:
|
Companies don't just "aquire" land then "force" the original owners to work on it. If anything, the original owners would be so wealthy from having sold their land, that they wouldn't have to work on it any more.
|
And in those situations I'm sure the original owners work out fine. The situations I'm talking about though are the ones in which a government de facto owns private land. This is generally the case in third world countries (and the U.S. too, when push comes to shove) and the companies buy land from the government, not the people we might say own it. If compensation comes, the more the better, but laws protecting human rights from the government aren't always in existence or even enforced. This is to say that the people are generally sent off with minimal compensation.
Another troubling instance is somewhere in India I believe, where Coca-cola for some reason owns all the wells. There's nothing particularly wrong with owning public wells, as long as they remain public, but its difficult to see how foreign powers controlling the water in any given area could be beneficial. Still, they might have those people's best interests at heart.
Sorry to run that argument ragged death, but if you'd like to discuss it further, I think it might better be suited in off-topic.
Good points on Freedom-fighting vs. Terrorism, Nate. Reminds me of trying to understand Pro-Life Abortion-clinic bombers.