Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Larger, but Quieter Than Bundy, Push to Take Over Federal Land. NYT 11 Jan

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    The Larger, but Quieter Than Bundy, Push to Take Over Federal Land. NYT 11 Jan

    Ken Ivory, a Republican state representative from Utah, has been roaming the West with an alluring pitch to cattle ranchers, farmers and conservatives upset with how Washington controls the wide-open public spaces out here: This land is your land, he says, and not the federal government’s.[my emphasis]

    Mr. Ivory, a bespectacled business lawyer from suburban Salt Lake City, does not fit the profile of a sun-scoured sagebrush rebel. But he is part of a growing Republican-led movement pushing the federal government to hand over to the states millions of acres of Western public lands — as well as their rich stores of coal, timber and grazing grass.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/11/us...land.html?_r=0
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Poor, naïve Ivory. Doesn't he know the politicians are holding onto those lands so they can "sell" them for a quid pro quo? Does he really think politicians will just hand them over?

    Coal deposits? "Well, Mr. Energy Company Lobbyist, I could be persuaded to change my vote. Now, let me see, where is that list of large donors to my last campaign? That political action committee (PAC) for your industry did make a donation to my campaign, didn't it?"
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-10-2016 at 08:41 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    We citizens own no land free and clear of our FedGov landlord. Try not paying rent-tax on your land.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    We citizens own no land free and clear of our FedGov landlord. Try not paying rent-tax on your land.
    Good point. I think the term is "in fee simple". Meaning, you own it mostly, but it actually belongs to "the government". Mexico follows something called the Napoleonic tradition, meaning they recognize nobody actually created the dirt. Thus, nobody actually fully owns the dirty upon which their home is built. At the bottom of things, the dirt belongs to everybody. Of course, "the government" is the representative of "everybody". Except the indigenous people. Somehow they get left out of the "everybody" equation.

    Some years ago I read that there are a very few parcels of land in England that do not pay taxes. Somehow the forebears engineered to own the parcels of land outright. Complete, full, thorough ownership. The parcels are not owned partly by the crown, and deeded to the owners with a hook of just enough ownership by government so government can demand taxes. They are owned completely and fully and outright. And, government can't tax that ground (not under the current legal system, anyway.)

    I don't know if it is true, but apparently there are a few parcels of land in Texas with the same liberty. Something to do with the seesaw back and forth between republic, Mexican state, and member of the US union.

    For what its worth, I read a book that laid out why you have to have a Certificate of Title for your car: so the government can tax it repeatedly (yearly personal property taxes). Conceptually, the explanation made sense. I have no idea if it is true, but it sounds like something government would pull on the people it rules. Here is the short explanation.

    Ever notice that the car title you have does not say "Title"; it says "Certificate of Title"? Why the extra two words? Well, according to the author I read, here is why.

    Because the state grabs the actual title and keeps it, issuing you a certificate certifying there is a title. If the state possesses the actual title, then you only partially own the car. The state owns just enough of it to be able to tax you on that property every year. Not just once like a sales tax, but every year like a property tax.

    Think about it for just a second. The car is not dirt. It was not made by God like the ground under your home. So, what is the title and where is the title? And, why don't you have clear title to your car, so clear and undiluted that you do not have to pay "property" tax on it every year like your home (which is based on the idea that you didn't create the dirt, it is held in common by all).

    So, your car isn't like the dirt. The dirt (ground) was made by God. But, your car was made by a corporation.

    The actual title of the car is something called the Statement of Origin. God made the dirt. But, Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota made the car, and own it outright when they finish making it. They made it; its theirs. They transfer title of the new car to the dealer by something called the Statement of Origin. The manufacturer is the origin of the car. It is theirs--they built it. Just like if you build a wood box to keep your tools, its yours. The manufacturer transfers ownership of the new car to the dealer by transferring the Statement of Origin to the dealer. But, when you buy the car, the dealer transfers the Statement of Origin not to you, but to the state motor vehicles department. The state motor vehicles department in turn issues you a Certificate of Title. Why? The Statement of Origin is the title. It is the document that says "We made this car and transferred it to Dealer X." So, why can't the dealer simply endorse the Statement of Origin over to you as the next buyer to prove you are the new owner? Why the fast switch when it gets to the state department of motor vehicles? Why do I get a Certificate of Title, instead of the actual original title?

    According to the author I read (can't recall the title of the book anymore), every once in a very great while, some very savvy new car buyer is able to talk the dealership out of the Statement of Origin. By possessing that document--the original title--he is able to avoid paying property taxes on the vehicle. Meaning, the legal code is arranged such that the state must sink a little hook of ownership into a car in order to give itself the legal right--within the contorted legal rules of ownership--to tax that property again and again, instead of once like a sales tax.

    Untaxed parcels of land in England. Untaxed land in Texas. A very, very few new car buyers who don't pay personal property tax on their car. On the one hand, I think to myself, "Awesome!! Beat the state." On the other hand, it occurs to me that the state goes to a lot of logical contortions to justify what it is doing. Which raises the question, "why?" Why not just say, "We decided this; you pay"? Seems to me government understands there are a lot more of us than them. Otherwise, why spend so much energy on deception and contortion? Implying government knows much of what it is doing is not legitimate. Certainly, that government knows lots and lots of people would go ballistic if they knew the real reason why government (politicians) was doing what it is doing.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-10-2016 at 10:42 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    We citizens own no land free and clear of our FedGov landlord. Try not paying rent-tax on your land.
    Well when one owns something you own it free and clear w/o further obligations.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •