugh at the idea that they even possibly could have been wrong. Behold your gods. ETA: And again, everyone wants to make this about me, not the notion of private property rights (which you've already said you don't believe in, because of muh constitution and my eminent domain for deer huntin'). There is that motte and bailey fallacy again… You keep making the argument that I, or anyone else in this thread, is against private property rights. As a property owner myself, I find that laughable. I’m just not against the government having property that is for public use, or am I against people having access to said property. Especially when they don’t even need to step foot on private property to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:54:19 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m just not .....against people having access to said property. Nor am I. I'm fine with that. I'm just not fine with the harm against the real property rights, long enshrined, of the neighbors, being violated. You claiming a trespass doesn't actually violate their rights, doesn't change anything. Every piece of private land in the west that's owned by a human being was titled under the established understanding of what trespass means, and now, you want to 'fix that mistake' by reducing the rights of millions of people, rights they paid for or were otherwise granted in good faith. Again, you are wrong, morally and legally, and attempting to change the latter will never change the former. Never. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 1:57:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're here precisely and only because it's sacrosanct, and you want it destroyed. How much clearer can this be? The neighbors have rights, that extend in an imaginary wall, of sorts, around and above their property, and you want it torn down. And you're angry because it's considered sacrosanct in western states, and has been for a long, long time, far longer than the lifespan of any named human who owns any of the lands in question. Behold, the leftism of the right. Over a deer. I'm not angry. Also, it's about way more then deer. Plenty of reasons to go for a hike other then hunting. And there are plenty of things to hunt then just deer. We're talking about the real world. Stepping foot on real land and not stepping foot on real land. You're talking about an imaginary wall. How about, if it's so important to us that we need to fly in on a helicopter, that the land owner has to actually put up a fence. Then it's not imaginary anymore and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. See the real question is, how hard does the land owner want to make it, before it's actually trespassing. Your belief is that it's only trespassing when crossing an imaginary wall while on foot. I'm not sure if it's been asked, but are you a sovereign citizen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:04:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not angry. Also, it's about way more then deer. Plenty of reasons to go for a hike other then hunting. And there are plenty of things to hunt then just deer. We're talking about the real world. Stepping foot on real land and not stepping foot on real land. You're talking about an imaginary wall. How about, if it's so important to us that we need to fly in on a helicopter, that the land owner has to actually put up a fence. Then it's not imaginary anymore and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. See the real question is, how hard does the land owner want to make it, before it's actually trespassing. Your belief is that it's only trespassing when crossing an imaginary wall while on foot. Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not angry. Also, it's about way more then deer. Plenty of reasons to go for a hike other then hunting. And there are plenty of things to hunt then just deer. We're talking about the real world. Stepping foot on real land and not stepping foot on real land. You're talking about an imaginary wall. How about, if it's so important to us that we need to fly in on a helicopter, that the land owner has to actually put up a fence. Then it's not imaginary anymore and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. See the real question is, how hard does the land owner want to make it, before it's actually trespassing. Your belief is that it's only trespassing when crossing an imaginary wall while on foot. The court cases that made this thread, all involve the real world. So please stop the retarded 'we're talking about the real world' stuff here. Of course we are. And, no, the landowner doesn't need to install a fence - property rights exist regardless of the fence. Of course, you could note that pictures of such fences have already been posted in this thread. So again, you have no point. I'm not sure if it's been asked, but are you a sovereign citizen? lol. No. Just some guy who has a basic grasp of what property rights are, and have been across western history, even going back to English common law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:06:35 PM EDT
[#19]
I'll admit one thing, though:
You guys now sort of have me wanting to see a dude throw a dead elk on his shoulders and jump, or climb across a giant stepladder, across a corner now. That'd be neat to see. Feats of strength, socialized land ownership edition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:12:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nor am I. I'm fine with that. I'm just not fine with the harm against the real property rights, long enshrined, of the neighbors, being violated. You claiming a trespass doesn't actually violate their rights, doesn't change anything. Every piece of private land in the west that's owned by a human being was titled under the established understanding of what trespass means, and now, you want to 'fix that mistake' by reducing the rights of millions of people, rights they paid for or were otherwise granted in good faith. Again, you are wrong, morally and legally, and attempting to change the latter will never change the former. Never. The rights of millions of people!? I think one of us is concerned with the rights of millions of people to access land they own, the other is grasping at straws to protect the interests of a few (in most cases) extraordinarily wealthy folks who want exclusive access to land they don’t exclusively own. Corner crossing just hasn’t been addressed by law, and most of these guys just used their influence to scare people from ever bringing it to a head. But if you look at how we historically addressed stuff like this, people have been found to have a right to access both public and private land via easements when such issues arise. For the record I’m not faulting them for being wealthy and buying property that they have the right to tell someone not to trespass on. That’s awesome, good for them. But arguing that people stepping over their land is “tresspassing” is more than a stretch. Everyone knows it, including them, and deep down even you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:21:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's an easy fix No one may access public land through private property. Now it's off limits to the owners of the surrounding land. Yes I own land and yes I see the issue from both sides. LOL! So I can't access a public waterway that is completely encompassed by private property? There needs to be a public easement. That's bullshit. My tax dollars pay for that public land. El oh fucking el. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:22:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The rights of millions of people!? I think one of us is concerned with the rights of millions of people to access land they own, Quote HistoryQuoted: The rights of millions of people!? I think one of us is concerned with the rights of millions of people to access land they own, Your name isn't on the title. It's land held in trust in theory. In reality, it's just government land; you have only the privileges to it that they allow you. the other is grasping at straws to protect the interests of a few (in most cases) extraordinarily wealthy folks Class warfare, the rallying cry of the left. who want exclusive access to land they don’t own. And I've happily offered to support taking such away from them in a peaceful manner. Corner crossing just hasn’t been addressed by law, and most of these guys just used their influence to scare people from ever bringing it to a head. But if you look at how we historically addressed stuff like this, people have been found to have a right to access both public and private land via easements when such issues arise. That fight is immoral. Nobody owes you an easement. Take it up with the people who designed the system. For the record I’m not faulting them for being wealthy and buying property Yet you did just that. that they have the right to tell someone not to trespass on. That’s awesome, good for them. But arguing that people stepping over their land is “tresspassing” is more than a stretch. Everyone knows it, including them, and deep down even you. Nope. Nobody knows it. Western law (I mean western civ, not western US states) says corner-crossing is trespassing. This is long-established. Any honest lawyer (lol) could explain this to you. At one point people even attempted to use this to discourage air traffic - because, again, it was commonly believed that the plane of ownership extended infinitely up and down - until the government basically eminent domain'ed the airspace (that's an intentional oversimplification of what happened. Government found a right for itself where none had existed before; film at 11). It's not a stretch. It's a simple admission of the obvious. And deep, deep, down, it's still the same. If you think you have the right to invade their airspace, then prove it: Go stand on a roadside piece of land and fire a rifle (after all, there's no fence in your way!) across the neighbor's private land, and hit a deer standing on the corner-locked property. That's exactly what you're saying here: You have the right to cross the air above their land, at low altitude, for purposes of accessing what's 'yours' on the other side. Legally and conceptually, why bother? Don't walk across the corner. Just walk up close to the corner, set up your rifle, fire a bullet across this air you claim they can't restrict, and then use a helicopter to go retrieve your game. They have no right to stop you from using that air, right? That's what you said. Go prove it. Fire a rifle across that air. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:23:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll admit one thing, though: You guys now sort of have me wanting to see a dude throw a dead elk on his shoulders and jump, or climb across a giant stepladder, across a corner now. That'd be neat to see. Feats of strength, socialized land ownership edition. I've said it's more then just hunting. And if someone is packing out an animal, in western terrain, that ladder is just one more obstacle. And I'm not retarded. I'm trying to put something tangible on this imaginary wall you said. How high does it need to be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:25:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL! So I can't access a public waterway that is completely encompassed by private property? There needs to be a public easement. That's bullshit. My tax dollars pay for that public land. El oh fucking el. Your tax dollars? What year did you start paying taxes? Most of this issue goes back to 1812 or earlier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:27:27 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your name isn't on the title. It's land held in trust in theory. In reality, it's just government land; you have only the privileges to it that they allow you. Class warfare, the rallying cry of the left. And I've happily offered to support taking such away from them in a peaceful manner. Oh, but it has. Many times. It's illegal. That fight is immoral. Nobody owes you an easement. Take it up with the people who designed the system. Yet you did just that. Nope. Nobody knows it. Western law (I mean western civ, not western US states) says corner-crossing is trespassing. This is