Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Now UIE

Expand Messages
  • David Spain
    These theoretical share-sites do not sound like much of a place to lay ones head and cultivate a garden. But anyway, so OK, so how do you quantify the UPE?
    Message 1 of 395 , Sep 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

       

      These theoretical share-sites do not sound like much of a place to lay ones head and cultivate a garden.

       

      But anyway, so OK, so how do you quantify the UPE?  Take the total site value in the jurisdiction and divide it by the number of adults aged 18+, to get the average site-value entitlement? With that entitlement to become a credit when the individual holds a site, or a CD claim if s/he does not?

       

      Where do corporate entities stand in this? Presumably they pay full SR at all times. What about natural person trustees? Does your answer for natural person trustees differ if they do not hold personal sites?

       

      What do you say to the suggestion that the site values are largely due to community presence & expenditure, not due to nature, such that most individuals who contribute little would just be parasites on prior generations & the community were they  to claim UPE or CD. The result would be a gradual but continuous running down of the supportive infrastructure that gave sites value in the first place.

       

       

      DS

       

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John David Kromkowski
      Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012 12:17 PM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Now UIE

       

       

      This is precisely why we have titles and courts and land ownership.  Regardless of what purists say about owning land.   All the ancient history of who literally struck John we've got to get over.  There is no way to go back to the Garden.

       

      LVT (and with a UPE) while retaining titles and ownership gets us close so that one need not have to go out to the desert.

       

      You can't have those specific spaces because you will always be out bid by the community as a whole which is on whose behalf the government acts.

       

      You are not entitled to a PARTICULAR place, but each of us is entitled to A place of value equal to our fair share beyond that you must pay.

       

      JDK

       

       



       

      On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:07 PM, David Spain <dspain@...> wrote:

       

      To what PLACE is everyone or anyone entitled? Can I fence off an acre in Central Park, or take over the White House rose garden, to cultivate and lay down my head? If not, why not?  Why should your person have to go to the desert margins to annex this free PLACE?

       

      And if I get there first, or have the biggest mouth guns or muscles, what is the status of citizens B, C & D who also claim entitlement to that spot?

       

      Regards,

      David Spain

       

      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John David Kromkowski
      Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012 7:02 AM
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: now UIE

       

       

      "I don't really understand the basic nature of these criticisms of the UIE. I think the problem is that one has to start with support of the LVT, and you are ambivalent about that. ....."

       

      I think you've hit the nail on the head. I understand the practical and legal obstacles, but I don't understand where the theoretical obstactles come from: Ever person should be able to have a PLACE to cultivate own's garden and lay own's head down, without having to pay. 




      --
      Very truly yours

      John D. Kromkowski
      6803 York Road -- Suite 207
      Baltimore, MD 21212

      Tel     410-377-6248
      Fax     410-372-0624
      Mobile  443-271-0500

      This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication is strictly prohibited.

      If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments without reading, printing or saving  in any manner.

    • roy_langston
      ... Which might be why I haven t done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn t a question of natural law, and I ve explained why residence defined as six months +
      Message 395 of 395 , Sep 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

        > The main point of resorting to natural law pronoucements of the kind you have bellowed is that they are supposed to help us determine what the various human-made laws SHOULD say. That is, if we have a question about know how some law should be constructed with respect to, e.g., who should receive various benefits and for how long or which protections of person or property must be enforced, or whatever, natural law claims are sometimes made--just as you have confidently made them in this context. It is, thus plainly circular to respond, when asked to specify the characteristics of some claimed natural law, "You'll have to consult the local legislature and courts--they'll tell us."

        Which might be why I haven't done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn't a question of natural law, and I've explained why residence defined as six months + reflects the relevant natural law principles.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.