"In the Southeast, where Indians engaged in settled agriculture, private ownership of land was common. The Creek town is typical of the economic and social life of the populous tribes of the Southeast, writes historian Angie Debo. Each family gathered the produce of its own plot and placed it in its own storehouse. Each also contributed voluntarily to a public store which was kept in a large building in the field and was used under the direction of the town chief for public needs."

"Hunting groups among the Montagnais-Naskapi of Quebec between Hudson Bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence recognized family and clan hunting areas, particularly for beaver when it became an important trade item.[7] Similar hunting groups and rules existed in other regions. In New Brunswick, report anthropologists Frank G. Speck and Wendell S. Hadlock,[8] some of the men held districts which had been hunted by their fathers, and presumably their grandfathers. They even had a colloquial term that translates to my hunting ground. "

"The Algonkian Indians from the Atlantic to the Great Lakes carried on their hunting in restricted, family hunting territories descending from generation to generation in the male line"
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feature....#

There's many more examples in there coming from sources like the University of Oklahoma, the Bureau of American Ethnology, the National Museum of Canada, etc.

....no.... ? lol! idk what else to say to this other than that is not what i was talking about and that is not what will happen (unless you can provide substantial and unbiased evidence that shows that this isn't true).

first of all, no, not everyone will have equal pay, but pay grades won't be so astronomically different. one big change i would expect to immediately be made is that athletes and celebrities would take a HUGE pay cut, but that isn't for this discussion (at least not right now).

what would be in place to assure that they protect everyone equally?

how am i being authoritarian?:

i do not favor complete obedience, and when society is the authority itself, is it really still an authority? i mean think about it, can i be my own authority? if i can, and you leave out the "complete" in this definition, then sure, call me an authoritarian. either that or give me a better method to assure that person helps in such an extreme circumstance.

and the fact that you are still putting a price on something that isn't scarce and will make everyone in the world live forever if they so chose they want to.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

this sounds like it goes along perfectly with what I_Guy said, but that the people who wrote it may not actually understand what collectivism actually is. that's exactly what it is all about -- respecting peoples' usership and not intervening when someone is using something. you're hunting on this land? ok, i'll stay the fuck off.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

extended usership. aka "we may not be currently occupying this space, but know that it is still in use".

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

There's so much evidence showing that private property is good (which btw, eboyd, don't forget about taiwan. It's evidence my system could work). Soviet Union Russia had developed a system where nobody owned land, and everybody just contributes to the community. If you do the research you will realize because of the lack of incentive and freedom that the people had (private property = freedom) stifled productivity and the economy went to crap because of it. And when Russia decided to grant the freedom of owning private property the economy greatly improved.

What do you mean? If a person isn't satisfied with a PDA's job then the person can just switch to a better PDA.

You are taking away the natural rights a person is born with.

Secondly, here's evidence of private ownership helping the environment:
"Between 1979 and 1989, Kenya banned elephant hunting, yet the number of these noble beasts dropped from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe during the same time period, however, elephants could be legally owned and sold. The number of elephants increased from 30,000 to 43,000 as their owners became fiercely protective of their "property." Poachers didn't have a chance!"

Also,"The Audubon Society's Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary partially supports itself with natural gas wells operated in an ecologically sound manner. In addition to preserving the sensitive habitat, the Society shows how technology and ecology can co-exist peacefully and profitably."

The things you claim is when govn't is involved:

"For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands."

"Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield."

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment