[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1609237430355.png (338.15 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Townhall, as applicable and where appropriate.  These are holidays and calendar demarcations celebrated in my culture, and celebration is allowed and perhaps even encouraged by the governing authority.  Sometimes celebration of Christmas is political so I will write here, so as not to be obliged to establish with certainty my topic is devoid of politics or seriousness (I think this is the safest board for every topic really).


File: 1608858776285.gif (222.2 KB, 554x668, 277:334, image0-1.gif) ImgOps Google

Do they fall under "except matters of impeachment"?  Impeachment wasnt theoretical.


File: 1608862010529.png (284.69 KB, 631x783, 631:783, 221ba132ed22a53ff07b891837….png) ImgOps Google

Huh?  Are you referring to Article II, Section 2, which says "The President shall ... have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"?  I'm pretty sure that it means simply that a pardon doesn't affect Congress's power to impeach and remove.


It's clear he's pardoning people connected to himself and the crimes he's committed. We all expected this to happen in his last days.


File: 1608083097576.png (971.63 KB, 1269x1024, 1269:1024, a.png) ImgOps Google

I work many professions, but one involves punching a clock.  And there are American government rules about my schedule and compensation that my corporation must follow.  And I got to thinking -- why?

A bit of research indicates it goes back to The New Deal, so I've began reading a book on that program to try to understand.  While picking out a book -- I usually begin with general overviews -- I see those that are not simply fact books tend to be something like "The New Deal: America's Great Promise" or "The Truth about The New Deal: How it prolonged the depression and continues to cripple American progress."  Usually, if a political program survives a generation or two, it falls into the background.  But in 82 years, I'm not sure how much labor and general welfare issues have.  My workplace requires me to view training on how unions are unnecessary and unreliable, and I can assume attempting to organize would result in termination for failing to follow my training.

I'm posting here so ponies or animals can vent their opinions, I guess.  I am both a laborer and creative type (suppose you can assume I'm one because the other doesn't pay rent, but I won't say it).  Anyway, I think...I'm kinda open minded at this point.  So what do you all think about The New Deal?
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Now, at some level I believe if you're going to make a law, it should be literally followed.  (I've reluctantly realized that's not how stuff works for most authorities, so now I look at punishments to discover significance.)

Do you favor strict constitutionality for its own sake, or do you think the founders were able to produce a special document that ought be followed more exactly than other laws?

You are correct, I think, that the founders didn't intend the Court to have Judicial Review and hoped for a submissive Executive, preferring Legislative supremacy.

>corporations do often get away with breaking the law
Yeah, I guess I don't know for sure.  But my sense is a person like me can't afford the legal costs of bringing a large corporation to court.  Law is for corporations fighting corporations.  The exception, I suppose, is if some institution took my case as part of a social change movement (eg. Rosa Parks and the NAACP), but that's unlikely for any given individual.

Hello, Cheeky Crab.  The 1938 Act is the one I'm mostly thinking of, but the preliminary legislations probably helped smooth the way a bit, too.


File: 1608237492802.jpg (143.35 KB, 1000x932, 250:233, 1520020337875.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Do you favor strict constitutionality for its own sake
I think the Constitution should be interpreted accordingly to its original public meaning.  I favor this because I think it is the most legitimate way of interpreting a legal document.

>or do you think the founders were able to produce a special document that ought be followed more exactly than other laws?
I think it should be followed exactly the same as other laws.  Of course, the Constitution is more vague than most other laws, which makes interpretation more difficult.
I do think that our Constitution is an exceptionally excellent document, but that doesn't affect how it should be interpreted.

>You are correct, I think, that the founders didn't intend the Court to have Judicial Review
Huh?  I never said that.  I think that Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.

> preferring Legislative supremacy.
The powers of the Legislature are limited and enumerated by the Constitution.  "An unconstitutional act is not a law; ... it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."


>original public meaning

> I think that Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.

OK, I don't have enough information to offer another comment.


I was reading a book that explained two systems: rule by law and rule of law.  Rule by law is where laws apply to common folk.  Rule of law is where law applies to even authorities.  Rule by law, I understand, people like rules, however authorities may still punish and act at their pleasure.  Rule of law would seem to only occur when the highest authorities happen to do what the law indicates as proper.