long-established. Any honest lawyer (lol) could explain this to you. At one point people even attempted to use this to discourage air traffic - because, again, it was commonly believed that the plane of ownership extended infinitely up and down - until the government basically eminent domain'ed the airspace (that's an intentional oversimplification of what happened. Government found a right for itself where none had existed before; film at 11). It's not a stretch. It's a simple admission of the obvious. And deep, deep, down, it's still the same. If you think you have the right to invade their airspace, then prove it: Go stand on a roadside piece of land and fire a rifle (after all, there's no fence in your way!) across the neighbor's private land, and hit a deer standing on the corner-locked property. That's exactly what you're saying here: You have the right to cross the air above their land, at low altitude, for purposes of accessing what's 'yours' on the other side. Legally and conceptually, why bother? Don't walk across the corner. Just walk up close to the corner, set up your rifle, fire a bullet across this air you claim they can't restrict, and then use a helicopter to go retrieve your game. They have no right to stop you from using that air, right? That's what you said. Go prove it. Fire a rifle across that air. So should I sue the private pilot for trespassing on my land every time he flies over? How much airspace does one own in imaginary libertarian land? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:27:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm trying to put something tangible on this imaginary wall you said. How high does it need to be? The imaginary wall is a way to explain a legal concept that is completely real. If it wasn't real this thread couldn't exist. How high it needs to be is largely dependent upon our FAA, but that is a separate discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:28:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your tax dollars? What year did you start paying taxes? Most of this issue goes back to 1812 or earlier. Year I started paying doesn't mean jack-fucking-shit. Do I not pay into the DNR? Do I not pay into the maintenance of public water ways? El oh fucking El. I actually had this conversation with a game warden here in PA about Lake Harmony. Surrounded by private property, but as he puts it, if I can get on to the lake it's still mine to use. There needs to be easements. This is bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:29:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So should I sue the private pilot for trespassing on my land every time he flies over? Again, that is precisely the argument some people made in the early days of air travel. Which proves this isn't some novel or untried concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:30:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Year I started paying doesn't mean jack-fucking-shit. Do I not pay into the DNR? Do I not pay into the maintenance of public water ways? El oh fucking El. I actually had this conversation with a game warden here in PA about Lake Harmony. Surrounded by private property, but as he puts it, if I can get on to the lake it's still mine to use. There needs to be easements. This is bullshit. You're gonna be so mad when you see the return you've been getting on 'your' social security payments. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:30:57 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, that is precisely the argument some people made in the early days of air travel. Which proves this isn't some novel or untried concept. So what’s your answer? I have a feeling I know what it is but you realize it will make you look more absurd than you already do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:31:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, that is precisely the argument some people made in the early days of air travel. Which proves this isn't some novel or untried concept. You've got to be one of those ranchers who thinks only you alone should have access to said public property and nobody else should. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:31:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are only so many ways I can say this (though I'll happily keep trying): When you speak of 'collective good of society' over the private property rights of individuals, you lose me. I will never support such a thing, and while you can rail against me for the next 1000 pages, I won't support it, and you are wrong to do so. And no, this isn't hypothetical. If it were hypothetical this thread wouldn't exist. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also, eminent domain was established in the original bill of rights. The founders themselves, arguably the most important figures in western civilization, believed that it was perfectly acceptable to take private property for the collective good of society as long as the owners were compensated appropriately. I don’t think they would call addressing this issue via an eminent domain easement “violence.” There are only so many ways I can say this (though I'll happily keep trying): When you speak of 'collective good of society' over the private property rights of individuals, you lose me. I will never support such a thing, and while you can rail against me for the next 1000 pages, I won't support it, and you are wrong to do so. And no, this isn't hypothetical. If it were hypothetical this thread wouldn't exist. I like you, and I want to keep this as civil as possible. So let’s take it back to the root of the problem. Does it make sense to lock millions of acres of public land behind corner crossings? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:31:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're gonna be so mad when you see the return you've been getting on 'your' social security payments. God willing a change is made to that and people like you are put in your place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:31:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Civil action against those who violate airspace?
