hi guys! im commonly known as bmxninja357....

[bmxninja357]

So while I think the answer is simple, the devil may be in the details, but then, does it really matter?

It does not really matter. I was just interested in others opinions.

Let's say my definition of the people of Canada is people who have the right to vote or will have this right upon thier 18th birthday.

Peace
Ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

simply for greater clarity; upon review,

i still can not see nor have i been presented any evidence contrary to Canada being owned by the people of said land or any law made by said people to the contrary.

i actually think a dispute may be a international incident.

peace
ninj

May I give you the same advise that you gave me? This site is not the place to ruffle the feathers of closed-minded or single-minded individuals. To do so is to label yourself as an outcast.

The concept of a nation being "owned" by anyone is false at best in a post WWII world. The only example of a nation (once) being freely "owned" by "the people" is the United States of America. But even that has fallen to the will of the "globalists". All nations signed on to the United Nations are not "owned by the people", and to claim so is a falsehood.

Secondly, if you accept the legal term "RESIDENT", over the legal term "DOMICILARY", than you are most certainly not an "owner" of any such land !!!

[grixit]

A country is owned by its "people" in that "people" is defined as a recognized collective body. That is to say, the population as a whole exercises ownership.

For instance, as a citizen of the US, i can run for elective office, or work my way through the civil service to an appointed office, i can vote, i can write letters to officials, i can join lobbying groups, and i can rant in public-- all in an effort to affect what is done by those who are assigned the role of doing things at a national level. Of course so do a lot of other people. And yes, of course, different people have different levels of influence, some a whole lot more than most. And yes, some have so much that it threatens to derail democracy. Most of us don't like it, but that's how it is. For now, anyway; i still think we can change that.

But be that as it may, the process is kind of like a ouija board in that the actions taken emerge from the combined actions, big and small, of the participants.

This is not, however, a condition subject to particularization. I am one of, what is it now? 300 million americans. But i cannot break off a 300 millionth of the land and say oh this is my piece i'm taking it out of the US and forming my own country. I cannot demand a 300 millionth share of all federal revenues. I cannot stake out a 300 millionth part of the highway system and collect a toll on it. i cannot arbitrarily change a 300 millionth of the law.

It's not that kind of ownership.

[pigpot]

It's not that kind of ownership.

Isn't ownership ownership? If a word isn't the same as what it was then what is it? I mean ownership is absolutely specific, isn't it?

[arayder]

Isn't ownership ownership? If a word isn't the same as what it was then what is it? I mean ownership is absolutely specific, isn't it?

Is it?

[wserra]

Isn't ownership ownership? If a word isn't the same as what it was then what is it? I mean ownership is absolutely specific, isn't it?

No.

It's the old problem of shoehorning a complex world into a simple mind.

[pigpot]

Isn't ownership ownership? If a word isn't the same as what it was then what is it? I mean ownership is absolutely specific, isn't it?

Is it?

Listen it all boils down to whether you wish to SERVE or make your own path. I don't want to serve anymore. You "arayder" OBVIOUSLY does want to serve. If I could end the "Crown" now by the click of my fingers I would. Go take that to anyone you like . That's the facts of the matter. I've been around lately in the last few months when two lovely people I know have "passed away" or "just moved on" (whatever your choice) but to me there are some soulless and heartless feckers out there who just don't care. I'll tell you my experiences which aren't far and wide but here you are.'

I had great some great times with these people listed above (not the cops) but they have now "moved on". Everyone out of say 70 or 80 has been horrible bar 1 guy who showed compassion. It's not a good average whichever way you look at it. I've told the local "filth" to eff off many times now and don't care how they present themselves because I see them as all the same. They suck from the teat of the "goat" and thus they are fed the same "goat".

So the question is "ownership". I thought it was simple. It meant something was "owned". Let's be real about this...

One "Mr. Rothschild" has had his (successful) sixth heart transplant at the age of 99. Some others would be lucky to get one... let alone at 99 years of age. A fair world. One where "money" is King and people are mere commodities. That's fine for the "happy" slaves then.

"Happy slaves" GET what they deserve... A massive slap in the FACE! They deserve NOTHING!

[arayder]

Isn't ownership ownership? If a word isn't the same as what it was then what is it? I mean ownership is absolutely specific, isn't it?