America, I think, tries to do a little better 'rule of law' by separating powers.  When a King is also judge in the case of whether his actions are legal, unless he has some kind of major change of heart over time, probably his actions will be found legal.  (And I suppose respectfully they are, King is King and what he says goes, so I suppose you must be able to allow an outside observer to make the required judgement.)

You seem to have some questions about American government confining its own powers, specifically the federal government allowing itself to regulate intra-state business.  Certainly the American government has been more modest over time.  It has been closer to its constitution in time.  Is there anything that could be changed to make America more 'rule of law,' at least in the areas mentioned.  (You may take America to be excellent in other areas, I don't know).


25 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>due to the politicization of courts and judges these days.
Both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed have nearly universally ruled against Trump's claims.

>a case getting tossed out of a lower court isn't really indicative of its merits
If you mean merits as opposed to standing: Yes, some cases have been dismissed due to lack of an Article 3 'case or controversy'.
If you mean merits as opposed to procedural things: Yes, some cases have been dismissed on grounds of laches and such things.


I'm not sure that's true. Most of what I have seen, it's either been them saying it's outside of their jurisdiction, by and large, which is what was expected for the bulk of these. But there's been a few 'wins' as well, as far as discovery and preventing the deletion of data goes, for instance.
Some of the challenges were lost due to not demonstrating the election would be lost, but those aren't 'ruling against' Trump's claims. For example, it is an objective fact that Republican poll watchers were forced out on multiple occasions, blocked from watching the count, and in one case they quite literally blocked the windows from view, and as far as I have seen, rather than say this didn't happen, the argument is solely "it wouldn't change the outcome" if they are denied.
At least on part of Republican judges, anyway.


File: 1608157756406.jpg (411.28 KB, 1189x1600, 1189:1600, Dr-Seuss-models-some-chara….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I just want to point out that Trump won the election.

Edit: holy shit im almost Sleepy Joe!  What a great result.


Blah blah blah.


File: 1607477262350.jpeg (433.65 KB, 1116x1024, 279:256, large.jpeg) ImgOps Google

"Someday at Christmas there'll be no wars
When we have learned what Christmas is for
When we have found what life's really worth
There'll be peace on earth"

War is the means by which moral questions are asked of the God of violence, who grants victory to the deserving party.  In some cultures, war is the most honorable occupation.

In America, it seems honor goes more to successful inventors, media personalities, politicians, and rich business people.  It has been said people of privilege attempt to avoid military service, which is not how people typically respond to roles of honor.  The great powers have known peace since World War II.  So, it is possible that war can be made obsolete?  Perhaps market forces or democratic processes (or something else) can be accepted as answering moral questions as effectively as an "appeal to heaven"?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


>I mean, it's not like war is a mandatory part of human life.

No, I don't think so.  Some who have lost wars have lost the right to be seen as fully human.  Or to be living humans.  But if people can imagine human society without war or if people can be seen as living a full life without armed combat, then it is not essential, no.

>stops acting shitty towards one another we'll have no use for war.

I suppose every conflict that's not genocide is about influencing the behavior of some other group -- presumably so those who began the conflict are treated in a way they find tolerable.  I infer you believe it's possible to treat the diverse groups that make up the human population in ways they can all find tolerable.

>At least not until resources are so scarce that civilization as a whole breaks down.
I imagine you are talking about something like food.  In a state of civilization, some do not have enough food.  I think most who are food insecure are peaceful.  I also know fighting takes food, if enough don't have food there will not be the energy to fight.  You have some middle ground in mind, I think, a group insecure about survival that still has enough power to wage war.  Can this state be avoided, or is it pretty inevitable?


War, perhaps. It's not really as economical to wage war any more. The primary reasons to do so are largely gone.
Territory is less valuable now than in the past, and smaller boarders can be a boon in some cases. It's no longer a conflict for survival, when you have a small nation near larger ones.

War, at least between major powers, seems to be obsolete.
Proxy wars will probably continue, but I doubt we'll ever see a 'world war' again, at least on the scale of those conflicts.


