While not a letter of the law argument, there's a spirit of the law argument here that comes from the ideas like adverse posession and the statute of limitations. The OP didn't use or even worry about the options/shares for 30 some years: the time to speak up and assert ownership was literal decades ago.
If someone has built a house on a remote lot you claim to own, while making property improvements and paying taxes, but you've never visited for 30 years; are you really entitled to swoop in and seize their house now?
In civil law countries, you would be. That's why Europe has the reputation for being tangled in bureaucracy. Every possible risk has to be discharged before you can do anything at all.
Physical land is quite different. And if squatting is legal, it makes a kind of tax of ownership and also means that any registry is invalid.
If you are saying the physical house only and not the land that is different yes. Someone who can move the house obviously should still own the house. Trespassing usually doesn't invalidate ownership of all your belongings.
More important is the meta concept of like we write confusing contracts and then execute them and we agree on an end date (all transactions done) and then informally and implicitly we agree that if anything was wrong you only have z years after close date to fix it.
This is kind of thing where big people can do it themselves and other people perhaps need a regulated entity to review their docs ... Like mortgages and what not.
The interesting thing here would be if the IRS decides to have an opinion ...
Yes, you are entitled. This has been a big point of contention in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. A lot of the property was nationalized, their former owners defected, and then the heirs came back decades later requesting their property back. In some cases where there was a house, there was now a 15-story building.
I dont think the land ownership analogy is quite as simple as you're making it out to be, given that the US and many other countries are literally founded on "someone else's land" and the entire Palestine / Israel issue.
The US is not founded on 'someone else's land'. Small portions of the US perhaps, yes, and treaties and courts work through that. Most Indians were hunter/gatherers, and suggesting that because someone roves through massive tracts of land is ownership, is beyond weird.
Seasonal camping sites make sense, more from a 'our land' perspective.
And naturally any signed treaties should be honoured.
You may say "But, they were here first!", yet that's quite false. Native Americans invaded as well, either subsuming or slaughtering existing populations as they did so. Further, Native Americans warred, fought, killed each other, just as Europeans, Middle Easterners, and everyone else on the planet did. After all, human is human is human, and that's (sadly) what humans do.
And if you look at every other country on the planet, the precise same is true. Locals pushed aside as newcomers invaded, whether the UK, Scotland, Russia, Germany, the Middle East, literally every place on the planet.
There is no peoples, no country, no ethic group, which has not over time invaded another.
There is no one alive today, that does not stand on land once called 'home' by another.
You may wonder why I say this, but instead of discussing a land plot inside a Western country taken over by another citizen, you immediately dove into Native American rights and a Middle Eastern conflict for some inexplicable reason.
Under contract law, should the treaties be honored if the other party weren’t capable of full understanding of what they were signing? I agree with you, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
This is a complex and nuanced point, but there is complexity and such nuance elsewhere, too. For example, I often see "trillions of dollars of $city land are in dispute!" then citing that a settlement of immense magnitude should result.
Of course, the land in question was effectively open forest/plains, isolated with no cities and almost no one living on or around it. And if it remained as so, by todays standards, would be worth often dollars per acre. Meanwhile, we're attributing dollar amounts to land which only became valuable, because it was developed by some means.
While I am not directly answering your question, I frankly find the 'cut off' period to be quite weird. Everyone on the planet has ancestors which have been displaced, AND have displaced peoples. We're both the conquerors and the conquered. For example, I have Scottish heritage. Where's the payment for the land the English stole from my ancestors? And for the English, where's the payment that the Romans owe, for the land taken from those in the isles 2k years ago? Or the French owe, when they invaded and hung out for a while?
Individuals were displaced, entire groupings of people slaughter or literally decimated.
It goes on and on and on, back through time, all owing all. Yet that is completely ignored, including endless land grabs all over the planet even over the last 2 centuries, but... oh well, significant compensation and land returns are only really given to those in North America.
I believe in fairness. And to me, this seems... off somehow.
> Most Indians were hunter/gatherers, and suggesting that because someone roves through massive tracts of land is ownership, is beyond weird.
It is not "beyond weird." It is a well-defended position in contemporary political theory and it has had many prominent defenders for hundreds of years. For example, in the 1790s, Immanuel Kant wrote:
It can still be asked whether, when neither nature nor chance but just our own will brings us into the neighborhood of a people that holds out no prospect of a civil union with it, we should not be authorized to found colonies, by force if need be, in order to establish a civil union with them and bring these human beings (savages) into a rightful condition (as with the American Indians, the Hottentots and the inhabitants of New Holland); or (which is not much better), to found colonies by fraudulent purchase of their land, and so become owners of their land, making use of our superiority without regard for their first possession. Should we not be authorized to do this, especially since nature itself (which abhors a vacuum) seems to demand it, and great expanses of land in other parts of the world, which are now splendidly populated, would have otherwise remained uninhabited by civilized people or, indeed, would have to remain forever uninhabited, so that the end of creation would have been frustrated? But it is easy to see through this veil of injustice (Jesuitism), which would sanction any means to good ends. Such a way of acquiring land is therefore to be repudiated.
