- Feb 2011
This was what you said in post 240: Well they were settlers and they did create their nations and civilizations where there was nothing. You can call them invaders too if you want, because they took over land with nothing on it that Indians had previously fought each other over.I said most of north america was wilderness, not 'the indians didn't have any buildings or villages or anything whatsoever anywhere'.
Now you seem to believe that "land with nothing on it" have buildings and villages. And if the land is "mostly wilderness", that is the choice of the owners of said land, it is the owners of the land who gets to choose how to use it. Plenty of land owners today own entire swathes of land in which the land isn't being used for much if anything. It's just nature. You may have the right to disagree with how they use their land, but that's not the same as having the right to kick them out of their homes.
Your implication so far:
1. If you own land with "mostly wilderness", then you lose the right to your land <----You need to justify WHY this is, and WHY you draw the line where you did.
For example, you could have drawn the line at:
a. a housing property with mostly yard rather than building
b. a district with mostly natural preserve rather than building
c. a state such as Alaska with mostly wilderness rather than buildings2. If you are less developed, then you lose the right to your land <----You need to justify WHY this is, and why this rule applies to some people but not others such as the Amish, or are you applying this rule to the Amish as well?
Also, how long did it take the colonists to turn a land of mostly wilderness, to "not wilderness"? How do you draw the line between what's wild land and what's not? Population density? Or a set number of structural area per given area? How do you justify using this definition to kick people out of their homes?