Harland,
I think you're confusing what is legal with what is just.
For example, in 1860 is was legal to kidnap blacks and enslave them, but
unjust.
Warm regards, Michael
I think you're confusing what is legal with what is just.
I disagree. If you take the stolen watch away from a thief, you should give it back to the owner. You don't get to keep it. It is not yours. Keeping it would not be just, nor legal. Giving it to a fourth person would not be justice, either.
Perhaps the native Americans had no right to their land; maybe homesteaders deserved it because they "improved" it. I strongly disagree with that concept, too, but it has no bearing on Occupiers claiming parks in a city.
The city parks are not "Indian land". The government bought them from private owners. The government made us pay a tax and bought the park with the money. If we think the government stole that money, then it should sell the park and give the taxes back. If we think the park does not serve citizens well, then the government, again, should sell it back to private owners. The Occupiers cannot claim the park by "improving" it. The next best use of the park would be a high-rise, not a vegetable garden.
For example, in 1860 is was legal to kidnap blacks and enslave them, but unjust.
I believe it was already illegal to do so as early as 1808, the earliest date the Constitution permitted for outlawing the slave trade. People already in slavery were not freed, however. In fact the Dred Scott Decision meant it would be illegal to free them by statute. Slavery continued, ( in the North!), until the 13th Amendment in Dec. 1865, six months after the Civil War ended.
Harland