Where do your rights begin and mine end?

Doug Huffman · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Great observation on 'alloidial title'!

Unfortunately it is of common law and not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights as a limitation on the powers of the tyrant. Indeed, the Fifth Amendment allows deprivation of life, liberty and property under color of law.

As we know from the controversy about the common law defense of self-defense, that ain't good enough for some.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$

WhiteFeather · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

You own the structure and basically what amounts to the topsoil of your property -- you have property rights, regardless of when taxes come into play, you still have property rights for as long as you hold the deed to that land.

Texas is the only state in which you may hold allodial title of a piece of property -- you wholy own the structures and the land beneath it clear and free, no payment of taxes.

But you've said it yourself... in the inverse, as long as you pay your taxes (assuming we don't hold allodial title and live in Texas) you have your property. Therefore, you have property rights.

But see there again if I had property rights I could do whatever I wanted and that is very much not the case. I cannot make a shooting range in my backyard without having the townships approval. I cannot open up a store without having approval. I can't run around naked on my property, or build a barn. Or add an extension to my house. So where exactly do I have anything? I have to run to the township and say. "I want to to do (blank)." And they can say NO! And then they can come up with this awesome idea about how neat it would be to build a road right through my freakin house. And so they bring in planners in and they find this stupid owl living in the tree above my house. And somebody says "Holy dog doo batman! That is an endangered spotted black farting owl!" If he sneezes the wrongin the morning it will wee itself out of moister for the next year and die!!! "Shock AWE Gasp!" So then they say "Well we're not even going to give you money for your house you just have to leave. Until this owl leaves."And I'll ask "Well when will that happen?" And they say "Oh thirty or so years."

So no no rights to property... And that can even happen in TX...

Wynder · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

WhiteFeather wrote:

But see there again if I had property rights I could do whatever I wanted and that is very much not the case. I cannot make a shooting range in my backyard without having the townships approval. I cannot open up a store without having approval. I can't run around naked on my property, or build a barn. Or add an extension to my house. So where exactly do I have anything? I have to run to the township and say. "I want to to do (blank)." And they can say NO! And then they can come up with this awesome idea about how neat it would be to build a road right through my freakin house. And so they bring in planners in and they find this stupid owl living in the tree above my house. And somebody says "Holy dog doo batman! That is an endangered spotted black farting owl!" If he sneezes the wrong while in the morning it will wee itself out of moister for the next year and die!!! "Shock AWE Gasp!" So then they say "Well we're not even going to give you money for your house you just have to leave. Until this owl leaves."And I'll ask "Well when will that happen?" And they say "Oh thirty or so years."

So no no rights to property... And that can even happen in TX...

I cannot make a shooting range in my backyard without having the townships approval.

Why not?

I cannot open up a store without having approval.

The government has the right to regulate commerce.

I can't run around naked on my property...

You most certainly may; however, if you're seen by other people you can be charged with indecent exposure.

...or build a barn.

Hell yeah, you can -- if you do it yourself, not a problem. Hell, you can even burn it to the ground if it's done in a safe manner and you don't try to collect insurance on it. If you have an outside contractor do it, then you need to go through and get permits.

So no no rights to property.

I think you're making a few huge leaps here either by miseducation or misinformation. The pure fact that, when you're on MY property, I can command you to practice my religion, disarm yourself, not wear the color purple, submit to complete searches and seizures of your person completely says otherwise.

You're trying manufacturering scenarios where the government generally has a right to tax and regulate and passing it off as complete control where there are, in fact, instances and scenarios where your points have no validity.

Cue-Ball · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

The problem is that over the last 250 years property rights in this country have been eroded in the name of "safety" and for tax purposes. When the country was first founded you really COULD do what you wanted on your property. If you didn't hurt anyone or damage their property, it was all good. Nowadays you can't do hardly anything without a permit, a license, an inspection, a fee, a tax, etc.

We need to get back to the way things used to be, before government intruded on the private lives of peaceful citizens.

Wynder · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

We need to get back to the way things used to be, before government intruded on the private lives of peaceful citizens.

Vote Ron Paul.

Cue-Ball · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

I'm way ahead of you, Wynder.

WhiteFeather · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

http://www.mybuildingpermit.com/tools/user_doc_lib_view.asp?DocumentID=197

According to this PDF I need a permit to remove trees and or vegitation in my yard. So really how far off was I?

You most certainly may; however, if you're seen by other people you can be charged with indecent exposure.

If I get charged with a crime that would imply that is against the law. So while grammatically I "can" the law that seems to overide my property right says I may not.

The government has the right to regulate commerce.

Why?

