Questioning the right to own property.

[Technosoul]

In the beginning the government claimed the land in it's own name, as the owner of the mapped properties for the United States. So the government owned the real estate and clamed that right on behalf of we the people.

Then the government allowed citizens to buy land from the government, and in some cases to own land for free by making a claim and settlements.

However the government can demand the land back if they want to build a railroad or freeway through your house. So is it really your property? Yes, they might pay you for getting it back to help cover your investment but the property you do not keep. Is not buying property much like the right to rent it until the government wants to re-call it. (which I agree, seldom happens).

And they can create property taxes and so you pay and pay forever and if you do not pay taxes... bye bye property.

Other so-called property rights can be violated by city policemen.

What kind of consitutional "right" is that anyway. It would seem hardly not a right at all, but just a illusion of a pretended right.

And of course, owning property is only for workers who get good credit, not for very low income workers or poor folks. If it was a real consitutional right then everyone would be allowed to own a chunk of the rock for a house or whatnot, as a brith right payable by the government at age 18. Becoming a citizen does not insure your automatic right to own property if you cannot pay for it, you cannot just "claim it" as did the government.

Now you have the right to get rich if you can and buy some property, now owned mostly by banks or other people. But that is not a right granted by any Creator or the Consitution, because "smarts" are not self evident truths that can be applied to every citizen of the USA.

[Jack]

I look at property ownership much as I do religion. In many ways it has caused as many if not more problems for our species than it has benefited us. So many people have died throughout history in quest of, defense of or in acquisition of property for their nation or king. But on a more local level I don't have an issue with it. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but on a global scale I'm not opposed to a world government at some point in the near future. I don't think it will be any better than what we have now. But I do believe that as the differences between people become less popular viewpoints (as race and sex are starting to do) we'll begin to realize we're all one race, all one species. But on a local level, property ownership of a house or business is simply extending our definition of person. A person is both who he is and what is his.

I'm not being especially coherent because this is a topic I have feelings about but lack an enlightening metaphor.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Isherwood A person is both who he is and what is his.

If someone has practically nothing, are they still a person? Would that change any rights? Should it?

I think making ownership of something as part of what a person is, or granting personhood in respects to law (or perceptions), could be used to disenfranchise a lot of people, if not add to prejudice or a certain sense of entitlement over others who have less property (or none).

Sorry if I have pulled this off of T's OP, and for the most part, I agreed with practically everything you said.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The right to own land is the most fundamental of freedoms, and the recent Kelo case where the SC decided that the state can take your land and give it to someone else for higher taxes is just... sickening.

Isherwood, a world government is life times away if ever. Sorry I think that's a terrible idea.

[xyzer]

Right on Mr Vicchio!

The right to own land is the most fundamental of freedoms, and the recent Kelo case where the SC decided that the state can take your land and give it to someone else for higher taxes is just... sickening.

It's essential in a democratic society! We saw what happended in communist Russia where people didn't have property rights? Property was owned by the state? It oppressed the people and zapped initiative? It failed as a govenmental form? Its not only your own home at stake, it's also your right to own a business, choose your own destiny?
Chavez the dictator in Venezuela is in the process of trying to eliminate private property rights and allow the state to rule? Cuba is depressed by the same thinking! It coincides with totalitarian rule.

Ish, I'm afraid the people of the earth are just too varied in custom and thought to adhere to a world government! Pie in the sky!

[Praxius]

I think I brought this up when I was talking about how we're confined to the government's system.... you can't just get up and leave and start a new life out in the forest, because it's owned by the government.... hell, you can't even go out and cut down your own christmas tree without getting fined.

I don't see land as a possesion.... but like all other animals on this planet, we all like to have territory.... a place we can call home.... nest, etc. Why the hell should those in power be able to suck more out of us for the sole purpose of just trying to live and have a place to call home just so they can become more rich and more comfortible in their lives?

[Praxius]

Quote by: xyzer Cuba is depressed by the same thinking! It coincides with totalitarian rule.

The only reason why Cuba is so screwed up is because of the restrictions and boycotts from the US... Cuba's majority of motor vehicles are still 1950 models, because they can't import anything new, because of the US. Cuba is a nice country actually... infact I have a cousin from Cuba and a lot of Canadian Tourist head there for vacations.

If the US lifted their restrictions and BS off of Cuba, you'd see a better country. The only reason why the government appears to be failing, and life isn't that great, is because the US is making it that way.... do you think they would want a functioning Communist country right below them? That's prove everything they hold dear to as false.

Same thing as in Iraq.... I have a funny feeling all these bombings and attacks from both shia and sunni sides were started by US operatives detonating bombs and framing one side after another. I remember clearly when it all happened, both sides denied any bombings, but now that it has continued, they both now believe they each side is doing it, so now they actually are....... why else would Bush want to stay there and "stay the course" for so long, and even though everything is still looking doomed to fail and he says otherwise, things are getting worse and worse... it's like he's purposely trying to start WWIII, regardless of what happens to him and his image....

If they and other countries similar would just keep their dam noses out of other country's business unless asked for help, half the crap going on today wouldn't be happening.

[Athena]

Quote by: xyzer Right on Mr Vicchio! It's essential in a democratic society! We saw what happended in communist Russia where people didn't have property rights? Property was owned by the state? It oppressed the people and zapped initiative? It failed as a govenmental form? Its not only your own home at stake, it's also your right to own a business, choose your own destiny? Chavez the dictator in Venezuela is in the process of trying to eliminate private property rights and allow the state to rule? Cuba is depressed by the same thinking! It coincides with totalitarian rule. Ish, I'm afraid the people of the earth are just too varied in custom and thought to adhere to a world government! Pie in the sky!

I am not sure what you say is believable. I mean we have heard the critisms, but they are very vague. Like loving hot dogs, in this case what does "love" mean, and regarding the general critisms against communism, exactly what do they mean?

I have lived in government housing and rented in many places, and I am horrified by how things have changed. Is it as bad in communist countries? How could it be worse?

As for property rights, they going the way of the woolly mamoth. Especially in those controlled nieghborhoods. Yuk, I would never want to "own" property in one of the new gated and very controlled neighborhoods. Even in uncontrolled neighborhoods, in Oregon, we can't cut down trees on our own land without permission. There are building codes and one best buy a permit before building on house. It is getting hard to find places where "civilization" is not swallowing up individual rights.

In case anyone cares, here is some historical ideas of property rights

Property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaModern property rights conceive of ownership and possession as belonging to ... His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property - 88k - Cached - Similar pages Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFrom this conception of natural rights, an economy emerges based on ... these would infringe on the property rights or freedoms of either the business owner ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism - 115k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from en.wikipedia.org ] natural rights: Information from Answers.comThus, a natural rights theory entails a conception of private ownership grounded on the ... of property ownership in the direction of a theory of rights. ... natural rights: Information from Answers.com - 95k - Cached - Similar pages

Owning property may be better than being considered property, bought when the land is bought. In the past there was a relationship between owing property and having human rights. Relatively recently, owning property gave a person a say in government, that those without property didn't have. This resulted in the propertied people having privilleges and the poor being taxed. This led to the French Revolution.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Technosoul In the beginning the government claimed the land in it's own name, as the owner of the mapped properties for the United States. So the government owned the real estate and clamed that right on behalf of we the people. Then the government allowed citizens to buy land from the government, and in some cases to own land for free by making a claim and settlements. However the government can demand the land back if they want to build a railroad or freeway through your house. So is it really your property? Yes, they might pay you for getting it back to help cover your investment but the property you do not keep. Is not buying property much like the right to rent it until the government wants to re-call it. (which I agree, seldom happens).

Correct. According to the government, one can own something only at the pleasure of the government.

And they can create property taxes and so you pay and pay forever and if you do not pay taxes... bye bye property.

This amounts to de facto renting property (really land; see below) from the government.

Other so-called property rights can be violated by city policemen. What kind of consitutional "right" is that anyway. It would seem hardly not a right at all, but just a illusion of a pretended right. And of course, owning property is only for workers who get good credit, not for very low income workers or poor folks. If it was a real consitutional right then everyone would be allowed to own a chunk of the rock for a house or whatnot, as a brith right payable by the government at age 18. Becoming a citizen does not insure your automatic right to own property if you cannot pay for it, you cannot just "claim it" as did the government. Now you have the right to get rich if you can and buy some property, now owned mostly by banks or other people. But that is not a right granted by any Creator or the Consitution, because "smarts" are not self evident truths that can be applied to every citizen of the USA.

A couple of clarifications here.

First off, I suggest using "land" or "landed property" instead of simply using "property". Many of us consider "property" to mean anything that can be considered ownable (due to economic scarcity). Some of these things are, for all intents and purposes, immobile or landed. However, it is a misnomer to consider all property to be so.

Second, please note the difference between a right to be able to own property and a right to property. The former is a negative right -- it imposes an obligation on the part of others (including, presumably, the state) to not interfere with one's acquisition and ownership of property. On the other hand, the latter is a positive right -- it imposes an obligation on the part of others to ensure one's acquisition and ownership of (certain) property. In the Constitution, there is no mention of the latter hypothetical right, and only sparse mention of the former.

