Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest
Well, I believe that the people are the government not the government are the people. I believe that we own the land.
Hey, I agree that when you have the deed then you have the rights but public land is public land. If you gave the land over to the public it belongs to the public (everyone).
I can't tramp into your home with or with out my shoes on. These people are not entering the buildings and there is no need to. They are operating in free assembly.
Also that constitution thing is pretty much out the window. I am quite sure that the makers are rolling in their grave if they saw the state of that union...
Sorry you don't see substance in free assembly. Go back to your 3 steaks a day meals and polishing you guns... You know, since we are making claims about each other...
Bring out what you believe are good points... Like the banking, for example.
|
Your fundamental problem is highlighted. No land was given over to the public. The park was developed by Brookfield and is maintained by Brookfield and allows public access 24/7. The public has no property right in the park, they have simply been granted license to enter.
And where did I make claims about you? I made claims about your argument, not about you. My interests align with the occupy movement on a number of fronts, including financial regulatory reform. Not only do I think it would be good for the public in general, it would be good for me professionally. Where I don't support occupy is the means used, the targets chosen, and the resorting to foolish arguments based on half brained understandings of concepts.
A right to free assembly, like all rights, only extends so far as to trample on the rights of others. The right of these people to assemble does not advance beyond the right of a property owner to maintain the premises or enforce reasonable rules.