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.
Be careful in your response, here. If anyone asserts that others are entitled to use privately owned property, that includes everyone's homes, cars, etc.
Hey, guess what? Jack, here, needs to use your car on Monday to get to a job interview, and if he's hired, he'll need to use your car to get to work every day. Susan and her 5 kids need a place to live and you seem to have a big house, so they're all moving in with you.
Understand?
Anyone want to oppose private property Rights now?
Are you arguing with yourself ... lol
The issues surrounding land wont apply to peoples private residences, it applies to the land value itself (which often times dwarfs the value of the building. Price fixing the value of the land itself could be in the future.
An example might be if you have a modest single family home on 5 acres in a rapidly developing area. Jobs come in people move there and you wait as others build things so you can capitalize on other peoples labor.
Then the govt comes in and uses eminent domain to rip your house down and put up apartments and pays you the house value plus agricultural value of the land. People being able to extract excess value from the amenities that built up around you is the issue at hand.
It will be a delicate issue because what is someone bought in high, perhaps the govt can go back and put a lien on the past owners estate to recover funds?
The undertones of the OP seem to me that a land owner can scoff at potential laws that may be made in the future by the elctorate body. Once the electorate has spoken and new laws are passed you will comply or the state will deal with you. If the people decide that they dont like private property ownership in its current form then it will go away. [Nope]
sov·er·eign·ty
supreme power or authority.
the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
a self-governing state.
You as joe blow are not sovern (unless you have developed an iron man suit and can enforce your own sovernty and property rights regardless of what laws are passed, because the state does not carry the sword for nothing, the barrel of the gun is there to ensure compliance.
If the voters decide they are tired of a neo feudal state they will leverage force to make you comply, you can fight but you will be killed or jailed if you survive it.
Private property rights taken to the extremes that we now see is resulting in great suffering, most are priced out so why would land less suffering peasents vote to keep you fat and happy on your estate, because maybe 30 years ago you slung some ply wood and sweat for a few months building a house on cheap land with affordable matertials during a prosperous time in US history.
People are pissed and they are going to take it out of the filthy riches a$$es.
Hopefully when the laws come down it will be done in a thoughtful manner (the circumstances that the land was acquired is everything).
The servant government has already declared, since 1776, that American people have endowed rights, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc.
And, as repeatedly stated, those who CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED, waive those endowed rights and accept mandatory duties to pay and obey.
THERE IS NO SCOFFING OF LAWS.
No servant government instituted to secure endowed rights can tax said rights.
BUT
Since most Americans are too apathetic to go read their own laws, just accept the propaganda and go back to grazing.
If you are ambitious, go read law, references and court citations like :
" 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.
*** No democratic majority can vote away FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ***
*** No constitution granted them ***
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
AHEM, were most Americans born subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII.
Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884
Title 28 United States Code, §3002. Definitions,
(15) “United States” means -
(a) a Federal corporation
"The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere."
- - - Redding v. Los Angeles (1947), 81 C.A.2d 888, 185 P.2d 430.
The U.S. government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. It has no jurisdiction inside a state except within its own property (federal). If one was born on federal property (ex: post office) that would be within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government. It appears that few Americans were citizens at birth.
Frankly, most Americans have been conned for generations. But don't believe me - write a polite questionnaire to your CONgresscritter and ask: "If Americans are endowed with rights, that governments were instituted to secure, how did any government, state or federal, gain the power to impose citizenship, with mandatory civic duties that abrogate those endowed rights?"
Citizenship imposed at birth is involuntary servitude, banned by the 13th amendment.
In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".
[] 13th amendment, Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
{United States, in the plural, means the States united aka "USA"}
Involuntary servitude shall not exist within the United States (of America) or any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction. But CITIZENS have mandatory militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die, on command. Citizenship cannot be imposed without consent.
Yet:
[] 14th amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Why didn’t the writers use “and in any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction?”
Because the “United States” was a direct reference to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, a “foreign corporation” with respect to a state or any of them.
And for whose benefit was that citizenship created?
(Better not go down that road - - - )
Did the FEDS pull a switcheroo and make the former privately owned chattels into subjects of the federal government?
Infants cannot consent.
No one can consent for them.
Ask your public servant for an explanation.
The servant government has already declared, since 1776, that American people have endowed rights, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc.
And, as repeatedly stated, those who CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED, waive those endowed rights and accept mandatory duties to pay and obey.
THERE IS NO SCOFFING OF LAWS.
No servant government instituted to secure endowed rights can tax said rights.
BUT
Since most Americans are too apathetic to go read their own laws, just accept the propaganda and go back to grazing.
If you are ambitious, go read law, references and court citations like :
" 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.