Is it?

Listen it all boils down to whether you wish to SERVE or make your own path. I don't want to serve anymore. You "arayder" OBVIOUSLY does want to serve. . . .

"Happy slaves" GET what they deserve... A massive slap in the FACE! They deserve NOTHING!

I suspect that if all the facts were known it would be obvious that I am more free than you.

You certainly didn't feel free to answer my question.

[pigpot]

Isn't ownership ownership? If a word isn't the same as what it was then what is it? I mean ownership is absolutely specific, isn't it?

No.

It's the old problem of shoehorning a complex world into a simple mind.

Sorry "Wes" I thought I was being logical. The world's not complex at all. It's only complicated even further by "Statutory" instruments. If it were based upon no loss, no harm, no injury and no fraud (potentially no loss / monetarily) then it would be much easier for the "Courts" to make decisions... but it's not... CURRENTLY for those in the position of SLAVE.

A case could be this, "Mr XYZ" did you or did you not park on yellow road marking."

"Yes I did Dave", (not "Your Honour", as Dave is commonly known as Dave and not anyone's "Honour" / slave, masters title) the "Court" "Official" (taking NO offense at being called LOGICALLY by his or her name) then states that no-one has been caused harm, loss, or injury and no-one has been ill-affected by fraud and the "State" as it doesn't exist has not been affected at all.

Thus there is NO CASE TO ANSWER.

CASE DISMISSED. However we don't live in this world. If you lived upon the planet "Mars" you would be free from this crap but you don't. So shut up pay your taxes and be happy with what you've got. Okay?

[arayder]

Pigpot, the question you are avoiding asks how sole ownership differs from a people holding common ownership.

I urge you to throw off your chains and attempt to think about the question!

[pigpot]

Pigpot, the question you are avoiding asks how sole ownership differs from a people holding common ownership.

I urge you to throw off your chains and attempt to think about the question!

If I own a common / shared portion of a company I can sell it. When it comes to my "portion" of a land mass I sell it? I NEVER owned it did I.

Logic..... HUH!

Same deal. Different outcome.

I spoke to one of these "brown" fella's today and he "saw" (agreed) exactly how the "Law of the Corporation" was forced upon his people by a sh1tty little "TREATY". There are some "brown skins" that have done "better" (but not as good as others through colonisation). Don't post here and tell me it's fair.

Scottish against English... Conflict right there. English Lords taking Scottish women to chuck their sperm up their Scottish vaginas. (Aaah... Are those words to hard for some)...

Yeah never mind... Celebrate it and be happy and forget the past.

ORRRRRRRRR.... Don't forget the past... Learn from it and don't do it again. Screw other peoples thoughts and go for what you believe.

[LordEd]

Collective ownership is too simple. It implies that you can sell off your share of the country if you want to leave.

[arayder]

Pigpot, the question you are avoiding asks how sole ownership differs from a people holding common ownership.

I urge you to throw off your chains and attempt to think about the question!

If I own a common / shared portion of a company I can sell it. When it comes to my "portion" of a land mass I sell it? I NEVER owned it did I.

Logic..... HUH!

Same deal. Different outcome.

By so carefully avoiding the question of the differences between the types of ownership you have tipped your hand and made it clear you understand that all forms of ownership are not the same.

Still under the tyranny of your training you are employing a logical fallacy by implying that qualities of one type of ownership share all the qualities of another because they share one quality.

[ontobserver]

Isn't ownership ownership? If a word isn't the same as what it was then what is it? I mean ownership is absolutely specific, isn't it?

No.

It's the old problem of shoehorning a complex world into a simple mind.

Sorry "Wes" I thought I was being logical. The world's not complex at all. It's only complicated even further by "Statutory" instruments. If it were based upon no loss, no harm, no injury and no fraud (potentially no loss / monetarily) then it would be much easier for the "Courts" to make decisions... but it's not... CURRENTLY for those in the position of SLAVE.

A case could be this, "Mr XYZ" did you or did you not park on yellow road marking."

"Yes I did Dave", (not "Your Honour", as Dave is commonly known as Dave and not anyone's "Honour" / slave, masters title) the "Court" "Official" (taking NO offense at being called LOGICALLY by his or her name) then states that no-one has been caused harm, loss, or injury and no-one has been ill-affected by fraud and the "State" as it doesn't exist has not been affected at all.

Thus there is NO CASE TO ANSWER.

CASE DISMISSED. However we don't live in this world. If you lived upon the planet "Mars" you would be free from this crap but you don't. So shut up pay your taxes and be happy with what you've got. Okay?

The whole problem with your "no loss, no harm, no injury" philosophy is that it only works when no one is injured. The one time when the guy does "park on the yellow road marking" and another driver hits him, the idiot who parked there probably doesn't have the means to pay for the damage to the other driver's car, or the doctor's bills, or the lost salary, etc., hence the need to have laws (and penalties) to ensure people do the right thing (like have insurance).

Many traffic laws exist to discourage drivers from doing things that are likely to cause accidents. Things like speeding, making lane changes without signalling, distracted/drunk driving, driving a vehicle that hasn't been maintained, etc., all significantly increase the likelihood of an accident. Isn't it better to prevent an accident than to wait until one happens before taking corrective action?

Without those traffic laws (and fines/penalties), a drunk driver who hasn't hit anybody yet hasn't injured anyone, so according to your logic hasn't done anything wrong, and should be left to continue on his way. This drunk driver is a danger on the road and likely to kill someone. When the inevitable happens and someone is killed, where is the justice for the dead guy????

Or what about someone driving 150km/hr through a subdivision? Its only a matter of time before he hits someone...shouldn't he be prevented from doing that? Once he kills a child, isn't it too late? How do you get him to speeding recklessly through the subdivision if there isn't a penalty for doing it?

That is why the rest of society WANTS to have these laws and their associated penalties. This isn't hard to understand, but so many FMOTL completely miss it.

[Hanslune]

Just to comment: I've lived in countries where there were no traffic laws or if there were they were ignored these were Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain and the UAE, Nepal and India. I can assure you that such places are chaotic and highly dangerous.

The death rate per 100,000 people for car crashes in
Canada 6
The UAE 12.7
Egypt 13.2 - the roads are so clogged they cannot get up enough speed to kill themselves
Nepal 16.1
Indian 19.5
Saudi 24.8 The roads are empty enough so they can get up enough speed to kill themselves

Other places I only visited were

Thailand 38.1
Oman 30.4

....another point is on Celebratory gunfire a lot of people are killed by that too in those countries. I believe the FMOLT belief on this would be that as long as they fired bullets into the air they should be allowed to do so, well until somebody is wounded or killed then they should be tried.........

[notorial dissent]

While most all of the preceding, with a couple of notable exceptions, has all been quite lovely, wordy and equally pointless in turn, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what the ninj may eventually get around to completing a thought on.

And I wish he would. Since otherwise, this little exercise is even more pointless that the usual water is wet arguments. I, at least, am interested to see his point of view and reasoning, whether or not I happen to agree with it. I have no issue, Hardcopy this is pointed at you, with someone presenting a reasoned and rational point even if I don't happen to agree with it. It helps me to understand the person making it and why. On the the other hand, for those of the copypasta mentality that too speaks loads, and doth bode ill.

The other perambulations having to do with the @#&$%&^ FOTL crap on traffic laws is totally and highly off the point.

So, since I have now been more than sufficiently irritated before my morning coffee, either this thread stays on point or I lock it!!!

[bmxninja357]

I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of who own canada and the type/style of ownership. As you can guess I hear many hair brained theories and would like to be able to give sound rebuttals. I'm not trying to start a pointless debate. There is a point. I seeking legal facts to crush wrong theories. Many have been around a long time but the true nature of the type of ownership seems difficult to adress.

Peace
Ninj

[Dr. Caligari]

I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of who own canada

Yo' mama.

[LordEd]

I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of who own canada and the type/style of ownership. As you can guess I hear many hair brained theories and would like to be able to give sound rebuttals. I'm not trying to start a pointless debate. There is a point. I seeking legal facts to crush wrong theories. Many have been around a long time but the true nature of the type of ownership seems difficult to adress.

Peace
Ninj

I still think 'owns' is the wrong concept, but since its a constitutional monarchy, how about the queen?

[bmxninja357]

Would something along the lines of a claim be more apt?

Peace
Ninj