>The primary reasons to do so are largely gone.
The economic benefits of war come from a new sovereignty over land and people, minus the costs.  I think it's safe to say all land has value, although with a wide range from prime real estate to wasteland.  Subjugated people have value, traditionally as slave property, but for the sake of argument, I'll say now their main value would be in the rents and taxes levied, and as a voluntaryish labor poor for corporate enterprises.

I'm aware that the richest people that come to mind did not gain their wealth by inheriting or earning large areas of land.  Their relation to laborers is a bit more complicated.  Probably you'd say the relation of wealth to land and labor has changed, though, and that's why war is less likely.

I don't know where to place the economic analysis of war, though.  While I suppose people risk their lives in all sorts of way for money, what level of reward is necessary to compensate a significant chance of dying, or living through the destruction of all you value?


File: 1605744308043.png (89.61 KB, 599x304, 599:304, Screenshot from 2020-11-18….png) ImgOps Google

What options does the American Federal Government have if the state's electors are considered invalid in their selection of the next President?

Much of partisan politics is commonplace, but this would seem to be new territory for the American Republic.  Or is this all just hyperbole and everything stays the same?
20 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


That's probably because the 'military' in this case did pretty much nothing, and the guys they were deployed against were attacking innocent people.

If you do nothing when your local town asshole gets jumped, that doesn't mean you're fine with assault, right?
It just means you're not going to get involved on behalf of a bad person.


Prove they were attacking anyone. That's all Fox News propoganda against "antifa", which isn't even a group.


Never said anything about antifa.
I will say this is the first time, though, I've run into anyone denying the violence and destruction that followed the BLM riots.
Heard plenty trying to underplay it, but not outright saying it didn't happen.


File: 1605105738250.jpg (11.22 KB, 225x224, 225:224, download (27).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Honestly, this thread may seem like an old man's rant on the times of today and I don't even know if I have the drive to engage in a serious discourse on this, but I do want to vent my thoughts on this matter somewhat.

So I was reading the news and there was an article where they were looking for a young man who approached a young woman for sexual favours in exchange for money. She turned him down a few times but he would have pressured her to follow him into a fast food joint - bathrooms and there she would have performed sexual favours on him. It was to be classified as rape, as this was under pressure and the woman had some mental disabilities. She herself has come out to her attendants and clearly wasn't consensual in the act.

So reading some comments on the article, I did find people ask "why didn't she just leave?" It bothers me that that is exactly what the man will claim and what might be his ticket to getting away with this. He was just offering money for sex, she agreed. he paid her and now why is she saying he raped her?
Which falls under that old victim blaming. It was pointed out that she was mentally challenged, to have the mind of a younger child, so she didn't know any better. personally, I think that when being pressured you always put someone in a hard place. If you refuse and they turn away, you can just go on with your day. but if they stand over you, plead, maybe threaten or hide their intentions with different requests... you're also getting intimidated by the others insistence and you do get set up with the fear of what will happen if you don't comply, especially if threats are involved.
Anxiety and discomfort will simply put you in the mind that if you comply, then maybe it will just be over and you can live on safely again...

Anyways, I do find some point where I have problems with this and where I feel this is an issue with society overall as well. What is it with men like these who simply approach a woman and haggle over sexual favours like that out of the blue. To me that's as if sexual intimidation has become such a normalcy in society that to some it becomes a legit means of getting off. If you're out dating with someone online , or meet some woman at the club and you pop up the option of having sex, I can sort of understand. Or if you meet a woman in public, chat up and exchange contact to be followed up by the possibility of sex on one of the following dates.
But simply approaching somePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
52 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Alright. I got lots of them. I understand if you don't have time for all of them, so just pick the ones you want i guess, though the first is rather important to me for context on the rest, so please answer that one. For starters:

-Are you straight, gay, or bisexual?

-If you are straight, have you ever made the first move towards a man? Like, in a real way, not dressing up a certain way and having your eyebrow a cm more to the left than it otherwise would be, indicating interest and waiting for him to chat you up. More, gone up and started a conversation?

-Have your friends done so? Why or why not?