The important things to remember here are that 1) property arose before the state, and 2) the state only pays lip service to it and uses it for its own ends.

- Rob

[Athena]

Quote by: Praxius I think I brought this up when I was talking about how we're confined to the government's system.... you can't just get up and leave and start a new life out in the forest, because it's owned by the government.... hell, you can't even go out and cut down your own christmas tree without getting fined. I don't see land as a possesion.... but like all other animals on this planet, we all like to have territory.... a place we can call home.... nest, etc. Why the hell should those in power be able to suck more out of us for the sole purpose of just trying to live and have a place to call home just so they can become more rich and more comfortible in their lives?

In Oregon you can cut down your own Christmas tree if you first buy a permit to do so.

Heck, I would settle for the old renter's rules. One person was the head of the household, and this person had complete say over who lived in the house. This person was held responsible for paying rent and preventing damage to the property. Today, everyone must be on the rental agreement, and if one is in government housing, no one can move in for at least two months. This includes family! So if an 18 child wants to return home, s/he must wait 2 months and go through the whole process, same as someone who isn't family and never lived in the housing. At least in privately owned rentals, things can happen much faster, but still someone besides the head of house hold determines who can and cannot live in the housing.

[Autolykos]

I forgot an important addendum.

There is no necessary correlation between income and credit rating. Some high-income people have terrible credit; conversely, some low-income people have excellent credit. All other things being equal, one's credit rating indicates how likely he will be able to repay a debt.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Isherwood I look at property ownership much as I do religion. In many ways it has caused as many if not more problems for our species than it has benefited us. So many people have died throughout history in quest of, defense of or in acquisition of property for their nation or king.

Question: do you mean any/all property, or just landed property?

Regardless of your answer, "for their nation or king" tells me that you're really referring to conflicts between governments, i.e. warfare. Any such conflict is simply theft -- a non-economical behavior -- on a different scale.

But on a more local level I don't have an issue with it. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but on a global scale I'm not opposed to a world government at some point in the near future. I don't think it will be any better than what we have now. But I do believe that as the differences between people become less popular viewpoints (as race and sex are starting to do) we'll begin to realize we're all one race, all one species. But on a local level, property ownership of a house or business is simply extending our definition of person. A person is both who he is and what is his.

Your toothbrush, then, also helps define who you are.

I'm not being especially coherent because this is a topic I have feelings about but lack an enlightening metaphor.

I suggest running those feelings through the sieve of logic.

- Rob

[grandpa]

I am against private property in the legal sense of the word. I am not against having personal possessions and a home.

There is this ridiculous idea that we need the government to determine by coercion who owns what.

Because the issue of who owns what for how long can be difficult to determine, force should not be involved. However, the government takes steps to threaten anyone who would like to live for free from it.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

I will give you the short answer now and the long answer later.
The Taking Clause protects against this, but when people's land are taken they are adequately compensated in most cases. In the O'Hare expansion in Chicago, the owners whose lands were taken were given DOUBLE what the lands was worth. DOUBLE what they could have sold it for, 6 months to move and the moving expenses were paid for.

I love when the simple minded complain about taxes! Without taxes there would be no government. Without government there would be chaos.

5th amendment creates more than sufficient protection against search and seizure, but like every right there needs to be flexibility and exceptions. Just like you can yell fire in a crowded building and defend on 1st A. freedom of speech.

And of course, owning property is only for workers who get good credit, not for very low income workers or poor folks. If it was a real consitutional right then everyone would be allowed to own a chunk of the rock for a house or whatnot, as a brith right payable by the government at age 18. Becoming a citizen does not insure your automatic right to own property if you cannot pay for it, you cannot just "claim it" as did the government.

The simple answer you don't understand economics.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm not opposed to a world government at some point in the near future. I do believe that as the differences between people become less popular viewpoints (as race and sex are starting to do) we'll begin to realize we're all one race, all one species.

It's going the other way as we speak.


Czechoslovakia has become the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Serbia & Montenegro have become Serbia and Montenegro, and they both used to be Yugoslavia.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 I love when the simple minded complain about taxes! Without taxes there would be no government. Without government there would be chaos.

I think it's simple-minded to think taxes are necessary for governing structures to exist. Taxes are not an essential condition, especially for self-governed, egalitarian organizations that oppose coercion.

I don't think the lack of taxes means instant chaos. In fact, our twisted obession with taxing, fining, and funding is what assures chaos. The very common nature of all of these things threatens normal social relations. It also does well to assure that some will waste their talents for bureacratic work that isn't even rewarding.