I see no relevance in your quoted text, with respect to what I said in my post. And the premise I cited is indeed beyond weird.
Note that I said seasonal camping sites make sense. And I said treaties make sense. I simply said 'wandering about' doesn't convey ownership, aka 'possession'. To take such a notion to the extreme, imagine a grouping of 4 who rove all around the entirety of Canada and the US through their lifetime. You could easily do this over 20 to 30 years. Should those 4 be attributed possession? As owners of that entire landmass via treaty, or just prevent any use of that land by anyone else?
Absurd. And it is equally absurd that land used for travel between two campsites, basically as a road, should mysteriously convey ownership/possession too.
For example, typically there were winter and summer camp sites in the US. Yet when not doing so, Natives would often 'rove' from one of the other, think 'migration'. Yet I've seen ridiculous assertions that someone basically using the land as a road between two campsites, to conveys ownership. Sheer nonsense.
Your argument in the post up-thread appears to be that because the Native Americans did not cultivate or make use of the land in any Western sense, they have no claim to ownership. The Kant quote attempts to repudiate this by stating that it makes no difference whether we consider the Native Americans' use of the land to be ineffective: their deprivation of it is still an injustice and, when it comes to injustice, the ends cannot justify the means.
I don't find Kant's position at all convincing, mostly because the two parties' understandings of the concept of "ownership" were not mutually intelligible (possession vs usufruction). However, the quote does have relevance to your post.
The key here is 'use'. Kant, while obviously not some gospel to be held to any form of authority, is making a point about differences in culture and sure, as you said, use. However, my point wasn't disputing usage at all. Living on it. Hunting on it. Working the land.
However no view exists in a vacuum, and I will indelibly view my example of a group of 4 as a valid statement, about the absurdities of 'walked on the land once in my life, to get to my summer/winter home', compared to some claims of a tribe of a few hundred people, somehow owning hundreds of millions of acres of land, just cause they walked on tiny parts of it to get to their seasonal homes.
So no, I don't see the relevance, because I'm not discussing the concepts therein directly.
It's a lot easier to add a case (in your preferred style, grip, and featureset) than it is to remove size/weight/thickness/engraved logos from a phone.
I guess the challenge comes in even defining "political" ads. Is an ad about expensive gas prices or egg prices political? Unless you put such a huge ring fence around any topics of economy, immigration, law, crime, etc; I can think of a number of effective messages that aren't inherently political, but would activate an audience aligned with a political affiliation.
Yes, but it puts friction on it. Perfect vs good etc.
For example, you can't advertise overtly for political candidates or parties. You can't advertise if you are a political party or an org that has candidates for election. Of course they will then use supposedly independent orgs who are totally not affiliated with the party, but again it's some friction.
In Hungary, since Fb banned political ads in the EU, the previous governing party had a much harder time in advertising themselves, they tried but didn't manage to go around the rules at scale.
> defining "political" ads
Yes, and people will also complain that you now suppress serious conversations about people's lives and want them to live in some rose tinted walled garden where they can only post wholesome sanitized corporate friendly content etc.
And anyway in the last decade or more, there was a big push to say that "everything is political", you must always speak up for your ideas even in unrelated venues and spaces, etc., so yes it becomes very hard to delineate this because again, realistically, the problem is not political vs not political but my side vs their side.
And also you can masquerade political ads as ads for a newspaper article, for example: "Governor A opens a new school" or "Party A declares amazing plans for next 5 years" (actually done here by ruling party, to work around election ad laws and limitations).
Those are two different things, typically.
A business manager taking 10% means they're still running the practice day to day and seeing patients.
PE will come in to buy the entire practice from the doctor/dentist/vet that owns the practice, buying it from them entirely.
Oh, definitely. But what my parent comment was suggesting that PE do for their dentist is what 10% business management companies were already doing.
An acquaintance doctor in vet med was pitched 10% ownership in a practice buyout; PE would do business management. The doctor countered with the PE company getting 10%, since they won't be doing any medicine. The PE company declined.
Walmart is paying what people are willing to work for. The "greeter" standing at the door is not creating $25 an hour in economic value. The biggest issue is we as a society have overextended SNAP and social benefits, trying to equalize outcomes, rather than recognize that entitlements should be a last resort and a safety net against things like starvation. Someone should not weigh 275 on SNAP.
Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes.
Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes.
Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes.
I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance.
I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass.
>Does SNAP need a better system to provide healthy food? yes.
Yes, SNAP absolutely should not enable unhealthy consumption, especially because the majority of those diseases of affluence just hit taxpayers again via Medicaid spending.
>Should employers be required to provide sufficient earnings such that employees do not require SNAP? Also, yes.