*** No democratic majority can vote away FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ***
*** No constitution granted them ***
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
These rights are only as good as a groups ability to defend them. These rights are on paper only. The only real text that has power is the bible and there really is nothing in there about property rights (God owns everything).
If the society in general starts to denigrate (which we are) there will be consequences initiated by God which no man made document is going to stop. All of this legal gymnastics is used by MANY as an excuse to excersize their extreme greed. People will decry "private property" while they strategically buy out land and raise the rents, form little anti trust partnerships, etc etc. The strategy's employed to screw people are many.
Private property rights are not as sacred as you say they are, it causes land hording that benifits a few while everyone else is religated to paying rent and suffering. I do think a modest single family home on a modest lot will always be coedified in law. Whats going to get hit is mega estates and huge swaths of land owned OR land in built up areas where the land lord just held out and cashed in on others labor.
These principals worked when the nation had few people and tons of land, not so much anymore.
Americans labor is now nearly valueless, abiltiy to find GOOD jobs is almost impossible, mega companies have built up massive stratigic and structural barries to entry for entrepenuers, land values in desirable areas are through the roof, building materials are through the roof.
The american people have been painted into a corner and the judges jobs who are insulating the wealthy will be on the chopping block. You like to post alot of legaleese but do you honestly expect a nation where the VAST majority are in either poverty or marginal living standards are going to vote for someone to keep their vast estates and wealth while they work against us?
We are a republic not a democracy so people can not vote to take your land but they can vote in continually more radical representitives who will do such things. Once there is enough representatives they can start impeaching state judges who are insulating the ownership class from their social responsibility. Federal district court judges are the hardest to fire but if the nation is polarized against the rich enough the congress can do it.d
If the society is polarized enough against the rich your consent will not be required, you will in fact sit down shut up and pay. I am glad that we are a republic rather than a democracy so that it allows more checks but at a certain point the shenanigans have to stop.
The other way the US will loose is due to the fact that engineers and scientists have been marginalized compared to doctors and lawyers, if the US starts seeing a brain drain (most notibaly in defense) the US military could loose technological edge needed to continue insulating the aristocracy. A couple of really good military tech inventions in support of a nation hostile to the USA could change the tide.
If the US keeps marginalizing people providing the labor to keep things running it could get ugly.
Last edited by pittsflyer; 03-30-2018 at 03:23 PM..
Tell me, Jetgraphics, are you a sovereign citizen, or a freeman-on-the-land? Because if not, you sure sound like one.
Citing Black's Law Dictionary (any edition) tends to be a sure sign of sovereign/freeman nuttery. Every lawyer knows that Black's is a valuable resource, but useless in court. I'll admit to using Black's when I was a law student, just to understand something, but I'll also admit to never citing it in moot court, or in real courts, once I passed the bar and got my license.
You seem to like to cite to Black's, but here's the thing: Black's holds no weight in real courts, except perhaps for definitions of legal terms. On the ladder of legal sources, Black's ranks perhaps last. If I used Black's in court, I'd be laughed out of court.
there's a simple solution to all this...
...old billy boy shakespeare may have been correct...lol...
"let's kill all the lawyers"...Henry VI, part 2, act 4, scene 2
These rights are only as good as a groups ability to defend them. These rights are on paper only. The only real text that has power is the bible and there really is nothing in there about property rights (God owns everything). [But He gave man dominion, according to Genesis. If He retained ownership, then man does not have dominion.]
If the society in general starts to denigrate (which we are) there will be consequences initiated by God which no man made document is going to stop. All of this legal gymnastics is used by MANY as an excuse to excersize their extreme greed. People will decry "private property" while they strategically buy out land and raise the rents, form little anti trust partnerships, etc etc. The strategy's employed to screw people are many.
Private property rights are not as sacred as you say they are, it causes land hording that benifits a few while everyone else is religated to paying rent and suffering. I do think a modest single family home on a modest lot will always be coedified in law. Whats going to get hit is mega estates and huge swaths of land owned OR land in built up areas where the land lord just held out and cashed in on others labor.
These principals worked when the nation had few people and tons of land, not so much anymore.
Americans labor is now nearly valueless, abiltiy to find GOOD jobs is almost impossible, mega companies have built up massive stratigic and structural barries to entry for entrepenuers, land values in desirable areas are through the roof, building materials are through the roof.
The american people have been painted into a corner and the judges jobs who are insulating the wealthy will be on the chopping block. You like to post alot of legaleese but do you honestly expect a nation where the VAST majority are in either poverty or marginal living standards are going to vote for someone to keep their vast estates and wealth while they work against us?
