 Poll
|
| Question: |
The Statement of Intent recognizes "the protection of ... property"; does this protection thus extend to land? Should such definitions (either way) be made explicit by the Board of Directors?
| Yes, land falls within individual property rights, and the FSP should make this clear |
   77 (55.8%) |
| Yes, land falls within individual property rights, but the FSP should remain neutral |
43 (31.2%) |
| No, land does not fall within individual property rights, and the FSP should make this clear |
5 (3.6%) |
| No, land does not fall within individual property rights, but the FSP should remain neutral |
13 (9.4%) |
|
|
| Total Voters: 130 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Is land "property" in SOI? (Read 50746 times)
|
rayschneider
Guest
|
It really doesn't matter what the FSP states as far a land ownership is concerned. The FSP doesn't have any authority over land ownership. Unless the FSP secedes from the U.S. there will always be income tax. And if any member doesn't pay their income tax to the Feds, than the IRS will come and confiscate the property. Remember under any tax law you own nothing, you only lease it as long as you keep making the payments.
Didn't mean to piss on anyones parade, but for any part of the FSP to work then reality needs to set in!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DustinD
|
I think the problem will be that small, non-contiguous landholders will make the choice and then how will they got off their property if they can't use the public roads except via helicopters? So then the government would own the commons? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BillG
Guest
|
I think the problem will be that small, non-contiguous landholders will make the choice and then how will they got off their property if they can't use the public roads except via helicopters? So then the government would own the commons? No the commoners would own the commons (rental of which would go directly to the citizens not to governemnt) and government would insure no one is denied access similiarly to the way government acts to insure freedom of speech in a public place (another common right)... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DustinD
|
So then how does the helicopter comment fit in? Didn't you say roads where the commons and owned by everyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Horace the Heathen
|
There are no natural rights, there is merely the ability (and inability) to obtain and maintain a particular object or state of being. The word "right" indicates something that others are obligated to respect, however in the natural world, there are no inherent obligations.
There is no right to property, but merely the ability to obtain and maintain property. A person cannot own land, because ownership suggests that others must recognize and respect the owner's right to own whatever it is that is claimed to be owned. A person can claim land, and endeavor to keep it by whatever means. All the inhabitable land in the world is claimed by humans who actually believe that they own it, that they actually have some entitlement to it. The truth is, they merely possess the land (actually, since landowners will loose land if they do not pay property taxes, they are more land-renters than landowners).
To say this is mine or that is mine is false, because nothing is inherently owned. It would be more correct to say I possess this or I possess that (possession is not ownership). Just because you possess something, even if you make it yourself, does not mean that you are now naturally entitled to it, meaning that others are obliged to recognize and respect your entitlement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The sacredness of the liberty, and all possible proofs of this sacredness, will never procure it; lamenting and petitioning only shows beggars.
|
|
|
|
Top Dollar
|
I agree with the Hedgehog completely. The whole 'Natural Rights' thing seems to be just another religious belief system relying on supernatural phenomena.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BillG
Guest
|
There are no natural rights, there is merely the ability (and inability) to obtain and maintain a particular object or state of being. The word "right" indicates something that others are obligated to respect, however in the natural world, there are no inherent obligations.
There is no right to property, but merely the ability to obtain and maintain property. A person cannot own land, because ownership suggests that others must recognize and respect the owner's right to own whatever it is that is claimed to be owned. A person can claim land, and endeavor to keep it by whatever means. All the inhabitable land in the world is claimed by humans who actually believe that they own it, that they actually have some entitlement to it. The truth is, they merely possess the land (actually, since landowners will loose land if they do not pay property taxes, they are more land-renters than landowners).
To say this is mine or that is mine is false, because nothing is inherently owned. It would be more correct to say I possess this or I possess that (possession is not ownership). Just because you possess something, even if you make it yourself, does not mean that you are now naturally entitled to it, meaning that others are obliged to recognize and respect your entitlement.
why don't you explain then your understanding of the basic tenet of libertarianism which is self-ownership and at what point something ceases to be "mine"...starting with your body - is it "yours"? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Lorrey
|
I agree with the Hedgehog completely. The whole 'Natural Rights' thing seems to be just another religious belief system relying on supernatural phenomena.
On the contrary, I have repeatedly in several locations demonstrated that natural rights are derived from the inherent structure of the physical laws of the universe, requiring no supernatural mumbojumbo. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RhythmStar
|
And I agree with Mike here... at least in principle, if not in detail.  RS |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
|
|
|
|
mark
|
Is the last time I logged into this thread Feb 2nd? No way, how could I miss all this intense intellectual activity here writing about how the stuff in Libertavia will be divided up between the victors? God damn you people suck. ps I love you all at the same time. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 12, 2004, 07:13:30 pm by mark »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mark
|
I agree with the Hedgehog completely. The whole 'Natural Rights' thing seems to be just another religious belief system relying on supernatural phenomena.
On the contrary, I have repeatedly in several locations demonstrated that natural rights are derived from the inherent structure of the physical laws of the universe, requiring no supernatural mumbojumbo. Please describe those Natural Laws for those that will follow. http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303critic/030302borsodi.ugly/030302borsodi.ch19.html |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
justinapeterswv
Guest
|
There are no natural rights, there is merely the ability (and inability) to obtain and maintain a particular object or state of being. The word "right" indicates something that others are obligated to respect, however in the natural world, there are no inherent obligations.
There is no right to property, but merely the ability to obtain and maintain property. A person cannot own land, because ownership suggests that others must recognize and respect the owner's right to own whatever it is that is claimed to be owned. A person can claim land, and endeavor to keep it by whatever means. All the inhabitable land in the world is claimed by humans who actually believe that they own it, that they actually have some entitlement to it. The truth is, they merely possess the land (actually, since landowners will loose land if they do not pay property taxes, they are more land-renters than landowners).
To say this is mine or that is mine is false, because nothing is inherently owned. It would be more correct to say I possess this or I possess that (possession is not ownership). Just because you possess something, even if you make it yourself, does not mean that you are now naturally entitled to it, meaning that others are obliged to recognize and respect your entitlement.
I know it's been a while since this post but I was reading the thread and this post stood out to me....... "There are no natural rights, there is merely the ability (and inability) to obtain and maintain a particular object or state of being. The word "right" indicates something that others are obligated to respect, however in the natural world, there are no inherent obligations. " - the obligation that others have is simply not to aggressively deprive you of your "rights" to life, liberty, property. This does not insinuate that they are "obligated" to do so, but simply that you have the "right" to carry out, by any means necessary, with or without the aid of a just government whose sole responsibility is to protect citizens rights from the aggression of others, defense of your rights. Basically, all that "right" implies is the idea that you, and others (your government/friends/neighbours/etc) who are willing to help you, can do whatever is necessary to protect your "rights" to life, liberty, and property (your typical "natural rights") |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Nolan
|
I chose not to answer this question because of the nature of "rights" and the definition thereof.
Should a state recogniize ownership of land? Yes.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Utopia is not an option.
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
Basically, all that "right" implies is the idea that you, and others (your government/friends/neighbours/etc) who are willing to help you, can do whatever is necessary to protect your "rights" to life, liberty, and property (your typical "natural rights") What does a right to self-ownership mean then in this context? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Nolan
|
Basically, all that "right" implies is the idea that you, and others (your government/friends/neighbours/etc) who are willing to help you, can do whatever is necessary to protect your "rights" to life, liberty, and property (your typical "natural rights") What does a right to self-ownership mean then in this context? I don't know if you were asking me or not. If you were, notice I didn't use the word "right." I said "recognize." Phil |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Utopia is not an option.
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
