Re: why not?

On Nov 30, 4:03 am, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 5:51 am, woodstock <thirdwavevisi...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Nov 29, 3:17 pm, whistler <whistler...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 29, 4:07 pm, whistler <whistler...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:23 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 29, 6:41 am, Carla <ca...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

hj st wrote:
from the invite to the first annual gathering in 1972,

"...This gathering, to take place beginning July 1, 172, near
Aspen, Colorado & the Hopi and Navaho lands -- on 3000 acres of land
that we hope to purchase or acqire for this gathering -- ...."

was that land not up for purchace? could not enough funds in a hat be
saved for such a venture?

what would a 3,000 acre sustained 'rainbow gathering' land look like!
imagine!!

why did this vision die again?

I'm not entirely sure because my first gathering was not until 1979.
I've heard it discussed at length in various circles though, and it
seems there were several reasons. First of all, no resources. Gatherers
at that time tended to live in voluntary simplicity, even poverty. No
money to buy it. I believe (not sure on this point) that there were
folks hoping the government would deed them BLM or FS land, though why
they thought this could happen, I have no idea. Seems pretty far-fetched
to me, but then the Vision of this gathering was pretty far-fetched and
look where it led.

Anyway, private land not being acquired, folks decided to gather on
public land. The government opposed it. People walked in to gather
anyway. My understanding (and again, I may not be entirely accurate on
these points) is that there was a local rancher who offered the use of
his property for the gathering, and part of the gathering was in fact
held on his land. I also heard that the decision was made never to do
this again because the poor guy was harassed and hounded by his
neighbors for years. These are rural areas we are talking about for the
gathering, and not everyone is open to people who are different. Those
who are not open-minded can create real grief for those people who are.
Remember Matthew Shephard. Contemplate "Easy Rider." Consider the
ethical implications of putting a private landowner in this position.

Anyway, the practice of gathering on public land took hold, and as time
went on, it became more and more apparent that Forest Service lands were
the least regulated of all venues--or at least they were until 1995 when
the current group use regs were put in place. Many states have fall mass
gathering laws that apply to both public and private lands, which can be
prohibitive of large assemblies unless there's lots of money involved.
And private lands, believe it or not, can operate under even more
stringent regulatory control than public lands. Just because it's
privately owned, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Once you
open that land to the public for an event, all kinds of laws and
regulations kick in, including county codes and state land use and mass
gathering laws.

I've heard that scare tactic before. I have found nothing in
Missouri's Constitution or Statutes to support this naked assertion.
Somebody prove me wrong, please.

SanityClause RE- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

East-Wind is it , they, from what I hear have moved many that just
don't fit, on down the road. Some who are very worthy and deserving
are not very capable. Any long term cooperative venture needs, in
order not to be bled dry from a thousand cuts a/ an "allmighty
decider" 'board and criteria' which, sometimes inhumanely, discards
the refuse in order to maintain the assetts and grow whatever 'they'
are about.
To me, this all seems so obvious as to need no explanation. ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Last Left Turn in America ~ Norton Vt. - Earth Peoples Park ?
Deeded to GOD (guess s/he was too busy w/ other thangs) whole
Heeeebhang down the To-Let. If God'og couldn't do it.... many
peoples dreams "throat-slit" by mostly mind-less drunk druggie white
sun-bleached pcs. of dried dog ***.

Meth Bikers took it down Wally told me. So sad. -w-

"God needs and has no intercessors." - Al-QUR'AN

Deeding land to God was stupid. The whole Wasichu concept of land
title is absurd. In the greater scheme of things humans belong to the
Earth.

Sanity- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you! Yes, Sanity, this was my other thought too: No one can own
land. It's a demented notion. It is as if to hijack gravity. After
all, look at what has happened with the mortgage belly up just
currently. Everybody wants to be boss; captain; big daddy; ceo;
president; leader; first; favorite; best; champ; winner; and best of
all: LANDLORD. But it's the ultimate confidence game and the bankers
and insurers and lawyers and title companies and realtors are all
gangsters. Land ownership is made up then chanted in offices and
courts like a fairy tale. Like if someone needs land for grazing or a
bigger chunk for raising taxes or an army then suddenly someone
remembers how god gave this piece in perpetua to his greatgreatgreat
grandfather. If a dispute arises that's good. If a violent dispute
arises it's even better because here's this war the new lord promised
the army aged guys. But it's all made up. Shed all the blood, tell
all the stories you like. Land can't be owned. Land doesn't belong
to people. People belong to the land. Man may come and man may go
but earth abides.
.

Quantcast