Take Back our Beaches...

[aries]

Are there any beaches that the public are allowed on in NH?
If there is an market for it you could probably buy a beach an charge people to get acces to it.

Yes, plenty. Few private beaches.

[aries]

What if I cover my section of beach in dirt and plant grass, then can I own it?

[FrankChodorov]

What if I cover my section of beach in dirt and plant grass, then can I own it?

in NH doesn't matter what you do to the beach (ask former Gov. Benson how to do it without a permit) - you only own up to the highwater mark...

between highwater and low water marks is owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right

[FrankChodorov]

YES. People can own water too.

And you'd know that if you comprehended that Free Market Environmentalist book you claim to own and have read and digested.

in NH all surface water over 20 acres and all groundwater is owned in common as an individual right with the state as the public trustee...

[FrankChodorov]

Heh, when I started reading your comment (especially this part of it), it seemed tongue-in-cheek, but after I finished it I can't tell . . . .   ???

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist.

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist flaming socialist.

Brad -- this is our resident troll who is intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights and best put on ignore. It is useless to waste your good energy arguing with him. He will suck you dry and leave you nothing to work with...which I think is his M.O. Don't fall for it.

He means every word of what he is saying, which is the scary part.

ha!

I am not "intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights"...

I am the conscience of the freedom and property rights movement in NH.

up until Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard the libertarian movement understood that inorder to have absolute property rights to labor (the basis of property rights as the natural extension of self-ownership) property rights to land MUST be made conditional.

[aries]

Frank - just because "In NH..." is true, that doesn't make it right.

[CNHT]

ha!

I am not "intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights"...

I am the conscience of the freedom and property rights movement in NH.

up until Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard the libertarian movement understood that inorder to have absolute property rights to labor (the basis of property rights as the natural extension of self-ownership) property rights to land MUST be made conditional.

HA back at you! Conscience? Geesh, I don't think so. Do you even LIVE in NH?

[FrankChodorov]

ha!

I am not "intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights"...

I am the conscience of the freedom and property rights movement in NH.

up until Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard the libertarian movement understood that inorder to have absolute property rights to labor (the basis of property rights as the natural extension of self-ownership) property rights to land MUST be made conditional.

HA back at you! Conscience? Geesh, I don't think so. Do you even LIVE in NH?

of course I do...10 years and counting.

[FrankChodorov]

Frank - just because "In NH..." is true, that doesn't make it right.

do you know the difference between "ought" and "is"?

[tracysaboe]

Heh, when I started reading your comment (especially this part of it), it seemed tongue-in-cheek, but after I finished it I can't tell . . . .   ???

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist.

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist flaming socialist.

Brad -- this is our resident troll who is intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights and best put on ignore. It is useless to waste your good energy arguing with him. He will suck you dry and leave you nothing to work with...which I think is his M.O. Don't fall for it.

He means every word of what he is saying, which is the scary part.

ha!

I am not "intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights"...

I am the conscience of the freedom and property rights movement in NH.

up until Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard the libertarian movement understood that inorder to have absolute property rights to labor (the basis of property rights as the natural extension of self-ownership) property rights to land MUST be made conditional.

I think you need to read some Hume and some of the Spanish Scholastics, And Kant.

I've said this over and over and you either conveniently ignore it or because your retoric blinds you to it. There were many people in the freedom movement that disagreed with Lock and his so-called "provaso."

TRacy

[tracysaboe]

YES. People can own water too.

And you'd know that if you comprehended that Free Market Environmentalist book you claim to own and have read and digested.

in NH all surface water over 20 acres and all groundwater is owned in common as an individual right with the state as the public trustee...

Translation: That means the state controls and owns the water then. Not the public. None of us ever agreed on making the STate the "public trustee." Why would you trust the state to manage something as important as water.

Tracy

[CNHT]

Translation: That means the state controls and owns the water then. Not the public. None of us ever agreed on making the STate the "public trustee." Why would you trust the state to manage something as important as water.

Tracy

Correct and besides, it's not even true. This is what they WANT but will not get. The law was not yet passed.

[FrankChodorov]

Heh, when I started reading your comment (especially this part of it), it seemed tongue-in-cheek, but after I finished it I can't tell . . . .   ???

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist.

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist flaming socialist.

Brad -- this is our resident troll who is intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights and best put on ignore. It is useless to waste your good energy arguing with him. He will suck you dry and leave you nothing to work with...which I think is his M.O. Don't fall for it.

He means every word of what he is saying, which is the scary part.

ha!

I am not "intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights"...

I am the conscience of the freedom and property rights movement in NH.

up until Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard the libertarian movement understood that inorder to have absolute property rights to labor (the basis of property rights as the natural extension of self-ownership) property rights to land MUST be made conditional.

I think you need to read some Hume and some of the Spanish Scholastics, And Kant.

I've said this over and over and you either conveniently ignore it or because your retoric blinds you to it. There were many people in the freedom movement that disagreed with Lock and his so-called "provaso."

appealing to authority Tracy?

tisk, tisk...

[FrankChodorov]

YES. People can own water too.

And you'd know that if you comprehended that Free Market Environmentalist book you claim to own and have read and digested.

in NH all surface water over 20 acres and all groundwater is owned in common as an individual right with the state as the public trustee...

Translation: That means the state controls and owns the water then. Not the public. None of us ever agreed on making the STate the "public trustee." Why would you trust the state to manage something as important as water.

when a parent sets up a "trust" for their children and then assigns a trustee does that mean the trustee owns the money in the trust?

no - they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the asset and grow the principle.

[tracysaboe]

Heh, when I started reading your comment (especially this part of it), it seemed tongue-in-cheek, but after I finished it I can't tell . . . .   ???

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist.

Steve Bailey is a globe columnist flaming socialist.

Brad -- this is our resident troll who is intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights and best put on ignore. It is useless to waste your good energy arguing with him. He will suck you dry and leave you nothing to work with...which I think is his M.O. Don't fall for it.

He means every word of what he is saying, which is the scary part.

ha!

I am not "intent on destroying the movement for freedom and property rights"...

I am the conscience of the freedom and property rights movement in NH.

up until Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard the libertarian movement understood that inorder to have absolute property rights to labor (the basis of property rights as the natural extension of self-ownership) property rights to land MUST be made conditional.

I think you need to read some Hume and some of the Spanish Scholastics, And Kant.

I've said this over and over and you either conveniently ignore it or because your retoric blinds you to it. There were many people in the freedom movement that disagreed with Lock and his so-called "provaso."

appealing to authority Tracy?

tisk, tisk...

No. If you'll spruce up your reading comprehension skills you'll find I was directly contradicting your claim that the "freedom movement" befor Rand and Mises et al believed in common ownership rights.

It's simply not true. The freedom movement was just as varied back during Lock's time as it is now.  It has nothing to do with apealing to their authority. I was just saying they were contemporaries or priors even of your beloved Lock and George who disagreed with them. Meaning that, in this statement,

up until Hayek, Mises, Rand and Rothbard the libertarian movement understood that inorder to have absolute property rights to labor (the basis of property rights as the natural extension of self-ownership) property rights to land MUST be made conditional.

you're wrong.

Meaning, You loose.

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200 dollars.

Better luck next time.

Tracy