• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Range Wars with the Federal Government

sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
onus said:
Good point. I haven't heard any mention of a court order or a warrant or a trial or anything.
Click to expand...

I can't understand how some would claim anarchy is bad yet support the "law" enforcers who don't follow the law, that fits the definition for chaos way more than a stateless society.
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The more I think and research this the more I am likely to side with the Bundy's even though I feel they do have a few "off" beliefs.

Russell Means a libertarian minded First Nations, stated that Americans are the new Indians and warned that what happened to his people, are happening to Americans.


Here is an interesting article that supports that premise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/william-norman-grigg/wounded-knee-ii/--FUQ-

"Unfortunately, the Bundy family — like the American Indians – had been living on a reservation: They were never allowed to exercise ownership of their grazing “allotment,” in much the same way that Indians were not permitted to have clear title to their lands. The land on which the Bundy family raised cattle was “owned” by the government, and the Bundys were required to pay rent – in the form of grazing fees – for the “privilege” of making productive use of it. The public-land grazing system has been described as “the nation’s most conspicuous and extensive flirtation with socialism” – except, perhaps, for the Indian Reservation System"
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Nightmare said:
There is no such thing as "pure title" or, arguably indeed, title. Try not paying your rent-tax to the actual landlord.
Click to expand...


This could be true even under the principles of natural law too, if you abandon and do not make use of your property and someone else does, do you have title to it anymore?
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Nightmare said:
By property do you include proprietorship in our lives, so that a life not lived to the fullest somehow forfeits the unused fraction?

I hold title to 6.5 acres of rocky second growth woodland with about an acre of actual crutilage actually improved and fenced. Do I somehow forfeit to a hypothetical squatter?

In other words, no!
Click to expand...

It could be argued that improved land on which the improvements are maintained is not abandoned.

I have thought long and hard about real property rights, and I have been unable to wholly reject the arguments made by Benjamin Tucker et al.

I am currently operating under the understanding that some form of homesteading or improvement ought to be a prerequisite to maintaining title on real property.

My understanding would not prohibit the act of letting/renting property (folks, perhaps especially the poor, may not always wish to assume the very real risk/liability associated with owning and maintaining real property, a reality naively neglected by Tucker and Proudhon in their blanket condemnation of all landlord/tenant relationships), but would significantly weaken the proprietary claims of so-called "slum lords" who essentially parasitize off their tenants while failing to adequately improve/maintain the property.
 
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Nightmare said:
"Improved land" is the point that I was trying to make. An acre of my land is improved, is the remainder abandoned and forfeit?

Perhaps my daffodils are an improvement. For each of my years here I have planted a hundred or more daffodil bulbs, more or less randomly starting around the house and now planted along my 1/4 mile fronting on the county road. My previous owner and builder had done about the same thing. Now I'm watching the greens rising above the matted leaves and remaining snow (about 50% ground covered - more forecast). I've also lifted clumps of snowdrops (Galanthus), separated their tiny bulbs and replanted two patches of about a hundred, all of which are blossoming now as I write.
Click to expand...

Its an interesting question, do I feel you somehow forfiet under your description, no.

Yet your earlier post raised a point that under natural law. If you died for instance and none of your progeny claimed it and it reverted to a total natural state would someone else have the right to claim it and work the land? John Locke seems to support that theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top