www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote: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.

If there were no other way around it? Maybe. It should however, be my choice in the end, because I own it. Otherwise, the concept of ownership is rendered irrelevant.

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

I've already told all of my friends that if I discovered that they were child molestors, rapists, or had killed an innocent person, I would turn them in myself, or deal with them myself. I said unjust laws. Kind of like the "I was just following orders" excuse. You can't ignore things you know to be wrong.

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".

If everyone quietly accepts injustices, the logical progression is for a government to slowly push the boundaries until no one notices that they've been enslaved. That's what I meant.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
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.

What's the bloody problem then? He won.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:It's the government that is being greedy. It's legally your house. What right do they have to take it?

The very fact that as the government it is their responsibility to consider the collective needs and interests of the entire population, rather than specific individuals.

*snip example*

Hasty generalisation fallacy. Unless you can prove that every single example of a compulsory purchase order is for a construction project that will have only a minor economic effect.

Cpl Kendall wrote: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.

We never asked to be compensated in the first place. The land wasn't really for sale. As far as making new memories, some of us like having things that remind us of certain people who aren't here, and some of us might not have a lot of time to make new memories.

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.

Agreed. It's when people are forcibly removed (through whatever means) that it becomes a problem.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
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.

What's the bloody problem then? He won.

That wasn't the point. The point was that there wasn't a significant advantage to destroying his house to build the road.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I've already told all of my friends that if I discovered that they were child molestors, rapists, or had killed an innocent person, I would turn them in myself, or deal with them myself. I said unjust laws. Kind of like the "I was just following orders" excuse. You can't ignore things you know to be wrong.

So you agree with Rochey when he said:

Rochey wrote: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.

If everyone quietly accepts injustices, the logical progression is for a government to slowly push the boundaries until no one notices that they've been enslaved. That's what I meant.

Prove that this is the inevitable outcome, otherwise it is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
We never asked to be compensated in the first place. The land wasn't really for sale. As far as making new memories, some of us like having things that remind us of certain people who aren't here, and some of us might not have a lot of time to make new memories.

No they weren't, it happened however. I'm all in favour of giving the Nations fiscal compensation adjusted for inflation and after that the Reserve system is abolished and the First Nations become regular citizens, enough with the underclass crap.

You may enjoy having things that remind you of others but guess what, you have a mind. Use it. And there will alwyas be people dying, that in it's self is no reason not to do this.

Agreed. It's when people are forcibly removed (through whatever means) that it becomes a problem.

Fortunately that rarely happens in the West.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:*snip example*

Hasty generalisation fallacy. Unless you can prove that every single example of a compulsory purchase order is for a construction project that will have only a minor economic effect.

But how often is destroying a single house going to make that much of a significant difference in any project?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
That wasn't the point. The point was that there wasn't a significant advantage to destroying his house to build the road.

And? That is the purpose of the checks and balances in government. In this case the municipality did something wrong and the courts stopped it. The system worked as designed.

Captain Seafort wrote:So you agree with Rochey when he said:

Rochey wrote: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.

He never specified what crime.

Captain Seafort wrote:

If everyone quietly accepts injustices, the logical progression is for a government to slowly push the boundaries until no one notices that they've been enslaved. That's what I meant.

Prove that this is the inevitable outcome, otherwise it is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

I never said it was inevitable, only that it is logical for people in power to want to remain there, and gain more power. It certainly isn't inevitable if people make a stand. The inherent goodness of mankind isn't going to pull through and make those people grow a conscience. The reigns are a lot tighter than they were a hundred years ago in certain ways.

He never specified what crime.

Take any crime you want. Grand theft auto, murder, kidnapping, whatever.

I never said it was inevitable, only that it is logical for people in power to want to remain there, and gain more power.

That's why we have these things known as "checks and ballances" which prevent a country from turning into a dictatorship.

The reigns are a lot tighter than they were a hundred years ago in certain ways.

By all means, tell me how things have gotten stricter since the end of the theocratic dictatorships. Because I can't see any way things have gotten any worse.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I never said it was inevitable

Concession accepted.

Just because it isn't "inevitable" doesn't mean there isn't a high probability of it happening. I think you misunderstood me there. Nowhere in my side of the debate have I declared it was inevitable.

How is there a high probability of this happening?

Rochey wrote:Take any crime you want. Grand theft auto, murder, kidnapping, whatever.

Those are all things everyone should know are wrong. Less tangible crimes can be proscecuted wrongly if the law is flawed.

That's why we have these things known as "checks and ballances" which prevent a country from turning into a dictatorship.

What do you call a group of select, elite individuals making decisions for everyone else? A "shared dictatorship"?

By all means, tell me how things have gotten stricter since the end of the theocratic dictatorships. Because I can't see any way things have gotten any worse.

For one thing, they didn't have cameras everywhere, and strip-searches to travel anywhere. Phone taps and e-mail searches. Snooping through everyone's personal business is something I dislike immensely. Same reason I booby-trapped my drawers to keep my mom out of them when I was a teenager.