Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-09-2014, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 7,894,412 times
Reputation: 8318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I still think you're incorrectly thinking of property as a physical thing rather than as a collection of rights in something. Let me throw this at you. Consider 3 things: a table, a patent for a cancer drug, and a place in line to buy tickets to a popular concert.

Of those three things, what is property? First, I'd think about what makes property property - what characteristics does property, in general, have? I'd say that property, generally, is something you can sell/barter, something you can use (or choose not to let anyone use), something you can give away, and something you can dispose of. If I (or if a group of people in case of split ownership of interests) can do those things to something, then is it not property?

Use: I can sit at my table, I can make (or refuse to let anyone make) the cancer drug, and I can stand in line in order to get tickets
Sell/Barter: I can sell my table, I can sell my patent, and I can even sell my place in line
Give: I can give my table, my patent, and my place in line to somebody else
Dispose: I can break my table to pieces and throw it in the trash, I can rip up my patent and refuse to enforce it, and I can give up my spot in line by walking away

Would that not make all 3 therefore property? I think most people would say that the table and the patent are property, but that my place in line is not property. What makes the place in line different? I'd argue its government backing. If someone trespasses on my table, the government will order them to give it back or pay for it (and might even throw them in jail). If someone trespasses on my patent and makes or sells my cancer drug, the government will order them to stop doing it and to compensate me for the unauthorized used of my patented invention. If someone trespasses on my place in line by cutting, the government won't do a damn thing about it (at least I don't think they will).




I'd content that an organization in place to protect rights
IS a government.
Contend..

Second amendment works fine - government gums up the works.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2014, 12:57 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,101,264 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory View Post
Second amendment works fine - government gums up the works.
Again, I said that an organization in place to protect rights is a government. I didn't say that all governments protect rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 04:59 AM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,458,643 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Ignorance is a poor substitute for understanding. My "permission" to live here is protected by layers of rights. But there certainly are circumstances where the government can force me to sell to them. The government's right to claim private property for the greater good is part of our Constitution.

Government also can prevent you from selling your peoperty to someone else. I once rented a guest house and tried to buy it when the property owners sold their property, but they were not allowed to sell it to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 05:37 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,695,729 times
Reputation: 5132
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
I do like that quote.

Where I think he got it wrong was assuming we need any form of government.
"Government IS the problem"...Pres. Reagan

We do need some government, but we have been blessed with too great an abundance of government, with the majority of it feeding off of us, like parasites.

Do we have a right to our property? Ask the EPA. They'll tell you in no uncertain terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 06:33 AM
 
17,401 posts, read 11,975,567 times
Reputation: 16155
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Government also can prevent you from selling your peoperty to someone else. I once rented a guest house and tried to buy it when the property owners sold their property, but they were not allowed to sell it to me.
Sigh.....please tell the facts correctly. You were not "prevented" from buying property. You were prevented from buying a portion of a lot that hadn't been divided. If that lot had been properly divided, you might have been able to buy it. Or maybe not, if zoning didn't allow it. But they were perfectly able to sell you the whole piece. Nothing "prevented" that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,301 posts, read 2,355,152 times
Reputation: 1229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
They did.
To be more precise, some people did and then it was forced on everyone, including those who disagreed with them. I'm not a fan of democracy.

Quote:
I've never read, "Lord of the Flies", but I have been told that if a group of people were put on a deserted island, the first thing they will do is establish a hierarchy. Something about it being inherit in human nature to do so.
I do think some sort of hierarchy would form, but it's not human nature to decide that one of them has the right to forcibly control the rest, which is what makes it government. I think they could defer to one person's expertise and follow their lead, but they don't need to give that person the right to rule over them like a king.

Quote:
Point is they have had what you are proposing in self-government...they gave it back. They do not want a society that isn't PC, because they believe that PC is the protection of their rights. Good luck telling them otherwise.

We do not have the right to own land out right free and clear of the government, because the people chose to have the land taxed so as to give power to their government. The people have the power to vote and they voted for the tax man. It's hard to believe that any sane rational person would want what the people of America have established by vote, but as social evolution prevailed by way of human nature it is now exactly what they wished for; this is them self-governing.
I don't believe it's truly self-government if you choose a "representative" to boss you around and take your money (republic), or if others get together and vote to enforce something on everyone (democracy). Each person should be free of other people forcing them to do things they never consented to...at least that's how I see it.

I do agree with the rest of what you said. It's a shame that politicians can scare people into giving them power the way they always do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 08:51 AM
 
2,836 posts, read 3,496,025 times
Reputation: 1406
The Ideal Title Opinion

A New Orleans Lawyer sought an F.H.A. loan for a client.

He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to a parcel of property being

offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the lawyer three months

to track down.

After sending the information to the F.H.A., he received the following reply (actual letter):

“Upon review of your letter adjoining your client’s loan application, we note that the request is

supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared

and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed

collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear

the title back to its origin.”

Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows (actual letter):

“Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title

extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any

educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that

Louisiana was purchased by the U.S. from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our

application.

“For the edification of uniformed F.H.A. bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was

obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain.

“The land came into possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain

named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by

the then reigning monarch, Isabella. The good queen, being a pious woman and careful about titles,

almost as much as the F.H.A., took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold

her jewels to fund Columbus’ expedition.

“Now the Pope, as I’m sure you know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, The Son of God. And God, it

is commonly accepted, created this world.

“Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that He also made that part of the World called Louisiana.

He, therefore, would be the owner of origin. I hope to hell you find His original claim to be satisfactory.

Now, May we have our loan?”

. . . And the loan was granted!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 10:39 AM
 
654 posts, read 1,250,714 times
Reputation: 485
So, it boils down to: We don't truly own our property.

We are subject to government regulation (taxes). Non-payment of taxes can start the process by the government to seize the property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,180,801 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by forestgump99 View Post
So, it boils down to: We don't truly own our property.

We are subject to government regulation (taxes). Non-payment of taxes can start the process by the government to seize the property.
Guess that saves you some money, if you think we truly down own our property, then don't buy property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2014, 11:44 AM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,615,505 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Guess that saves you some money, if you think we truly down own our property, then don't buy property.
Yeah, basic freedoms are so overrated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top