-Do you enjoy sex with men? If you enjoy sex with men, but have never started up a conversation, why?
-Do you reject sex when offered from men? Do you feel offended if this happens? Why?

-What do you consider to be the difference between sexual harassment and flirting? Is it just subjective reception, or is there a more measurable variable there?
-Why do women dress up to go out? Is it to attract men? Only certain men? Is it some kind of social power game that women play amongst themselves? If so, why?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Are you straight, gay, or bisexual?

I consider myself to be very straight. I have no sexual attraction to the female body, nor any sexual attraction to what I personally feel like is feminine features on men, such as clothing or certain soft features in the body. I am sexually attracted to the much more masculine aspects, although there is many types of guys out there, and sometimes some of the more soft, nerdy, or boyish ones catch my eye just as well.

I can still appreciate when a women is gorgeous, or obviously has a lot of sexual attraction about her for one reason or another, but if given the opportunity to have sex with them, it would likely do nothing for me and not turn me on. And I do know from experience, having had a threesome with my partner and another women, that it just doesn't do much for me at all. I participated and had a good time, but that was because the act of seeing my partner so turned on and enjoying himself got me turned on. So, again, my sexual attraction was focused on the man.

>If you are straight, have you ever made the first move towards a man? Like, in a real way, not dressing up a certain way and having your eyebrow a cm more to the left than it otherwise would be, indicating interest and waiting for him to chat you up. More, gone up and started a conversation?

Oh yea, plenty of times. Infact, I would say it's been about fifty/fifty and pretty equal. Back in highschool, it was a little more awkward, but as I grew older it got easier. I don't think I've ever outright just walked up and asked for someone's number, but instead I have just started light conversations and tried to keep a subject going. If the conversation went well and flowed pretty easy, and I felt some kind of connection to the person, then it usually ended with something along the lines of "Well it's been really fun talking with you, do you think we could do this again some time?", and then either A-they're not interested and politely decline, or B-numbers get exchanged. And that's happened the opposite with me as well, where someone will start up a conversation.

>Have your friends done so? Why or why not?

Yes they have, and it's been about the same. About half of my friends have dated old friends from back in highschool though, and those conversations were more along the lines of trying Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Bleh, sorry, didn't realize that link i gave you didn't have thr full article. It's hard to find studies that aren't pay-gated. I'll try to do more digging for it later.

As for your question at the end, of course my perception is based on culture, anyone's is, especially for courtship, since approach strategies are going to be made or broken by the social environment where they are recieved. I grew up in various mid/high population burbs, myself. I've never felt any sense of community with humans who reside temporally close, if anything, there wad some animosity there.  There were times i felt close to those around me, like in college, but classes never lasted long enough for those to feel like they really solidified. I remember in high school, i asked about the harassment/flirting thing, nobody could give me a good answer, hinging on the problem of me, not being a mind-reader, being unable to be certain if a flirting attempt would be received well or not, which seems to be the crucial difference between flirting and harassment. This leaves any initiator in a sort of schrodingers's harasser situation, where they have to make themselves a potential harasser in order for anything to happen, hoping it's recieved well. Considering there can be legal consequences for harassing, and that it would likely take many attempts to find a worthwhile relationship, it seems there'd be better odds of me ending up in prison than with a true love, and even if i did get married, it could ruin me financially if my hypothetical wife just wanted money from the divorce, and people seem to do bad things for money all the time, so it's not outside the realm of probability. The statistics of how women tend to marry up financially make this both more potentially treacherous, as you can see the incentive, and make finding a woman richer than me to mitigate this risk more difficult than the already-difficult task was shaping up to be. Then there's bed death to worry about. Just a whole lot that could go wrong and seemingly very bad odds of things going right.

i figured the cons outweighed the pros, and so out romance on the backburner until i could formulate a safer, more effective plan. I've been kindof taking notes on how culture has developed since then, and, at least with how things are presented in media, have only seen things get more dangerous.

I haven'Post too long. Click here to view the full text.




Audio quality is pretty sub-par.
Would it be possible to summarize/highlight the important points?


I think 27 minutes is too long for a Youtube video.


I too suggest a summarization of what the video is about and what you would like to discuss about the video be given.


