alt.politics.economics

wrote
> To the extent no one suffers significant loss of
> liberty by the alteration then there's no problem.
> It is only when people are forced to trade their
> liberty for access to that which they need to
> survive that it is a problem.



Liberty and life are two separate and distinct things.

What do you need from ~that~ land that supports life that you can't obtain
from public property?





> Many sharecroppers work land owned by others.


True, they do, and they share in the crops.

But they also protect those crops, and that land, from use and the "taking"
by others.



> In many cases they make improvements to the
> land for their own reasons.


Wow, it sounds like an echo in here. That's what I said.




> The land owner will take posession of these
> improvements without compensating their creators.



Maybe, maybe not. Wouldn't that depend on the contract between the
sharecropper and the land owner?




> While the land owner may charge for "improvements"
> he doesn't want I'm pretty sure he would take steps
> to prevent the destruction of improvements
> he did but didn't pay for.



Again, what's in the legal contract?



--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia