PR lashing? From where? Anonymous? This protest really hasn't caught on in the mainstream in any meaningful fashion. Sure there will be fringe groups that call for boycotts etc. but I don't see much else happening. Not to mention the fact that most people don't even know what Brookfield does.
lol - no it just spread across the USA in days and is now encroaching on Canadian soil. I find it telling that the story is virtually non existent in mainstream media.
I get a laugh how these protesters have ZERO respect for property rights but figure it's still all right to accuse the LEGAL OWNERS OF THE PARK THEY'RE OCCUPYING of not respecting democracy.
Can they really be this clueless?
They actually have a right to be in the park. This park is privately owned but is required to be open to the public 24/7. It's part of the building permit process, and quite common throughout the city, which grants owners expanded building rights but requires them to build and maintain a public space. The owner is still allowed to institute and enforce reasonable use restrictions, including no camping and no assembling of structures etc. Those rules have been put aside for a month, and apparently will be enforced going forward.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Instead of trying to lowball with a ridiculous comment. Answer it.
A lowball ridiculous comment? You don't even understand the basic tenets of property ownership and I'm being accused of a lowball comment? Christ, the intellect of this movement is astounding.
Who owns property in the system of Democracy practiced in the United States? The owner in fee simple. That's your answer.
A lowball ridiculous comment? You don't even understand the basic tenets of property ownership and I'm being accused of a lowball comment? Christ, the intellect of this movement is astounding.
Who owns property in the system of Democracy practiced in the United States? The owner in fee simple. That's your answer.
In English law, a fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the most common way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed.[citation needed] How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation
So in the real the Government owns all property and the people run the government. So they have every right to be there... / understands the can o worms is open... lol
In English law, a fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the most common way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed.[citation needed] How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation
So in the real the Government owns all property and the people run the government. So they have every right to be there... / understands the can o worms is open... lol
Yeah I figured you would go for that argument. Hilarious, and pretty much sums up the level of intellect being shown by a good portion of this movement. It's sad really, there are good point s to be argued, and you come down to the type of argument we saw from Tower. Are you a free man on the land too?
Oh, and I figure I might as well burst your bubble while I'm here. One of the guiding principles of the United States is the right to own property without interference. How about we look at a couple of quotes from some guys who wrote that little Constitution thing:
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." - James Madison
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST" - John Adams
If you really want to get into an argument about the rights of property ownership in the United States I will gladly oblige, but please come back with an argument of actual substance. You cited (Wikipedia too, well done) an article that references the 4 limitations on property ownership under common law. Is your argument that the existence of a government power over something makes it government property? The ability to tax land makes that land under government control? The presence of an extremely limited right of eminent domain does the same? As does the presence of a police power (which doesn't directly remove a fee owned) or escheat, which only comes into existence when property has no owner through any other means?
Yeah I figured you would go for that argument. Hilarious, and pretty much sums up the level of intellect being shown by a good portion of this movement. It's sad really, there are good point s to be argued, and you come down to the type of argument we saw from Tower. Are you a free man on the land too?
Oh, and I figure I might as well burst your bubble while I'm here. One of the guiding principles of the United States is the right to own property without interference. How about we look at a couple of quotes from some guys who wrote that little Constitution thing:
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." - James Madison
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST" - John Adams
If you really want to get into an argument about the rights of property ownership in the United States I will gladly oblige, but please come back with an argument of actual substance.
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.
so people exercising freedom of speech should be forced to watch what goes on in banana republics? the proverbial "count your blessings" right?
Canada also never got those rights by capitalist exploitation either... as for the non-violent protesters not causing change? better check you history.
you might not agree with people protesting, but certainly, people have protested and marched for things many others don't consider as being that important. nor agreeable
Non violent protesters can cause all sorts of change. Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi come to mind. Of course, they knew what they wanted and could articulate their goals in a meaningful way, unlike the occupy#### folks.
I said leaderless, unfocused non-violent protesters don't cause change, and I stand by that statement, when responded to in its entirety.
Great. So you're going to be getting this guys money rather than charities. I say this because that's the reason so many people donate to charity is for the tax deduction. Awesome. Now instead of curing cancer we are giving our money to lazy bums that want to sit back and have everything handed to them. Seems like a great idea.
You know, I'm hearing this tossed around as a talking point for this "movement", but I really wonder how true this actually is. I'm not an accountant or tax lawyer, but my understanding is that in Canada, these so called loopholes don't really exist to the same extent.
There are many loopholes that exist in Canada as well, but to their credit, the Harper government has taken action to close some of the ones I mentioned.
Quote:
The other question is what sort of chilling effect it would have on industry to basically impose additional taxes (closing means of reducing tax exposure is effectivly increasing taxes for those businesses). I get the sense people think companies exist in a vaccum. We live in a global economy these days. If it becomes too expensive to operate in Canada, what's stopping companies from moving where they can find cheaper labour and lower operating costs? Obviously this is already happening, but it's not like you can magically start charging more taxes and then require companies to stay put. We are being underbid by emerging economies and low skilled work that pays well is really a thing of the past. Adapt, or starve.
For one, a lot of the biggest offenders are in industries that can't really be outsourced (resource extraction, domestic retail, etc.). But I agree, obviously the government needs to close loopholes intelligently and respect how it affects businesses' tax liability, but there is tons of room for improvement. Even if they don't raise overall revenues by doing this, a more honest tax system (rather than one that favors certain size companies or certain industries that lobby heavily, for instance) creates a more even playing field for all businesses.
Also, many of the loopholes are for individuals. So it's not a matter of increasing corporate taxes, but rather ensuring that many upper income earners are paying their fair share.
Explain the difference to me. All I can see different there is the result, job creation/retention. The second part is not different from the first. Both are utilizing the current rules and laws to their maximum benefit. What's wrong with employing a huge tax department? What's wrong with lobbying for tax breaks? What's wrong with creating legal entities that act as tax shelters?
If all of these things are done within the law and applicable accounting rules where is a corporation doing anything wrong? It's GE's fault that they have good accountants and tax planning so as to lessen their tax burden?
hey man, if you have zero problem with a company exploiting tax loopholes to pay zero tax in a country while still recording massive profits, then all the power to you. I for one, have a problem with that and think the government needs to change the taxation/regulatory system so this doesn't happen so easily. Obviously our opinions on the matter differ, which is fine by me.
And to all of you critics who keep bringing up "why are they protesting in front of X location", does it seriously really matter? You might get a little more mainstream coverage and worldwide recognition, but I think this thread alone provides proof that this movement is gaining traction. Here we are, on a primarily hockey franchise focused message board, debating and discussing the finer points of this OWS movement. Obviously they are getting noticed, obviously discussion is happening, and it doesn't seem to be losing steam. Location, I think, is a minor player in the grand scheme of things.
Last edited by woob; 10-13-2011 at 11:37 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to woob For This Useful Post:
Here we are, on a primarily hockey franchise focused message board, debating and discussing the finer points of this OWS movement.
This board also features threads on buying winter tires, pubs in montreal, and the never ending photo thread. Just because somethings on the off topic forum doesn't make it of substance.
Last edited by bizaro86; 10-14-2011 at 08:04 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
hey man, if you have zero problem with a company exploiting tax loopholes to pay zero tax in a country while still recording massive profits, then all the power to you.
What magical company pays 0 taxes while recoding massive profits? Please site even a single example. I'm curious.
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.
/ understands the can o worms is open... lol
