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.
And that $762.3 billion simply goes back to the economy every time welfare recepients spend it on rent and food. Landlords need some of that government subsidy, you know, so they can help enrich the economy, too. Since it represents taxes flowing back to the economy, I don't see spending on welfare so bad as long as we understand there's only so much tax money available for it.
One can complain about the hugeness of defense spending, but a number of towns depend on it as the basis for their economies, and so probably explaining to a large extent why cutting defense spending is so difficult and resistive, in other words, survive, thrive, or die, the title of this thread.
Your argument is based on sound reasoning - of collectivism - and that the State is the supreme power and landlord. And that compulsory labor for the benefit of another is "reasonable".
Unfortunately, that is anathema to American law.
To be frank, I was a poster child for socialism until my late 30's. I "believed" in the system. Only until I began to read law, did I learn the truth.
If I may use expediency and rely on colloquial English, here's what I discovered:
America was unique, from its beginning, in 1776, and no other nation on earth has a republican form of government.
In the republican form, the people are sovereigns, individually. The government is their servant. (Citizens are servants of the government)
What that means, is that each American has the endowment and birthright, upon reaching legal maturity, to establish a domicile, and raise his legal status to that of sovereign - equal in social standing to any other MONARCH on Earth.
This may explain why Americans are not obligated to kneel nor bow to foreign monarchs, or why Americans can marry foreign nobility while the local commoners are barred.
Americans were Kings and Queens, without subjects. Their government was their servant, not their master.
For all the flaws of the republican form, that fact alone makes it the BEST there is.
In every other nation on this earth, the people are SUBJECTS of their respective governments.
If you wish to surrender that sovereignty and be a subject, don't let me stop you.
But if you change your mind, take the effort to study law at your local county courthouse law library.
You should find sufficient proof of your heritage.
A nation is based on the assumption that its territory is the property of all its citizens, it belongs to all.
NOT IN AMERICA.
Read the law yourself.
Private property is absolutely owned by an individual. It is an inalienable right to absolutely own.
If two or more have a claim, it ceases to be private property and becomes estate, held with qualified ownership. It is a privilege, subject to taxation.
Private property is absolutely owned by an individual. It is an inalienable right to absolutely own.
If two or more have a claim, it ceases to be private property and becomes estate, held with qualified ownership. It is a privilege, subject to taxation.
I guess you are wrong there. You only buy the right to exclusively use the land and thus exclude other users, but the land as such is not yours to do with whatever you like. Actually, land never belongs to anyone, neither to individuals nor to nations. Land ownership is not the same as iPod ownership.
Thus, in the US like in any other country of the world the government can under certain conditions take land away from its owners... They will give you other land in turn, or pay you or whatever.
Oh really?
If you believe that, no use trying to use facts to dissuade you.
Try and travel in an unregistered automobile that fails to comply with regulations.
Try and build a house and occupy it without permits. Or refuse to comply with codes, zoning, covenants or restrictions (that may apply).
Pay attention to the confiscation of property without just compensation, when government "arrests" property. Or "confiscates" property of alleged felons. (Read the legal notices for "captures" under Admiralty/Maritime rules)
Since 1935, enumerated Americans do not absolutely own anything.
Land, if held with qualified ownership (estate) can be taken from you, for failure to pay ad valorem taxes on it, for satisfaction of a civil judgment, for failure to pay socialist taxes, etc, etc.
Land, if held with absolute ownership (private property) is not subject to ad valorem taxes and cannot be taken from you, period. The sole exception is for public use (for the good of all) - and with JUST compensation paid (in lawful money). Since 1933, no lawful money has circulated - which coincidentally matches well with the surrender of property rights via FICA. In short, since 1933, no "takings" under eminent domain have involved private property.
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
Thought to ponder -
If absolute ownership never existed, why bother defining it in an American legal reference?
But if it does exist, then you have to determine when and how you surrendered your birthright to absolutely own.
Well, as soon as you interact with others, of course you no longer can do with your property as you wish. Otherwise you can. Think of an iPod you own. You are the absolute owner of it, you can do with it whatever you want as long as you don't interfere with society. You can burn it, turn it so loud your ears cease to work, you can smash it into peaces, decide to no longer use it, sell it, give it away - all without documentation if you wish, etc. With land that is not possible. By buying land from the government, be it directly or indirectly by buying it from someone else, you buy the license to use it exclusively - unless and until government decides that your land is of importance to society and thus needs to be taken from you. The hurdles are high of course, but every government reserves that right because in the end society as a whole is above the individual, whether you like that idea or not.
Thus of course you cannot buy land and decide to declare it your own country as you would withdraw the land from society/the country which gave you the exclusive license to use it.