Grandpa h.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: GHook93 I will give you the short answer now and the long answer later. The Taking Clause protects against this, but when people's land are taken they are adequately compensated in most cases. In the O'Hare expansion in Chicago, the owners whose lands were taken were given DOUBLE what the lands was [sic] worth. DOUBLE what they could have sold it for, 6 months to move and the moving expenses were paid for.

And? Your point?

I love when the simple minded complain about taxes! Without taxes there would be no government. Without government there would be chaos.

I love when the simple-minded claim that there would be chaos without government.

Besides, this here's a red herring.

5th amendment creates more than sufficient protection against search and seizure, but like every right there needs to be flexibility and exceptions. Just like you can yell fire in a crowded building and defend on 1st A. freedom of speech.

More than sufficient for you, perhaps, but I'm sure there are those who would disagree. What say you to them?

- Rob

[Technosoul]

Of course I was speaking about land where one wishes to dwell or create a business or, as rich people do, must to save it as a investment potential. Not property such as your clothing, or your girl friend. Oops, girls are not property anymore.

No point in comparing things with Russia or Cuba, folks there have a place to lay their hat when they come home from work, and they view it as their home. And what I am questioning is that so-called "fundamental right" for rich people. It is an illusion because in fact the government can take away the house you and your parents dwelled in if they so wish, for building some project such as a train station, highway, or what not. You cannot just tell them "no" so go build it someplace else, my land is not for sale. Because you do not have that right.

Indeed, you have the right to own and to buy land, houses, and even cars, but this does not mean you have the right to keep it as mandated by some consitutional law, at least not realistically. Although in most cases no one will make you move out of your home the government can if it needs the land your house is upon. So you do not have absolute control as the owner.
As the "pretending to own" owner.

Things can get worse if you buy a house in one of those modern gated communities that has their won "board" governing the home owners. They can tell you all the taboos they wish, what trees to have or not have, what color you can paint your house, and lots more, to make you conform to the neighborhood policy of robotism. And if not you would violate the contract under which you own the house and property and "bye bye Charlie" they will kick you out.

The main difference between Cuba and the USA is we buy our house out of our income and they get one for free (or by some arrangement, not sure what is involved). But both houses are realistically under the supreme ownership of the government.

And the governments can also make all public areas off limits to homeless people who do not rent, lease, or own a home. No hanging out laws, no overnight sleeping in parks or on the street, and so forth.

So they got you coming or going, with those illusions of rights and freedoms.
The government has the power and they are not going to surrender it to "we the people". Not in this man's land.

[Captain Chaos]

I can see a justification for governments being the meta owner of land. Think of it as a business that earns money by permitting people to live and do business on their property, in exchange for a fee (taxes). If you do not like it, you are not required to do business with that particular company.

However, the government makes claims on more than just land. It also claims taxes on inherited property of all types. Thus, if you have a valuable family heirloom, you are not permitted to keep it unless the family pays taxes on its value every time it is inherited.

While I am not bothered by government being the meta-owner of land (well, not AS bothered), as long as they do not overtax it or reassign to others for convenience - I am quite bothered by the idea of government being the meta owner of physical property that should be yours to give to others as you please.

Which, of course, just leads to saying that we should do away with income tax and inheritance tax and strictly use some form of consumption tax. Which I would support, if we can test it first to prove efficacy.


But, getting back to land. Pretty much every piece of land in the world is meta-owned by some form of government. I suppose a diehard anarchist could go live on Antarctica, but I think the idea would give most of us cold feet.

So, where can someone who does not want to do business with a government go to live?

It is not the responsibility of individual governments to provide non-government space for people who want to live outside of governed lands - so no justification can be made for taking property from specific nations just to make them ungoverned.

This leads me to think that the oceans are where those who want to live free of government control must go to live. Seasteading is a popular topic these days, but has not really taken off in the real world. I think, as technology advances, we will see more and more ocean dwellers - people who live as nomads, free of all government.

Just beware of pirates.

[ZNFYRH]

Autolykos,

For the most part, I think I agree with you.

A government decides that it "owns" the land, regardless of the people who lived on it previously who had a much different concept of ownership. Then the gov't allows people to live on that land and sometimes even purchase a lease on it.

This seems contradictory because the gov't does not allow you to use that land how you choose and protect it how you choose.

You called it a "negative right". I call those kinds of things "fabricated rights". Whatever the name, I apply the concept to anything where a government lets you think you have the right to something but it limits your rights involving that thing.

I think the problem, as I believe it was Isherwood who planted the idea in my head, is that there is conflict over something that does not exist and can never exist.

As long as you can defend someone from taking something from you, you have a right to it. If you need to turn to someone else to protect that thing, then guess who really owns it?