Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Man inherently has the right to own property justly acquired, on what basis does government prohibit Man from acquiring and owning it? I can't afford a standard city lot and it's unlawful to divide said lots into affordable subsets, so I am prohibited from purchasing what I can afford.
If you haven't purchased it, then it's not "your" property.
You are NOT prohibited from purchasing something you can't afford. You can't afford something you want to purchase. HUGE difference.
The right to own property justly acquired, comes from the very nature of Man himself. If you believe Man was created by God, then the right came from God. If not, not. But it is somethinng Man had simply by virtue of being born. Government had nothing to do with it - govt came later.
The only reason govt has anything to do with the right to own property justly acquired, is because sometime other men try to take your property away from you unjustly. Then men has agreed to get together with is fellow men to stop that thief from doing it, and/or to restore the property to you, its rightful owner.
The agreement to prevent others from taking your property, or to restore it to you, comes from man. That guarantee doesn't kick in until AFTER you own property and someone tries to take it from you unjustly. Your right to own that property in the first place, comes from the fact that you are human.
Some people have the mistaken belief that, since some people have the ability to take your property away from you unjustly, this means that you have no "right" to own it. They try to claim that since govt gets involved in restoring your property to you, this means that govt gave you the right to own it in the first place. These fundamental errors are very useful to those who do not want you to own property. They are often one and the same with those who want to take it unjustly.
The first sign of a govenment doomed to failure, and its people doomed to poverty and enslavement, is that government's agenda to violate property rights.
If you haven't purchased it, then it's not "your" property.
You are NOT prohibited from purchasing something you can't afford. You can't afford something you want to purchase. HUGE difference.
"Property justly acquired" is either (a) property you created while violating no one else's property rights, or (b) property someone happily and voluntarily gave to you, maybe because he was a nice guy, or maybe because you gave him something he considered to be just compensation to get him to agree.
If you can't do either of those things, then it's not your property and you can't justly acquire it. Not because of anything government did - they have nothing to do with it, unless you later try to steal the property. But only because of the basic existence and enduring fact of property rights.
Who cares where it originates? My property is my property, and ANYONE that deems to "take" it is stealing from me.
I care where it originates and so do many others.
If Man inherently has the right to own property justly acquired, on what basis does government prohibit Man from acquiring and owning it? I can't afford a standard city lot and it's unlawful to divide said lots into affordable subsets, so I am prohibited from purchasing what I can afford.
If you haven't purchased it, then it's not "your" property.
You are NOT prohibited from purchasing something you can't afford. You can't afford something you want to purchase. HUGE difference.
I can afford 2500 sf land. I am prohibited from purchasing 2500 sf land because 2500 sf is not a lawful lot size. Therefore I am prohibited from purchasing what I can afford, and I can afford something I want to purchase.
on what basis does government prohibit Man from acquiring and owning it?
Another excellent question. And one which remains unanswered on this thread.
Anybody want to take a swing at it?
BTW, that large lot you can't afford, is owned by somebody else. If he doesn't want to subdivide it, or maybe doesn't want to sell it at all, then your acquisition of it is NOT prohibited by (a just) government, it is prohibited by basic property rights that exist even if there is no government.
Remember: Government does not CREATE the right to own property justly acquired. It only ENFORCES the right.
A government that tries to do anything more, is itself unjust.
There's a dusty, antique document that describes what our DUTY is, to do about such an unjust govenment. But that's a discussion for another thread.
If Man inherently has the right to own property justly acquired, on what basis does government prohibit Man from acquiring and owning it? I can't afford a standard city lot and it's unlawful to divide said lots into affordable subsets, so I am prohibited from purchasing what I can afford.
The private property in your city traces back to a claim laid by either a monarchial ruler, or the United States government.
Pretty much the entire western United States was purchased or conquered FIRST by the United States from the sovereign of another country (when explorers went out, they claimed land in "the name of King/Queen _______.")
Chunks of the property were thereafter sold or given away in land grants to the first private citizen owners, and tracing title back, the first title holder will likely be found to be the government.
The Homestead Act, for example, representing one of the first mass scale welfare programs to people upon which countless fortunes are now based.
Property ownership also does not mean you have the right to do whatever you want with a property. The government, as representative of the people in your community, are empowered to encumber the land and place REASONABLE restrictions on its use.
This is because we live in a place called "civilization." Several Supreme Court cases are available for you to read on the issue of zoning that can provide you some insight.
The private property in your city traces back to a claim laid by either a monarchial ruler, or the United States government.
Not true.
The first cave man to walk on that land, might have announced that he "owned" it. Property rights (as applied to that piece of land) started on that date.
There was no ruler or government around at that time.
If, later, someone tried to take it from him by force, he might have fought them off. Or might have gotten his friends to gang up on the taker... thus starting a "government".
The attempt at taking, and his response, both came later. First, came his right to own that property that he justly acquired without violating anyone else's rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.