Trump vs farmer

**Jack Daw** · 22nd February 08, 12:15 PM

For the record, I support Farmer Forbes and any other little guy when faced against a big, bullying enemy like Trump. Regardless, Trump does not wear a toupee. He just has horrible taste in hair style. BTW, his wife cuts his hair. And, I've seen his hair blown by helicopter and by winds.

**robthehiker** · 29th February 08, 10:22 PM

My apologies to the sporran...

**MacMillan of Rathdown** · 2nd March 08, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by cesar

Hi
this piece of land should belong to nature and lovers not to corporate world and posh gentry.

Posh Gentry. Or, put another way, rich folks. Most of the comments on this thread have slammed Trump because he's got money, and by extension, pissed and moaned about rich folks and successful corporations. Well, I'm sorry if all of you aren't rich, or successful, or "posh"-- however you want to define that word. I take it to mean "well mannered and well bred", but you guys can (and probably will) attach whatever meaning you want to reinforce bigoted views about people with money.

This thread is supposed to be about "Kilts In The Media". Fine. That some fella in a kilt get his picture in the papers because he doesn't want to sell his land to one of Mr. Trump's companies is probably worth posting. But comments about Mr. Trump's haircut, and how "bad" he is, and generally bad mouthing the rich are, in my opinion mean spirited and petty minded.

So, as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, I hope Mr. Trump builds his golf course. Not because it will employ people, not because it will bring revenue into the area long after Green Peace shuts down the off-shore oil industry, but because it will annoy the hell out of all of those people who don't like the way Mr. Trump combs his hair, and who object to the fact that the rich (and the posh gentry) have more money than they do.

**gilmore** · 2nd March 08, 11:00 PM

You must not watch much US television. I don't either. Trump has a kind of reality/game show called "The Apprentice," and from reports on this and other appearances in the media seems to have a rather unpleasant and arrogant personality or public persona, which I suspect is the basis of much of the negative reaction to him in this thread. And in real life.

BTW my understanding of posh gentry is that it is not unusual that they consider themselves---and are also thought of by others---as quite a few steps above mere capitalists in social stature, having made their money the old-fashioned way: they inherited it.

**Coemgen** · 2nd March 08, 11:47 PM

Personally, being a [*political term removed - PM if you want to know*], I think that if Trump owns the property, he should be able to build whatever he wants on it. If he wants to buy some property, but the owner won't sell, then that should be that.

A simple matter of property rights. Doesn't matter what we think of what's going to be built, each person ought to have a right to do what they will with their property.

**gilmore** · 3rd March 08, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Coemgen

...A simple matter of property rights. Doesn't matter what we think of what's going to be built, each person ought to have a right to do what they will with their property.

Well, no, the don't and they oughtn't. There are all sorts of things one can't do with one's real property. One can't create a public nuisance, that is, one can't do things that destroy or damage nearby property. In fact the government in Anglo-American and Scots jurisprudence can even take real property from the owner of the title to it through eminent domain. And every government I have heard of does so, in order to build roads, railways, build dams and flood land, to preserve the land in its natural state as parks and reserves, or if they are of historical importance, and for a myriad of other reasons. In the US the owner of the title to the land has a right to be compensated for the taking.

Ownership of real property is quite different from the ownership of personalty, personal property. It's better conceptualized as a bundle of rights in the land that the owner of the title to the property has, or the tenant, as he is called in law. It's not as if owning real property involves the same rights as sovereignty, and it never has. The theory and history is that the crown owned all land in its domain, and would grant interests in it to individuals, while reserving other rights to the land to itself. For example, the government can place restrictions on alienability, that is, who you can sell the title to your land to, and some governments do that, prohibiting non-citizens and others from owning land.

This point has been much misunderstood in recent years and sometimes purposefully mischaracterized, but its always been the way that land is held, going back many centuries.

**Coemgen** · 3rd March 08, 01:07 AM

Methinks this will quickly devolve into a political debate, which is, of course, against the

. I'll respond via PM.

**bjproc** · 3rd March 08, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Coemgen

Personally, being a [*political term removed - PM if you want to know*], I think that if Trump owns the property, he should be able to build whatever he wants on it. If he wants to buy some property, but the owner won't sell, then that should be that.

A simple matter of property rights. Doesn't matter what we think of what's going to be built, each person ought to have a right to do what they will with their property.

sorry i disagree with you on this.

just because you own a piece of land you don't have the right to build what you want, as there would be some states of things getting built, the councils usualy do a good enough job keeping the character of the building in the same mannor as the surrounding areas.