If Mexico is going to pay for the wall, why does Trump need money from Congress?

[Fife]

I'm using lay terminology in saying "senior" in this context. By that I just mean an easement that one has previously secured to cross a neighbor, and that the neighbor cannot unilaterally extinguish. IOW, when the neighbor sells his land or dies, &c., your easement remains.

A vested right that can't be taken away from you, so to speak.

[heydaralon]

I'm using lay terminology in saying "senior" in this context. By that I just mean an easement that one has previously secured to cross a neighbor, and that the neighbor cannot unilaterally extinguish. IOW, when the neighbor sells his land or dies, &c., your easement remains.

A vested right that can't be taken away from you, so to speak.

Ok. When you said equitable relief, you mean the judge allows the "landlocked" party to use pass through the surrounding property for some sort of fee to the owner?

Something else I thought of (now I am meandering a bit away from the OP but whatever): If you believe that parties living in an area should regulate themselves via private contract that is agreed upon, how long should that contract be valid? Do you envision it being renegotiated as certain parties get older and die, and new residents move in?

I'll watch your vids.

[Fife]

I'm using lay terminology in saying "senior" in this context. By that I just mean an easement that one has previously secured to cross a neighbor, and that the neighbor cannot unilaterally extinguish. IOW, when the neighbor sells his land or dies, &c., your easement remains.

A vested right that can't be taken away from you, so to speak.

Ok. When you said equitable relief, you mean the judge allows the "landlocked" party to use pass through the surrounding property for some sort of fee to the owner?

Yes, some reasonable and fair arrangement, to the best of the court's ability. You can see why it is highly advisable for people to try their best to work out agreements in situations like this rather than leaving it up to some judge. Equitable relief is contrasted with "legal" relief, where if you win, you just get some amount of money. In cases like the landlocked owner, money doesn't really solve his problem, it takes some physical change in status ("equitable" relief) to get him what he wants if he has a good case.

Something else I thought of (now I am meandering a bit away from the OP but whatever): If you believe that parties living in an area should regulate themselves via private contract that is agreed upon, how long should that contract be valid? Do you envision it being renegotiated as certain parties get older and die, and new residents move in?

You would really be limited only by imagination. Like we see in HOA restrictions, there are good reasons to look at making agreements permanent and part of the title to the real estate ("running with the land"). Of course there are typically any variety of provisions allowing amendments to these kinds of agreements when the parties want to do that.

I'll watch your vids.

I don't agree with Walter Block on everything, but I like him a lot, and he produces lots and lots of stuff.

[C-Mag]

We need to do this Obamacare style...…………………. Tax anyone opposed to the wall.

After all, if its a Tax, it's legal...…….. Thanks Roberts.

[heydaralon]

I'm using lay terminology in saying "senior" in this context. By that I just mean an easement that one has previously secured to cross a neighbor, and that the neighbor cannot unilaterally extinguish. IOW, when the neighbor sells his land or dies, &c., your easement remains.

A vested right that can't be taken away from you, so to speak.

Ok. When you said equitable relief, you mean the judge allows the "landlocked" party to use pass through the surrounding property for some sort of fee to the owner?

Yes, some reasonable and fair arrangement, to the best of the court's ability. You can see why it is highly advisable for people to try their best to work out agreements in situations like this rather than leaving it up to some judge. Equitable relief is contrasted with "legal" relief, where if you win, you just get some amount of money. In cases like the landlocked owner, money doesn't really solve his problem, it takes some physical change in status ("equitable" relief) to get him what he wants if he has a good case.

Something else I thought of (now I am meandering a bit away from the OP but whatever): If you believe that parties living in an area should regulate themselves via private contract that is agreed upon, how long should that contract be valid? Do you envision it being renegotiated as certain parties get older and die, and new residents move in?

You would really be limited only by imagination. Like we see in HOA restrictions, there are good reasons to look at making agreements permanent and part of the title to the real estate ("running with the land"). Of course there are typically any variety of provisions allowing amendments to these kinds of agreements when the parties want to do that.

I'll watch your vids.

I don't agree with Walter Block on everything, but I like him a lot, and he produces lots and lots of stuff.

As an aside, have you heard of James Ostrowski? I bought his book on Progressivism. He takes a very negative view of the movement, and discusses the way it is destroying America. Have you read any of his stuff?

[Fife]

I don't know him, but I think I've seen his name on the Mises site before. I'll check him out.

[heydaralon]

I don't know him, but I think I've seen his name on the Mises site before. I'll check him out.

Here is the link to the book. Its not very long. I also recently got a book by Arthur Herman on Lenin and Wilson and he discusses how their ideas are still creating problems for everyone alive.

https://www.amazon.com/Progressivism-Pr ... 179&sr=8-1


https://www.amazon.com/1917-Lenin-Wilso ... 273&sr=8-1


You might like them.