We are a republic not a democracy [WRONG. We have a republican form, served by an indirect democratic form] so people can not vote to take your land but they can vote in continually more radical representitives who will do such things. Once there is enough representatives they can start impeaching state judges who are insulating the ownership class from their social responsibility. Federal district court judges are the hardest to fire but if the nation is polarized against the rich enough the congress can do it.d
If the society is polarized enough against the rich your consent will not be required, you will in fact sit down shut up and pay. I am glad that we are a republic rather than a democracy so that it allows more checks but at a certain point the shenanigans have to stop.
The other way the US will loose is due to the fact that engineers and scientists have been marginalized compared to doctors and lawyers, if the US starts seeing a brain drain (most notibaly in defense) the US military could loose technological edge needed to continue insulating the aristocracy. A couple of really good military tech inventions in support of a nation hostile to the USA could change the tide.
If the US keeps marginalizing people providing the labor to keep things running it could get ugly.
As long as folks consent, no harm, no foul.
Go read law. Find the truth for yourself.
Americans are suffering from either Cognitive Dissonance or Doublethink, due to the mutually exclusive and contradictory things they accept as reality.
Having once been a country of free people, they cannot perceive that their subjugation to predators and parasites has driven them mad.
Victims of the world’s greatest propaganda ministry, they are ignorant, apathetic, yet arrogant.
Tis a peculiar madness.
What mutually exclusive beliefs do Americans hold?
● Americans are a “free people.”
● Americans must get permission (license) and / or pay taxes to live, work, travel, own, build a house, operate businesses, fly, transmit, trade medical care, hunt, fish, marry and / or own a dog.
If you find nothing in conflict with the above, you’re suffering from doublethink.
If you’re upset, you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Likewise, if you were told you were endowed with rights by your Creator, but government somehow changed them all into privileges, again, depending on your reaction, you may be experiencing mental illness.
Multiply this by 320 million, and you will see that Americans have a big problem.
Reference:
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE - The psychological tension that occurs when one holds mutually exclusive beliefs or attitudes and that often motivates people to modify their thoughts or behaviors in order to reduce the tension.
DOUBLETHINK is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
• If you feel conflicted, you’re experiencing Cognitive Dissonance.
• If you’re not conflicted, you’re experiencing Doublethink.
[But He gave man dominion, according to Genesis. If He retained ownership, then man does not have dominion.]
It's unfortunate myself and others keep having to point this out, but here it goes again: If you are going to invoke the Bible in your defense of whatever rights you want to defend, it is impossible for you to tell anybody that any restriction of any right invoked by any government is ungodly. Why? Because the Bible explicitly tells us that all power and authority on Earth are derived from God:
Romans 13:1-7 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
1 Peter 2:13-14 "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
And others. Whether you like it or not, the most onerous property rights-restricting laws in the state of California or anywhere are there at the behest of God. You cannot pick and choose which laws you think are Godly, and which aren't. That is not what the Bible says. They are all there because God put them there -- and even though the people enacting those laws didn't think they were enacting them at God's behest! They were simply oblivious to the Power guiding them in the creation of that law. You might want to read some of the law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: Those are laws explicitly given by God, and yet many of them read little different from modern laws about public health, property rights, interpersonal relations, ethical standards for surveying a piece of land, and others. That is all for a good reason - a reason you might want to think more deeply about if you're going to continue to invoke the Bible in your defense about property or any other rights.
As long as folks consent, no harm, no foul.
Go read law. Find the truth for yourself.
Wrong, look at sodom and gomora and the various societies God brought down, he very much as dominion and his patience with the USA and the graft and greed that goes on here is unprecedented.
It's unfortunate myself and others keep having to point this out, but here it goes again: If you are going to invoke the Bible in your defense of whatever rights you want to defend, it is impossible for you to tell anybody that any restriction of any right invoked by any government is ungodly. Why? Because the Bible explicitly tells us that all power and authority on Earth are derived from God:
Romans 13:1-7 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
1 Peter 2:13-14 "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
And others. Whether you like it or not, the most onerous property rights-restricting laws in the state of California or anywhere are there at the behest of God. You cannot pick and choose which laws you think are Godly, and which aren't. That is not what the Bible says. They are all there because God put them there -- and even though the people enacting those laws didn't think they were enacting them at God's behest! They were simply oblivious to the Power guiding them in the creation of that law. You might want to read some of the law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: Those are laws explicitly given by God, and yet many of them read little different from modern laws about public health, property rights, interpersonal relations, ethical standards for surveying a piece of land, and others. That is all for a good reason - a reason you might want to think more deeply about if you're going to continue to invoke the Bible in your defense about property or any other rights.
The only exception being if a nation makes law that are in direct conflict to Gods laws, of which property rights are not.
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.
