Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorplank, Aug 26, 2013.
Yeah, I agree.
Your question was answered by the following letter from Chief Sealth (Seattle) to US President Franklin Pierce in December 1854:
See definition of fee simple
Taxation, like eminent domain, police power, and escheat, are the exceptions. So if you own in fee then you have 100% of the rights
Here is what is scary: USSC ruled only 5-4 in Koontz case in 2013
Property rights are on the edge of demise in USA.
The real danger of Statism and socialism in in that it is so insidiously stealth-like in its erosion of the individual's rights.
Many of the lib posters on here have stated in so many words that you only have the "rights" the government chooses for you to have, and that property ultimately belongs to a sovereign government who gets to decide if you can stay on said property or not. And they consider that to be a "good" thing.
I see this view as fundamentally, inherently evil.
I wonder how many caught what the intent of the lib posters is.
Assuming that you are referring to me and wgb as the "lib posters", I think you are misunderstanding my (and I think wgb's) position. See my post here for an explanation.
Basically, I am not arguing that we can only have the rights that government chooses for us to have. Instead, I am arguing that rights are not born of the individual but rather social norms (which are actually bigger than the government). Picture this: you want to claim a park bench for yourself, so you stick a piece of chewing gum on its bottom and walk away. Is this going to stop people from sitting at "your" bench once you leave the park? Now try putting your backpack on a table at the library and walk away. No one will sit there. Why did these two claims on property end in different results?
Someone may take your backpack and throw it on the ground and sit at your table, but this person is an offender. Offenders have to pay a social price. In small society's, this is embarrassment, shame, and/or exclusion. In large societies, anonymity often prevents effective social regulation of behavior. In societies with novel traits, social norms may simply have yet to evolve. In large and novel societies, how do you expect your rights to protected? You need an organized social force. You need a lawyer.
Worse still is some areas in this country you buy your house every 20 years just from taxes paid. So you buy a house and you pay it off in 30 years. By that time, from taxes and interest, you have paid nearly 5 times the price of the house.
This argument is invalid. In the park bench case you reference, the person involved has no claim to the bench because of its public location. Nor on a table at the library. I don't walk around trying to claim ownership of everything around me, like libs do ("collective ownership") But when I purchase land, I acquire rights to that land and the liberty to control that land's use and access. THAT is the right I do not want to see abrogated. If YOU own a house, do you feel that someone has the "collective right" to walk in unannounced and become a squatter? It is hypocritical of you to disallow a person to just walk in to your home, yet advocate against private property rights.
Or how about I use your car whenever I want to? Got an extra set of keys?
The right to own, control and use property which we have obtained legitimately
(usually by means of purchase) is inherent and fundamental to any free society.
I agree with Locke in that the purpose of government should be to protect the rights of it's citizens. Where one person's rights ends and another person's start is often the crux of a lot of our problems. When government itself usurps these rights then I believe we are on a downward road to losing our freedoms. In some cases it seems we do so freely and in some cases it seems the government just takes it upon itself to do so in the name of being good for the people. See Patriot Act and War on Drugs as examples.
So your saying the Government is like the mafia-offering protection but for a price. They sure feel like the mafia.
Again, you are making my argument into something totally separate from the one that I wrote to you. I never once mentioned "collective ownership", advocating against property rights, or walking into your house to take it. Where did those ideas even come from? And liberals walk around claiming everything for themselves? You clearly have some deep seeded rage for liberalism, but I am a bit baffled as to why you are projecting that on me. I never said any of these things.
The reason that I don't expect you to walk into my house, and I would never walk into your house, is that our claims on the properties are recognized. When I walk by your house, I see a freshly cut lawn, your kids toys in the yard, the TV on, I know someone lives there, and in this society, that means that I don't enter unless invited. On the other hand, if I find in the woods a clearly abandoned coquina structure from the Spanish days of Florida, I am probably going to walk in there. The Spanish claim on that land is no longer recognized. Now, if I walk in and find a bed and magazines, I am going to leave. Someone has clearly made a new claim.
Yes, now you are getting it, "legitimately". You have to make a legitimate claim. The whole point of my post is to investigate what gives claims legitimacy. Having your book open and keys on a small study table at the library indicates that this table is in use, and you have to be a real a*** to move that property and take the table. But why does it work that way? Why can I drive 69 mph in a 65 mph zone without any fear of being pulled over? Why don't I have to put my name on my items in my office, but I do have to put my name on the items that I place in a common refrigerator? Why are the legitimate claims to these items different?
I think another key distinction is that property rights are alienable, rather than inalienable (like say, life). I can transfer my right to a piece of property to someone else, can't do that with my life. Thus, many of the necessary legal frameworks that exist WRT property, transfer, etc.
Well, there is one difference between the two: when a mafia goon comes to your house and says it would be a shame if anything happened to it, they are actually threatening to burn it down. The government doesn't do that. In fact, the fire department will come help you even if you are late on your taxes. Or if you are poor person that has never paid taxes.
The mafia version is blackmail, threatening to take something unless compensated. The government version is exchange, threatening not to give you something unless compensated (and then giving it to you anyway, because no wants to see your house burn down regardless).
but you do you have to have some kind of enforcement authority.
If you define private property as that property which no one can take from you, then no, there is no such thing as private property.
This is true. As I mentioned before, property rights are alienable, and thus transferable, legally. Which means they can be sold, gifted, exchanged or taken via the legal system. We should measure private property rights on the basis of how easily they can be taken from you, how empowered you are individually to defend them with force, and what mastery you have over the property itself while you hold those rights.
Slight hijack of the thread. Yes, that is correct. But it is up to US to vote those people into office to make sure that they don't (can't) undermine the role of our government. We have become too distracted with buying stuff to do our own homework. So the money people get involved to buy advertisement/access and we buy their message. And what is right and what is in our future are very clearly going in opposite directions.
So despite a few people trying to sound really smart the answer to the OP is, 'Yes, sort of?'
In that department it seems our options for who we vote to elect are all too often poor to say the least.
In a few words, we believe that our country is better served by acting as if we own land and have some rights as land owners, in exchange for being good stewards, but in reality we do not.