*clutches pearls* why I've never heard of such! It could never happen!!!1!!!. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:32:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Civil action against those who violate airspace? *clutches pearls* why I've never heard of such! It could never happen!!!1!!!. Quit dodging the question, should an aircraft flying over be considered trespassing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:33:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what’s your answer? I have a feeling I know what it is but you realize it will make you look more absurd than you already do. My answer to what? Your question about 'imaginary libertarian land' asked derisively? The answer to that isn't fit to type. Did you have an actual legitimate question that hasn't already been answered? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:34:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My answer to what? Your question about 'imaginary libertarian land' asked derisively? The answer to that isn't fit to type. Did you have an actual legitimate question that hasn't already been answered? Quit being obtuse… Is an aircraft flying over your property trespassing? Should delta, an EMS helicopter, etc have to gain your permission prior to flying over? It’s a very simple question. I don’t know why you refuse to answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:36:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I like you, and I want to keep this as civil as possible. So let’s take it back to the root of the problem. Does it make sense to None whatsoever. (You said root - that's the real root) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:37:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: God willing a change is made to that and people like you are put in your place. Wait, which kind of people am I?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:37:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The imaginary wall is a way to explain a legal concept that is completely real. If it wasn't real this thread couldn't exist. How high it needs to be is largely dependent upon our FAA, but that is a separate discussion. And the FAA says its legal for me to fly 1" over private property. Except for obstructions, NO ONE owns the air. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:38:11 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait, which kind of people am I? Time for some eminent domain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 2:39:06 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the FAA says its legal for me to fly 1" over private property. Except for obstructions, NO ONE owns the air. He doesn't care. He wants it his way or no way at all. Eminent domain needs to be addressed here. Easements need to be created to allow access to public property that the average citizen pays for. We can start with his property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 3:02:10 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quit dodging the question, should an aircraft flying over be considered trespassing? You're some sort of pilot. You're well aware that there's a century of more of legal precedent about this. So at the end of the day *my* opinion of the matter doesn't terribly matter. I have no problem with air travel across the sky. Neither do the big meanies who use their jets to fly to their western ranches. The problem apparently comes into play somewhere closer to the ground. Say, less than 500 feet. Like 499 feet less. Some history on the subject, if you want to read and report back to us with a summary, or, worse, if you weren't even aware that such a history existed: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvjnrvpx or... https://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-Sky-Struggle-Airspace/dp/0674030826 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 3:02:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Time for some eminent domain. Awww. He made a vague threat. How cute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 3:03:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He doesn't care. He wants it |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 3:07:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the FAA says its legal for me to fly 1" over private property. Except for obstructions, NO ONE owns the air. Then please post video of you flying into the obstructive fenceposts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 3:09:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: None whatsoever. (You said root - that's the real root) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I like you, and I want to keep this as civil as possible. So let’s take it back to the root of the problem. Does it make sense to None whatsoever. (You said root - that's the real root) Now given that premise, one we can’t change (the checkerboard system) doesn’t it make sense to grant a simple easement narrowly defined for corner crossing? Littering and other trespassing can still be enforced. There is no tangible harm inflicted by this practice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 3:13:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOh, you don't like the fifth amendment. I see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2023 3:17:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the FAA says its legal for me to fly 1" over private property. Except for obstructions, NO ONE owns the air. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The imaginary wall is a way to explain a legal concept that is completely real. If it wasn't real this thread couldn't exist. How high it needs to be is largely dependent upon our FAA, but that is a separate discussion. And the FAA says its legal for me to fly 1" over private property. Except for obstructions, NO ONE owns the air. People like you are why this issue will never be resolved in a sensible manner. One side wants to shoot you if you swing your arm through a privately owned imaginary wall. The other wants to teabag your garden with a quadcopter just because “fuck you I do what I want.” You have to be willing to negotiate. Recognize the reasonableness in each others’ points of view. Corner crossing does not inflict tangible damages. Also, flying over somebody’s property without brief and articulable reasons is being a douche. If it were up to me, nobody other than my close friends would be permitted within 1,000 miles of my home. But we have to deal with shit we don’t like sometimes. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