File: 1605305286065.png (327.59 KB, 1480x1556, 370:389, 6b2.png) ImgOps Google

How much of an impact do you think COVID-19 (and especially Trump's response to it) had on the presidential election?  Would Trump have won but for his poor handling of the pandemic?
48 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


True enough, I suppose.  I personally have complaints as far as rights go, but since he left those largely to states, I pin that primarily on them instead.
Otherwise, though, I just don't see a lot else he could do. If he did what Australia is trying, he'd be called a tyrant. If he did nothing at all, he'd be called irresponsible.
Both I would say rightfully so.  But, those are not what he chose to do


That is something you can say, yes. Because "is it a fatal mistake to them" is again a completely different question. As is the literal question you just asked here, to which the answer is obviously "considered by whom?". It'll clearly vary from person to person, and with the stark polarization the histogram of individual answers would be very bimodal, with a huge sharp peak near 0 and a wider peak much further down. Doesn't even matter who the president is (in the US at least) or what the issue is, society is so polarized that getting at the actual, underlying truth of any matter by just looking at approval ratings is a fool's errand. Instead you have to consider what the reasonable metrics for success are and then see what actions were taken (in context) and whether they could have reasonably been expected to be better. Not everybody will care about each metric the same and many people will even care about none of them at all, thinking the entire issue unimportant, but if the performance is poor and actions ill conceived and contradictory on pretty much all of them? Yeah then we can say they did a poor job. A question of whether that matters in terms of votes is only vaguely related.


My initial response to OP was basically that I'm not sure.  If Trump did a bad job on some standard irrelevant to votes, it doesn't matter much.


We have a new President who cares if i and people i care about live or die and even if we live well or suffer.

AND a preliminary statement i heard has 5 Justices including new Kavanaugh stating that the ACA's stricken mandate is severable and the rest will stand.

This lifts a major burden because people who work can get cheap medical now and on public minimum-standard-of-care i can get all the holes i need drilled and filled and before ACA neither of these things were true and i'm dancing in the streets not because anyone lost but because i and many others get to be a cared-for firstworld person and not a decaying animal.  This was a very real threat to my world on every level.  

What good thing do recent events mean to you?

Those who are unhappy, im sorry for your loss but this thread is only for positive things.  You will also be cared for and you can take ypur laments to your /townhall where the denizens of this site deem they belong.

Now.  Whos a silly pony?  Im a silly pony.  Youre a silly pony.  Whos a silly pony APPLEJACK la la la

happy things please.  silly ponies
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


You do know the rules do not restrain us from expressing such arbitrary concepts on which i personally rely to attempt communication.

Im glad you survive, animal with adjective acquaintance.


Speaking of which, OP is not $adjective $animal.  You are somehow special.


File: 1606599747909.jpg (134.62 KB, 600x450, 4:3, lawn_care_summer.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Animals are far too worthy for op.  Perhaps op can be a nice bit of grass or a mold.  Grandiose perhaps but i do aspire.


File: 1605851412878.jpg (388.48 KB, 800x1156, 200:289, 1451527874348.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Maybe you get a higher good when there is an opposition between good and evil.
>Maybe the good you get when good and evil are both possibilities is a higher good than the good you get with just good.
Any thoughts on this?
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


This might be unfair, I suppose, but given that Peterson is somebody with a reputation for being misleading to the point of maybe outright lying and/or trolling, what makes his opinions on an ancient philosophical debate that's never been even close to solved relevant?


I'm not sure I'd agree with characterising it as "never been even close to solved". The solution is obvious and has been standing for thousands of years ever since Epicurus and it's the one in the last line here: >>8121 (more or less, some form of "evil does not exist" is the other option). What hasn't been solved is the problem of finwangjangling the logic to successfully arrive at an answer fully in line with the preferences of folks who really want their omnigod, but that one will never see a solution. The logic is simply too straightforward to do anything but sow rhetorical confusion and hope to sneak a shoddy logical element through under its cover. Which, honestly, sounds exactly like Peterson's MO so there's the connection I guess.


Pretty sure if a greater good tramples a lesser good, the decider might be evil.


