🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote:

> > Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?
>
> Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.

 And no wonder when any individual tries anything different, so they
are not
dependent/locked in the death embrace with vindictive, jealous,game
playing, power
hungry shits,  the gov't tries to force them back into the fold. Here's
a thread circa
2004 that talks  about it

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/64fd9e574fe5fd21/d6b78c9e386f882f

and a post from it:

I really hate the way this country is run these days. It makes
me angry that you have to ask permission just to survive on your
own without being dependent on anyone one else *PERIOD*

(comments throughout article)

http://www.insidedenver.com/news/1227sqat6.shtml

>Excerpts:
>1872 law makes it hard to evict squatters
>By Deborah Frazier
>News Staff Writer

>About 100 "miners" live for free in refurbished cabins, aging
trailers and
>wood- frame shacks on federal land in Colorado's mountains.

>There's no rent, no tax, no water, no sewage system and no lights.

 So fucking what? They chose to live independently.

>And it's illegal.

 Because they didn't ask the gov't permission to live there, though
the
government doesn't "own" land, except in their minds,

>But an out-of-date federal mining law can create a lengthy,
>expensive process -- up to $30,000 in legal fees -- to get squatters
off the
>public land.

 Good, these people want to be left alone, so LEAVE THEM ALONE!

>"Some of the places are fairly primitive, but some have been there
longer and
>have developed the places into fairly substantial summer homes," said
Larry
>Gash of the regional Forest Service office in Lakewood.

>Tom Healy, a law enforcement officer for the U.S. Forest Service in
the White
>River National Forest, said, "In the 1980s, there were books out
there for
>$12.95 on how to live for free on public land.

>"It doesn't happen that way," he said....

 Because gov't busybodies and "paper kings"  have declared it. The
only thing that makes their claim "valid" is that they are in control
of
men with guns.

>But sometimes someone who really is mining the claim will build a
home and
>balk at leaving.

 I would too. If I was living there, I wouldn't want someone coming
up to my place, and telling me that I had to leave my own home. I
don't know
if the sheeple can understand this, but some people just don't want to
be
subject to all of the bullshit of society, and do just fine without
it. I live
in Los Angeles, and it makes me sick that I see so many homeless
people on the street, and yet so many abandoned/closed buildings which
could've been used
to shelter them. Part of it is due to all of the politics and red
tape.
Even non-homeless people have to go through a lot of shit just to keep
a
roof over their head, not to mention a huge number of poor people are
just one
paycheck away from losing their home. Miss a check, your fucked, and
it
does happen. Jobs are very hard to find as well. The people living in
these
mountains were the few lucky ones who managed to stay out of the huge
mess
we call "society".

 BTW: Despite the crap broadcast such as Ruby Ridge, and the
prevailing "wisdom" going around about people who live totally
independent
of society, I'm sure they are far more well adjusted as a whole than
people
in the city. They have to be in order to survive. In the city, I can't
even count the number of crack heads, gangbangers, prostitutes, and
"mal-adjusted" people I have seen *personally* when walking through
the streets. Of course there are also power hungry and abusive
business men,
corrupt police, people literally dying of stress, people getting fired
because their employer decided to "outsource" their job to India,
people
losing it and killing their employer, ect....

>And that's where the 1872 Mining Law acts its age -- the Forest
Service must
>prove that there was no mining going on and that the tenant never
intended to
>mine.
>It takes months or years to evict them. In the meantime, they live

for free.

 In other words, they are not paying some bean counter for the
FUNDIMENTAL RIGHT to SURVIVE.

>"It's a time-consuming, adversarial and contentious process,"

 Good! I hope these desk jockeys continue to have this shit thrown
their way!

>Gash said. When claimholders take the case to court, they lose. But

the Forest Service still
>has the legal expense.
>"In the 1960s, we had hippies running around, and they'd move into
any
>ramshackle whatever," Gash said. "They'd leave when we explained it,
and we'd
>usually demolish the place. But now, we prefer to have the owner do

it."

 Anyone else feel sick when reading this article. What happened to the
right to live *on your own* and the pursuit  of happiness?

>Congress tried to rewrite the 1872 Mining Law in 1993 to make it
easier to
>toss off squatters, but it was defeated by the mining industry.

 Haha!

>No one gets rich off a one-man gold mine.

 Did it ever come to these boneheads that some of the people living
there aren't interested in money, they simply want to live?

>"Few people can making a living off a mining claim," said Pat Keene,
publisher
>of Gold Prospectors' Digest in Nevada. Keen is also the largest
producer of
>portable mining equipment favored by solo prospectors. "Some do it
for
>recreation, but you don't make a lot of money."...

>The resident claimholders don't merely misuse federal land -- the
dwellings
>violate county water and sewage rules.

 Well it's their responsibility. If they get hurt, it's their problem.
I'm sure they're aware of that.

>Rangers checking unpatented claims have
>found sewage systems that vary from outhouses to a plastic bucket
kept outside
>the front door that's dumped in the river....

 Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
affect
them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
live in
peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
pollution.