I guess you are wrong there. You only buy the right to exclusively use the land and thus exclude other users, but the land as such is not yours to do with whatever you like. Actually, land never belongs to anyone, neither to individuals nor to nations. Land ownership is not the same as iPod ownership.
Thus, in the US like in any other country of the world the government can under certain conditions take land away from its owners... They will give you other land in turn, or pay you or whatever.
If you believe the propaganda ministry...well, there's no hope of dissuading you.
Spoiler
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
I would've agreed with you until I began to read law, for myself. In fact, absolute ownership of land is what distinguishes the republican form from other forms of government.
Since property and sovereignty are inseparable, sovereignty rests on absolute ownership. And if it is true that America people are sovereign, they can only exercise that sovereignty upon their own private property.
The absolute ownership of land is the basis for the right to life, for if you can't absolutely own land, which you depend upon for your sustenance, you really don't have a right to life, either. Your right is dependent upon the true owner of that land.
So what you believe about law is crucial to "their" victory.
If you ignore American law and embrace socialist serfdom, without private property rights, don't let me stop you.
Well, as soon as you interact with others, of course you no longer can do with your property as you wish. Otherwise you can. Think of an iPod you own. You are the absolute owner of it, you can do with it whatever you want as long as you don't interfere with society. You can burn it, turn it so loud your ears cease to work, you can smash it into peaces, decide to no longer use it, sell it, give it away - all without documentation if you wish, etc. With land that is not possible. By buying land from the government, be it directly or indirectly by buying it from someone else, you buy the license to use it exclusively - unless and until government decides that your land is of importance to society and thus needs to be taken from you. The hurdles are high of course, but every government reserves that right because in the end society as a whole is above the individual, whether you like that idea or not.
Thus of course you cannot buy land and decide to declare it your own country as you would withdraw the land from society/the country which gave you the exclusive license to use it.
There you go - forgetting American law.
Let's start with #1 - Declaration of Independence.
Your inalienable rights to life, liberty and property ownership pre-existed the government.
The government has no preemptive power over your inalienable rights - save in the pursuit of justice following conviction for deliberate harm to another.
It's hard for Americans, after generations of pervasive socialist propaganda, to realize that before 1933, things were vastly different.
I can't refute decades of propaganda, except by suggesting that you go READ LAW.
If you can find any legal authority or citation that affirms that individuals are NOT sovereigns or cannot absolutely own themselves, their labor, their lands they acquire, let us know. I may have made a mistake. I am not infallible. But in all the constitutions, statutes, codes, and citations I have read, I have yet to find one that denies the natural and personal liberty of the sovereign free inhabitants (i.e., American nationals), domiciled upon their private property within the boundaries of the United States of America.
-------
FWIW, what you're describing are government bestowed privileges.
" Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public." 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12
--- Bouvier's Law Dictionary
LICENSE - A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable... The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowed.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
To illustrate, a physician's license to practice medicine is permission (civil liberty) from government to commit manslaughter without criminal liability. Without a license, he'd be criminally liable for deliberate injury to his patient.
A sovereign upon his own property cannot trespass another's property rights, hence he does not need a license (permission) from government. He does not need civil liberty when dealing with his own private property.
All licenses are basically permissions to those who have no RIGHTS, or those who are trespassers.
Some might ponder why only "residents" are eligible or required to get licenses, while non-residents are not so obligated.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 12-24-2010 at 04:44 PM..
There is a big difference in the term "man' and the term men.One means the individual, the other the collective.
Man has been replaced with men in our governmental outlook, in the name of progress in a Progressive government.
Our nation was founded on the individual rights of a human, not the collective rights of a majority.
The 2/3rds rule is there exactly to protect the minority, from being over run and controlled by the majority.
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed.
4. Disagree. The 2/3rds rule is for the democratic form of government - the government, itself. It has no authority to deny the natural and personal liberty of the sovereign Americans.
This concept is the most difficult to grasp, after generations of incessant indoctrination.
Liberty, as in "Give me liberty, or give me death", has been deliberately skewed by the educational arm of the propaganda ministry.
Liberty has FOUR types:
Natural
Personal
Civil
Political
The latter two are privileges granted by government. The former two are endowments of the Creator.
Natural liberty is absolute freedom, limited by the laws of nature.
Personal liberty is the right of locomotion, the right to travel upon public roads and waterways.
Civil liberty is permission granted by government to do that which would otherwise be a tort, a trespass or otherwise not allowed.
Political liberty is the privilege to vote and hold public office.
I do not think Patrick Henry was boldly demanding privileges granted by the English monarch, so that he could enjoy the "King's liberty" or political liberty. He was referring to the former two: natural and personal.
What the founding generation knew about "liberty"
" Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men."
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p.919
Natural liberty is absolute freedom, limited to one's own property (outside of one's property, it would be a trespass). This does not mean there are no consequences for actions that escape one's domain and injure another person or his property. But for all intents and purposes, this is the core of America's republican form of government - the sovereignty of the people.
PERSONAL LIBERTY - The right or power of locomotion; of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 125.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 919
TRAVEL - Within the meaning of a constitutional right to travel, means migration with intent to settle and abide.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1500
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
" Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
As you can see, natural and personal liberty are not privileges granted by government, but existed BEFORE government. Government is delegated power to SECURE these rights and liberties, not deny them.
Also note that the "right to private property" is sacred and inalienable.
However, I stipulate that one can be misled to surrender those inalienable rights, and believe that they never existed in the first place. That millions believe they need government permission (license, aka civil liberty) before they can exercise the "privilege" to drive, that was once the "right to travel by automobile" is another victory of the propaganda ministry.
{Check legislative histories for the beginning of the requirement for universal licensing of all motorists. It generally follows 1933 - the beginning of the Emergency. Coincidence?}
There you go - forgetting American law.
Let's start with #1 - Declaration of Independence.
Your inalienable rights to life, liberty and property ownership pre-existed the government.
The government has no preemptive power over your inalienable rights - save in the pursuit of justice following conviction for deliberate harm to another.
It's hard for Americans, after generations of pervasive socialist propaganda, to realize that before 1933, things were vastly different.
I can't refute decades of propaganda, except by suggesting that you go READ LAW.
If you can find any legal authority or citation that affirms that individuals are NOT sovereigns or cannot absolutely own themselves, their labor, their lands they acquire, let us know. I may have made a mistake. I am not infallible. But in all the constitutions, statutes, codes, and citations I have read, I have yet to find one that denies the natural and personal liberty of the sovereign free inhabitants (i.e., American nationals), domiciled upon their private property within the boundaries of the United States of America.
-------
FWIW, what you're describing are government bestowed privileges.
" Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public." 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12
--- Bouvier's Law Dictionary
LICENSE - A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable... The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowed.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
To illustrate, a physician's license to practice medicine is permission (civil liberty) from government to commit manslaughter without criminal liability. Without a license, he'd be criminally liable for deliberate injury to his patient.
A sovereign upon his own property cannot trespass another's property rights, hence he does not need a license (permission) from government. He does not need civil liberty when dealing with his own private property.
All licenses are basically permissions to those who have no RIGHTS, or those who are trespassers.
Some might ponder why only "residents" are eligible or required to get licenses, while non-residents are not so obligated.
No matter how you think it originally was or should be now, it is only natural that land owners are not absolute owners. A nation cannot exist if people owning land could simply take that land and declare it is no longer part of the country. An absolute owner could do that, but no nation can allow that. And I understand it. Your idea of land ownership also means that Americans could simply sell their land to foreign countries...
Nor should anyone be able to stand in the way of infrastructure projects serving society as a whole.
No matter how you think it originally was or should be now, it is only natural that land owners are not absolute owners.
A nation cannot exist if people owning land could simply take that land and declare it is no longer part of the country. An absolute owner could do that, but no nation can allow that. And I understand it. Your idea of land ownership also means that Americans could simply sell their land to foreign countries...
Nor should anyone be able to stand in the way of infrastructure projects serving society as a whole.
1. Natural under socialism, perhaps. "Real Estate" and "Private property" are mutually exclusive. Real Estate is held with qualified ownership. Since 1935, enumerated Americans have only held estate. (Read the law for yourself - you won't believe me, apparently.)
2. You have it backwards. Private property rights are supreme. (see Fourth Amendment). In America, the individual sovereigns gave passive consent (sufferance) to the servant government on condition of their good behavior (see oath). Look up "Breach of the close" in a legal reference. Coincidentally, there is no law preventing Americans from selling their land to non-Americans (unlike other nations).
3. Under eminent domain, the "taking" of private property is allowed - for such infrastructure projects - not for transfer to others in the private sector (for 'revenue enhancement'). However, pre-1933 "takings" were justly compensated for with lawful money. We're still under a State of Emergency - no lawful money.
----------
Breach of the Close - The common law trespass of entering another's land either unlawfully or without authorization.
Any public servant who crosses that invisible barrier can wind up in a heap of trouble. Check your own state's statutes on breach of the close. Also, posted private property may be defended with deadly force - a prerogative of sovereignty.
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.
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.