File: 1606435173948.jpg (187.29 KB, 732x1211, 732:1211, Minute_Man_Statue_Lexingto….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The Militia Acts of 1792 required every free able-bodied male citizen of fighting age (with certain exceptions) to equip himself with a musket or rifle and ammo.

Should Congress again exercise its authority (under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16) to require free able-bodied citizens of fighting age to arm themselves?  
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>not much of the US military is dedicated to direct defense again invasion of the homeland
The purpose then is to make invaders fight apartment complex to apartment complex to earn the conquest of America.  (I suppose the law would also have to require that landlords allow renters to keep weapons.)

>[if] Congress has the authority to arm disabled persons, then they can included too, to the extent that their disabilities allow.

The armed forces of another nation overtaking the largest military power in the world to land on American soil and subdue the population by force seems...a remote threat.  Never, of course, impossible, but I don't feel strongly for the need for a militia based on what I know so far.  True, I'm not privileged to the plans of competitor nations.


Isn't it an explicit violation of the 1st Amendment both in the letter of the law and in the spirit of the law to force religiously active Americans against their will to participate in either killing or preparation for killing when they view all that as inherently immoral?


Thats a half question.

That was a standing militia that could be called to arms under military discipline.

So a Yes must also include this term.  Does it, in your view?


File: 1603297801323.png (314.28 KB, 968x313, 968:313, Missing-Parents-NPR-Story.png) ImgOps Google

What should happen to infants, toddlers, and other kids who show up at the U.S. and Mexico border?

Is it ethically just as well as practical to punish them along with their parents if it turns out that their refugee statuses are invalid?

What if they show up unaccompanied, with that possibly changing matters?

What if they show up needing medical treatment or otherwise being in a state in which merely leaving them alone is questionable?
24 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Inflation is the result of printing more money, not from people raising prices for things.

Which isn't to say people won't raise prices, that just seems important to clarify.


Isn't it technically the result of there being more money in circulation, rather than a straight up printing of more money? Giving it to people who will actually spend it instead of hoarding it does seem like it would raise the inflation somewhat. It's a different question as to whether this tradeoff is worth it (I'd say yes), but some inflation should actually be expected. I estimate not enough of it to offset the gains the minimum wage workers would personally see from getting a higher pay, but it's a different question yet again.



I guess the question becomes: Where is the extra money for the minimum wage increase coming from? I would say the idea answer would be it's coming from the scrooge-mcduck style hoards of money that the higher-up employers hoard away, but realistically speaking, that's not going to be the first choice of said scrooge-mcducks.

I think the bigger problem is the shareholder mindset of entitlement to unlimited growth. It's an absurd expectation, one that actually isn't physically possible on the macro level, and yet it's expected, and there's legal consequences to not following through on that. The natural consequence is that companies squeeze and squeeze until they implode, and one of the ways they squeeze is to get as close to reduce wages.

It's all absurd, but those who buy into the absurdity have all the power, so here we are.


File: 1604629349829.png (198.86 KB, 1513x983, 1513:983, US_counties_by_population_….png) ImgOps Google

Every election at least one person will bring up the idea of Democracy.  America, of course, is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.  There were legacy reasons for America not electing the President directly -- difficulty of tabulating a popular vote, belief that electors or state legislatures should use discretion, compromises between large and small states required to form the union, but now it seems that the most relevant remaining argument is that land surrounding a person should have sway in elections, or put another way rural areas should not be held hostage to population centers.  Is this a good political argument for Republican Presidential elections?  Is there a better one I'm missing?  Or do you favor Democracy instead?
15 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Land may not be legitimately owned as property?  That seems to be an uncommon view, although I suppose it is somewhat affirmed by the existence of some public land.  I doubt I quite understand, though.


I think that they mean that most developed nations were build on conquest/colonization, and thus was originally stolen from the indigenous peoples of that land. This is certainly true of much of North America, and many of the UK's territories.


I think it is true that if you traced the lineage of title (or the idea of ownership or tribal/clan occupation before formal titles) of any given acre of land, excepting remote wastelands, you would find at least one transfer of ownership due to armed conquest or dominating coercion.  If titles must be clean from the first claim to the last, most ownership is problematic.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]