The thrifty food plan from the USDA puts weekly food costs at about $75 for a man and about $60 for a woman. Walmart's company wide minimum pay is $14 per hour. Minus a bit for taxes, add a bit back for EITC/other tax credits, and you are covering a week of food in less than 8 hours of work. They have sufficient earnings. They choose to spend the earnings elsewhere because taxpayers are subsidizing their food.
>Is blaming employees who are on SNAP due to Walmart overhiring and cutting hours of at the threshold where the earnings would cross into full time with federally regulated benefits in order to pass the cost of operations to the public acceptable via absurd reductive reasoning a bald case of blaming the victims? Yes.
Walmart is under no obligation to hire them as full time employees. They are free to accept a different job, negotiate a contract for full time employment, etc. They aren't a "victim" because the job they accepted doesn't meet every one of your standards. They are assumably mentally competent adults who made their own decisions and are free to make different decisions at any time.
>I'm not sure whether you are pretending that Walmart's practices are acceptable, due to a willful disregard for the complexity of the larger systemic failures that permit corporate abuse, or due to simple ignorance.
Walmart's practices are acceptable. It's incredible to think that a job offering double the federal minimum wage (or more), in a reasonably safe, air conditioned environment, along with retirement matching, employee discounts, and even paid tuition/books is somehow corporate abuse.
How much do you think stocking a shelf is worth?
>I'm not sure which looks worse, but neither makes you seem compassionate. Though the fat shaming does make you look like an ass.
It’s absolutely relevant because a diversified food supply would result in smaller farms, other things held equal.
You have fewer single points of failure, but more opportunities for failure and a tougher time addressing it via inspection, and less capital available to implement compliance.
Imagining a guy gasping out his last words as he succumbs to life-ending diarrhea in the back of an ambulance that’s long since cut its lights and sirens, “This is the best of all possible capital allocations for hygiene compliance”
That's easily circumvented with management service organizations. More broadly, it's a stupid idea, especially beyond a few areas like law. If you own a golf course, you shouldn't have to sell only to a golfer.
Those are certainly some... examples. Not things I would hold up as a sign that PE is a good thing since all those businesses look like they are perpetually on the edge of collapse around my area. Dilapidated, mostly empty parking lots, poor service from understaffing. I think we would all be better off if those businesses died and left room for others to replace them.
Who’s preventing a competing coffee shop or burger restaurant from opening? If your area is such a prime business market, but these businesses aren’t capitalizing on it, one of your assumptions may be wrong.
The fact that they are still there in business, even if it is low and crappy business, will still hold onto some customers. And long established business has advantages that a new business can't buy. If there isn't enough traffic for two burger joints, it can become a standoff of both bleeding money until one of them fails, and the new business likely doesn't have the same credit line.
So form a shell buying company A and secure the debt of company A with the assets of the newly purchased company B? Congrats, you added about 5 minutes of paperwork.
I’m arguing against the practice of leveraged buyouts. You aren’t describing all of the steps of a leveraged buyout. You are just describing a buyout. Buyouts are fine. Leveraged buyouts are what I think is not. I cannot be more clear or keep explaining until you go learn the difference since you aren’t understanding what I’m saying.
That's such an incredibly shortsighted view of the downsides.
In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with, encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability, any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired, but can instead only scale on their own revenues.
It's worse than that. When the owner retires, all staff lose their jobs. That's a fairly big bummer.
I'm currently part of a "small" business/factory (around 50 employees). The owner is nearing retirement. Are all 50 of us gonna hit the streets tomorrow? Should our customers, many longstanding over 20 years get their contracts terminated? Do they get any warning? Can they easily switch to other suppliers? Is our offering somewhat unique?
Frankly, I think the thought-experiment is very incomplete if you can't see major downsides.
Recently, the owner of the factory my grandfather worked for the last 30 years has retired and sold their business, as a single package, fully operational, with employees and pending orders. It was still shut down and all employees were let go without any severance. From what I know, this is the norm for retirement sales, not the exception.
In this thought experiment, the result would be very similar to what happened, except with less wealth concentration, and with fewer Boeing-McDonnell Douglas mergers that ruin good companies in pursuit of short term profits (because short term profits are harder to realize by design).
Lost jobs are also a lot less of a problem in countries with functioning safety net.
> In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with
Or you get a loan. Or you get an investor on board. How is that different from the current situation?
> encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer.
It's happening anyway. My last vaccination was done 100% at Walmart.
> Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability
How is that different from the current situation?
> any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired
Acquisitions are a relatively recent inventions, acqui-hires even more so. People have been doing massive inventions at rapid pace for like 200 years before being bought out by FAANG was a viable business strategy.
> but can instead only scale on their own revenues.
If someone has built a house on a remote lot you claim to own, while making property improvements and paying taxes, but you've never visited for 30 years; are you really entitled to swoop in and seize their house now?
reply