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.
Tell me, Jetgraphics, are you a sovereign citizen, or a freeman-on-the-land? Because if not, you sure sound like one.
A citizen is a subject, a sovereign is not a subject, ergo there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen.
In the dim past, our ancestors knew better.
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
(download available from gutenberg.org)
.................................................. ...............
His audience knew what an “American sovereign” was, to understand the joke.
...
The supreme court says Americans are sovereigns. IF the supreme court are nutjobs, we're [bleeped]
". . . at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . ."
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
However, citizens, due to mandatory civic duties, are subjects.
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "SUBJECT" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
(Note: there is only one country with a "republican form" of government)
Remember, pursuant to the DECLARATION, people have endowed rights government was instituted to secure.
If everyone is a citizen, with mandatory duties that abrogate endowed rights, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO STILL HAVE ENDOWED RIGHTS?
Where do you get your ideas about the Left? In general, Leftists have no interest in old-style, autocratic, USSR-type government ownership control of everything. That's from 70 years ago.
Perhaps they prefer qualified ownership via REGULATION and TAXATION, so that no one absolutely owns a thing nor has natural liberty.
If you need permission (license), you are not free nor at liberty.
I've often pondered how indigenous Americans now feel about sharing the land and land ownership.
In so many cases human beings have proven themselves to be incapable of demonstrating equity and fairness with respect to either sharing the land or land ownership.
It would appear that ego, avarice, and ignorance always prevails in the end.
IDEOLOGICAL THIEVES
=\\=\\=\\=\\=\\=
A popular mantra among the Left Wing is that NO ONE CAN OWN LAND.
That is completely wrong.
Without absolute ownership and the right to exclude others, there is nothing to stop predation and vandalism.
Without the "right to own" the farmer has no "right" to exclude the herdsman from trampling his crops with his herd. The herdsman has no "right" to prevent hunters from killing and taking his animals. All that remains are primitive hunter - gatherers in perpetual conflict over the planet "nobody can own."
Ownership and exclusion are vital to civilization.
No piece of land can simultaneously be used for shelter, grazing, farming, hunting, gathering, wildlife, and / or transportation.
The REAL GOAL of the Left Wing is to persuade the owners to surrender ownership to the collectivist STATE, so it can rule the (m)asses.
Do not fall for it. Defend absolute ownership of private property, for if you can’t absolutely own yourself, your labor, and the fruits of that labor, who does own you and yours?
(You have no right to life, if you have no land upon which to live! All you have is a privilege, subject to the landlord. And your progeny will have no nation to live within, when others take the land for their own posterity.)
Here we go again with the libruz=commies crapola. Can't you guys find anything original to whine about?
I've often pondered how indigenous Americans now feel about sharing the land and land ownership.
In so many cases human beings have proven themselves to be incapable of demonstrating equity and fairness with respect to either sharing the land or land ownership.
It would appear that ego, avarice, and ignorance always prevails in the end.
I suppose that would depend on when they were asked.
Those that did "buffalo jumps" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_jump, especially in prehistoric times, might have thought that all the great quantity of wild life was just theirs for the taking.
Wasn't the selling of Manhattan Island done by a tribe that really didn't own the place?
Well, nice to know we are all human, through and through.
Ever hear of Real Estate, and Property Taxes? Ever since they have been enacted in the U.S. we've not owned our land. The amount I pay in Real Estate taxes on my property equates to the rental of a nice apartment in my area. Essentially, we rent our property from the Government. Watch what happens if you don't pay your taxes.
I need read no more on this thread, for thus is the truth.
Prior to the Revolution, it was said that you own land 'at the sufferance of the King'. One reason for our break for the UK was so that Americans could own land in 'fee simple'.
After the Revolution, real estate taxes imposed by the various States and local governments took over. As Pilot1 said, fail to pay, you lose your property, to be sold on the courthouse steps to the highest bidder.
As a youth, in law school, as I thought about this question, I asked my wise old father (also an attorney) about how it came about, these property taxes, given the aim of the revolution to provide for fee simple ownership.
His answer was simple: "Local governments need money. Land doesn't run away".
I own a second house with 16 acres of land in east Texas. When we bought the place in 2009, I let the 'agricultural exemption' go, for I did not wish to grow crops or keep livestock. The prior owner paid some $100.00 in property taxes.
I pay $3000 per year, on a property I bought for $90,000. Yes, after the expiration of 10 years, I would have paid $30,000 in property taxes (the bulk of which are school district taxes, which cover two counties; so I pay taxes for a county I do not live in).
In this part of east Texas, seemingly everyone claims the exemption, whether true or not (usually, not). As such, those that live in the towns and those, like me, that do not wish to engage in fraud, bear the burden.
As many have pointed out in other threads, we here in Texas do not have an income tax. Yet, it is more than made up for by the ruinous property taxes.
With that said, you do own certain rights upon your land. You hold title, which means that the federal government must deal with you, if it wishes to take it. Same for state governments; they must pay you if they wish to take it.
That should be true, but frequently isn't. For example, North Carolina littoral (oceanfront) land. The owner holds title to the land up to the Mean High Water mark average over the 19 years National Tidal Datum Epoch. In other words, the "dry sand beach," while the state of NC owns the land seaward of that (the "wet sand beach") in public trust.
But the state of NC (both in state courts and via state legislation) has insisted that the public is entitled to use the privately owned dry sand beach up to the first vegetation line, as well. And there has never been any compensation for the state of NC taking that privately owned land for public use. Neither are there any recorded public easements.
As conflicts between property owners and the public using privately owned dry sand beach property increase (trash left behind which the property owner must clean up because neither the local, county, or state governments provide that service, legal liability for injuries/losses placed on the private property owner and not the local, county, or state government, etc.), I expect this dispute to end up at SCOTUS as a 5th Amendment Takings Clause case.
Quote:
Property law is often said to be a "bundle of rights." That's true, because that's what property law is: I can allow you the right to intrude on my property in order to feed my cats and clean their litter boxes when I am on vacation, but I deny you the right to look through the dresser in my bedroom. As the property-holder, I can divest rights as necessary, and put a time limit on them. My cat-sitter knows that I allow him entry between Date X and Date Y, but he also knows that he may not enter after my return date from vacation.
It's simple, common-law stuff.
You would think so, but look at the situation I just described.
I've often pondered how indigenous Americans now feel about sharing the land and land ownership.
They practiced adverse ownership, taking lands from others.
A hunter / gatherer culture needs vast resources.
That's one of the points of contention between the agricultural based civilization and nomads - amount of land needed for survival.
No state that explicitly protects private property levies an ad valorem tax upon it.
If you were misled to assume "all land" is "real estate" held with qualified ownership - well - can't blame the law.
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.