Perhaps we see the word "free" in different lights.

Tomahawk · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

About commerce: what your state constitution says mey vary, but the commerce clause of the federal constitution was put in place to prevent states from making trade treaties and imposing tariffs on interstate commerce and stuff.

While the states are (or used to be, anyway, before Lincoln) sovereign, they agreed to this when they ratified the federal constitution. Later, the FDR administration stacked the federal and supreme court with "progressives" who would use the commerce clause to uphold every abusive federal law or regulation imaginable.

As to the "right to regulate commerce", governments have no rights, of course, but in theory (which is largely the domain of this thread) you have a right to buy, sell, possess, and dispose of property however you please, so long as you do not violate anyone else's rights. The just purpose of the government, should one exist, is to enforce contracts made between you and whomever you are trading with. That what "regulation" used to mean.

Wynder · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

According to this PDF I need a permit to remove trees and or vegitation in my yard. So really how far off was I?

If you read the footnote on the PDF, that addresses situations where a building permit is required and directs you to contact someone else for residential projects. Essentially, you're allowed to do any work in your home that you like -- once you bring an outside contractor into the mix or try to sell your home, then you're going to wind up having to make sure its up to code.

If I get charged with a crime that would imply that is against the law. So while grammatically I "can" the law that seems to overide my property right says I may not.

So, would it be perfectly legal to stand on the front of my property and expose myself to young females walking by? Let's temper the discussion with a bit of common sense... Your actions aren't restricted to the privacy of your property in this case.

With regards to the government being able to regulate commerce: Why?

With the right to levy taxes, that's the way they track who owes them... If they don't know who's doing business, how do they know from whom to collect and how much?

WhiteFeather · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Let's temper the discussion with a bit of common sense...

Hell yeah, you can -- if you do it yourself, not a problem. Hell, you can even burn it to the ground if it's done in a safe manner and you don't try to collect insurance on it.

Yes lets...

Why don't you try it and tell me how it turns out. And while you're at build a berm or create a good backstop and go shooting out back for a bit. Tell me also how that turns out.

Cue-Ball · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

So, would it be perfectly legal to stand on the front of my property and expose myself to young females walking by? Let's temper the discussion with a bit of common sense... Your actions aren't restricted to the privacy of your property in this case.

Playing devil's advocate here...why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on your property? For that matter, why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on public property? Do passers by have a natural right to not see a naked person that outweighs your natural right to be naked? Remember, we're not talking about what is legal, but what is just and should be legal (or not)

Tomahawk · Nov 6, 2007

imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:

So, would it be perfectly legal to stand on the front of my property and expose myself to young females walking by? Let's temper the discussion with a bit of common sense... Your actions aren't restricted to the privacy of your property in this case.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here...why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on your property? For that matter, why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on public property? Do passers by have a natural right to not see a naked person that outweighs your natural right to be naked? Remember, we're not talking about what is legal, but what is just and should be legal (or not)

Reductio ad absurdum.

And a good philosophical question. How come men can go topless and women can't is the in the same category.

You have to think carefully; if you accept that the government may back up customs and courtesies with criminal penalty, than how you choose to carry your pistol may be in jeopardy. OC may be put in the same category as not wearing pants or something.

imperialism2024 · Nov 7, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Cue-Ball wrote:

So, would it be perfectly legal to stand on the front of my property and expose myself to young females walking by? Let's temper the discussion with a bit of common sense... Your actions aren't restricted to the privacy of your property in this case.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here...why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on your property? For that matter, why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on public property? Do passers by have a natural right to not see a naked person that outweighs your natural right to be naked? Remember, we're not talking about what is legal, but what is just and should be legal (or not)

Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.

And a good philosophical question. How come men can go topless and women can't is the in the same category.

You have to think carefully; if you accept that the government may back up customs and courtesies with criminal penalty, than how you choose to carry your pistol may be in jeopardy. OC may be put in the same category as not wearing pants or something.

Maybe that goes back to my crazy assertion of an uncomfortably close relationship between Judeo-Christian religion and the government...

Tomahawk · Nov 7, 2007

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Cue-Ball wrote:

So, would it be perfectly legal to stand on the front of my property and expose myself to young females walking by? Let's temper the discussion with a bit of common sense... Your actions aren't restricted to the privacy of your property in this case.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here...why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on your property? For that matter, why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on public property? Do passers by have a natural right to not see a naked person that outweighs your natural right to be naked? Remember, we're not talking about what is legal, but what is just and should be legal (or not)

Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.

And a good philosophical question. How come men can go topless and women can't is the in the same category.

You have to think carefully; if you accept that the government may back up customs and courtesies with criminal penalty, than how you choose to carry your pistol may be in jeopardy. OC may be put in the same category as not wearing pants or something.

Click to expand...

Maybe that goes back to my crazy assertion of an uncomfortably close relationship between Judeo-Christian religion and the government...

Perhaps, but I don't think too many atheists would appreciate seeing me walk around with no pants any more than the christians would.

Cue-Ball · Nov 7, 2007

imported post

Perhaps, but I don't think too many atheists would appreciate seeing me walk around with no pants any more than the christians would.

Luckily, we can always go elsewhere, fence in our property, etc. to escape.

Speaking for myself, I don't imagine I would ever walk around town naked if it were legal (though I could probably be convinced to go skinny dipping

), but I would fully support everyone else being able to do so if they wanted to.

imperialism2024 · Nov 7, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Cue-Ball wrote:

So, would it be perfectly legal to stand on the front of my property and expose myself to young females walking by? Let's temper the discussion with a bit of common sense... Your actions aren't restricted to the privacy of your property in this case.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate here...why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on your property? For that matter, why shouldn't you be allowed to be naked on public property? Do passers by have a natural right to not see a naked person that outweighs your natural right to be naked? Remember, we're not talking about what is legal, but what is just and should be legal (or not)

Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.

And a good philosophical question. How come men can go topless and women can't is the in the same category.

You have to think carefully; if you accept that the government may back up customs and courtesies with criminal penalty, than how you choose to carry your pistol may be in jeopardy. OC may be put in the same category as not wearing pants or something.

Click to expand...

Maybe that goes back to my crazy assertion of an uncomfortably close relationship between Judeo-Christian religion and the government...

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I don't think too many atheists would appreciate seeing me walk around with no pants any more than the christians would.

:lol:

Open carry in a much different sense, eh? It would certainly make encounters with LEOs much more interesting: "Do you have a permit for *points* that?"

ne1 · Nov 13, 2007

imported post

:what:Here's an interesting case regarding property rights versus civil liberties:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=326&page=501

In Marsh v Alabama Justice Black declares that "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

The Court further states "Title to property as defined by State law controls property relations; it cannot control issues of civil liberties which arise precisely because a company town is a town as well as a co geries of property relations. And similarly the technical distinctions on which a finding of 'trespass' so often depends are too tenuous to control decision regarding the scope of the vital liberties guaranteed by the Constitution."

Wikipedia's analysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

Our founding fathers willingly risked their property, even their lives, so that much higher ideals of freedom, liberty, and equalitycould be established for posterity. It was not about who could have the biggest toys nor the most property.

jonnyjeeps · Nov 18, 2007

imported post

I guess I believe you have the right to anything you want; life, liberty, property, Religion, anything. The government makes exceptions to this fact with laws.If youthink about it it applies to everything. If I want to make a u-turn Ido not need to see a sign saying its ok, I need to see if theres a sign saying its not ok. There is no law giving you right to life or liberty, the BILL OF RIGHTS is not a law its a set of values which you have the right to ignore as long as you dont overstep the laws exceptions to your freedom.

Also its super easy to get a buisness lic. in Washington anyway its $20.00 and you can do it online all you need is your contact info for the IRS to send you quarterlies! Anyone can do it and as far as I know any non government buisness can legally refuse service to anyone for any reason they want.Even abuisness itself is just property, the land , the customers and the potential earnings can all be sold or traded.

There are a lot of other countries with laws that dictate what you CAN do, ours is great because the laws dictate what you cant everything else is fair game.

ne1 · Jan 1, 2008

imported post

I find it very, very sad that some would place the value of property above the value of human life. Property rights will never result in equality under the law because some corporate entity will always have more property than an individual. Far too many of our rights have been disregarded due to the corporate world's greedy pursuit of ever more property- the rights of individuals be damned. No I am not just another form of 'property' myself- I believe that the Divine Creator (by whatever name you know Him)made mankind somewhat more than just another collection of mere molecules on this planet. Mere molecules acting upon each other's existence does not become a crime until some idiot human gets involved.

Doug Huffman · Jan 1, 2008

imported post

Wynder wrote:

ne1 wrote:

American land was taken from the native inhabitants by force of arms.

Click to expand...

As for our land being seized from the natives... well, as sad as a point as that's become in our history, to the victor goes the spoils of war.

And the American Indigenes that we knew were not the original inhabitants, merely another victor in a long line of succession....American - Indigenes - Clovis culture - pre-Clovis culture et cetera. There is good evidence that some of the earliest people in the New World were Northern Europeans.

Screw Ward Churchill and his ilk. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

Where do your rights begin and mine end?

Banned

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned