Replies

“So if I get mugged in the near future, the mugger is not stealing my wallet and watch but merely assuming posession?”

Well, let’s say we were neighbors and I was letting you use my lawnmower but we had a falling out. Yet one day you come over to take the mower because I had let you use it before, and I stopped you. You may call that a mugging but I would call it protecting my property. But of course I use common sense. You would use something other than common sense and I would attack you. Then you would whine about how we had an agreement — unless you were dead.

Well, let’s say we were neighbors and I was letting you use my lawnmower but we had a falling out. Yet one day you come over to take the mower because I had let you use it before, and I stopped you. You may call that a mugging but I would call it protecting my property.

A more accurate analogy would be if the lawnmower, which happened to be stored in your shed, was jointly owned by the entire neighborhood. Your piece of it was a fraction of the whole, clearly a majority one. You decide to move out of the neighborhood and you demanded that sole ownership of the lawnmower be turned over to you regardless of the wishes of the rest of the owners. And oh, by the way, you weren't going to compensate them for their investment. Now you tell me what is fair or legal or just about that?

But of course I use common sense. You would use something other than common sense and I would attack you. Then you would whine about how we had an agreement — unless you were dead.

Common sense says that jointly owned property does not become yours merely because you want it. Common sense says that everyone who paid for it must be compensated for their investment. Common sense says that to do otherwise is clearly stealing.

Your piece of it was a fraction of the whole, clearly a majority one.

Oops. Meant to say your ownership was a minority one, not a majority.

Well, let’s say we were neighbors and I was letting you use my lawnmower but we had a falling out. Yet one day you come over to take the mower because I had let you use it before, and I stopped you. You may call that a mugging but I would call it protecting my property. But of course I use common sense. You would use something other than common sense and I would attack you. Then you would whine about how we had an agreement — unless you were dead.

That makes no sense. The federal government was in possession of the fort and had title to it. The South Carolinians or Confederates were in the position of those coming over to "use" or "borrow" the fort, as for example, Castro would be if he wanted Guantanamo back and tried to take it. Your analogy isn't reasonable or sensible so you fall back on simple self-assertion and violence.