Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Edward Mercier]

Because the seller can not remove that item... without third party acceptance.
The third party was given that particular authority by a previous owner.
You would need to purchase alloidal title.

And your case doens't make historical sense.

Its done under HOAs all the time.

[time4liberty]

Because the seller can not remove that item... without third party acceptance.
The third party was given that particular authority by a previous owner.

Actually, it was never "given", it was historically, and is currently, taken by force.

You would need to purchase alloidal title.

So your position is that the federal government owns all of the land in the country, and the state government owns all of the land in the state -- we're all serfs of state and federal bureaucrats?

Do tell, how did state bureacrats legitimately acquire all this land? I'm really dying to hear it. Perhaps they worked overtime at mcdonalds? Did the king of England own it all too, in his day?

And your case doens't make historical sense.

What case? I just asked if you'd be ok with walmart trying the same scheme. We could add a bit about walmart "granting" large chunks of land that they never owned in the first place to well connected individuals, who then go kill the actual residents...

HOAs are not always done legitimately either, but that's a much subtler point. Contracts with dead people are null.

[John Edward Mercier]

It was only 'taken by force' from the French & Indians.
It was given consent by the early landowners... because the French & Indians (or more likely the British at that time) would re-take it.

The federal government has specific limitation set upon it. Its actually supposed to 'own' very little land... and was not supposed to finance the acquisition of land outside stated purpose.

And no the 'contract' with the dead person is not null. Its embedded in future contracts.
Hence why easements, restrictions, etc... remain. Only the third party can remove them.

[time4liberty]

It was only 'taken by force' from the French & Indians.

Why the quotes? Is that not an accurate description?

It was given consent by the early landowners... because the French & Indians (or more likely the British at that time) would re-take it.

Actually, less than 14k out of 3 million residents of the us voted for 'representatives' to the constitutional convention -- who then claimed the right to jam their will down everyone else's throats (as shown, for example, in the whiskey rebellion).

Nh was ruled by britian's puppets in MA, until king Charles separated it. The constitutional congress recommended that nh form a civil government, at which point reps were elected (majority of a minority rules), who then decided on a constitution, which the people of nh never even got a chance to vote on directly.

The federal government has specific limitation set upon it. Its actually supposed to 'own' very little land... and was not supposed to finance the acquisition of land outside stated purpose.

As far as I can tell, they have no meaningful limitations on their power at all.

And no the 'contract' with the dead person is not null. Its embedded in future contracts.

I can't make a legally binding decision, for example, that all the land I own shall never be developed for the rest of eternity, simply by making the person I give it to sign a contract that they won't develop it, and will require future owners to do the same. The world belongs to the living.

[Bazil]

There is a way to live in NH, not squat and pay no property tax.  I did for two years.  Rent from the state government.  I rented a house (actually two houses consecutively) own by the state of NH.  The state actually made a pretty good land lord, to my surprise, very hands off.

[LoveFreedomAndLiberty]

Usually an HOA will cost you more.
Larger parcels of land have the ability to enter Current Use... so there is an offset. Farming is a business... so PT is considered a business expense by them.

I guess it depends on size and where your looking. But basically home/land values adjust to local income levels... and currently are still adjusting downward.

My town doesn't have a bus... and the fire department has the COMSTAR fund, which means it operates like a hybrid private company.

Farming is always considered a business?  Even if a family is only growing the food for themselves?  If a family just wants to live an independent, off the grid lifestyle, they would be subject to the farming laws and taxes? 

[Denis Goddard]

Even if a family is only growing the food for themselves?  If a family just wants to live an independent, off the grid lifestyle, they would be subject to the farming laws and taxes?  

My understanding is that the answer is "yes", and it's one of the reasons I am an anarchist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption.[...] Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

[rossby]

Even if a family is only growing the food for themselves?  If a family just wants to live an independent, off the grid lifestyle, they would be subject to the farming laws and taxes?  

My understanding is that the answer is "yes", and it's one of the reasons I am an anarchist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption.[...] Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

There's an inconvenient fact that a lot of people overlook when they talk about Wickard v. Filburn. This wasn't a case of just a random farmer minding his own business having his property taken from him. This was a case of the farmer on 640 acres trying to double dip. This Act did not apply to farms under 15 acres.

Filburn participated in this federal program because he had a large farm. He then tried to grow more than his allotment. And he got caught. But Filburn is often quoted removed from its context. And this case has been a monster ever since. Courts finding new and improved governmental powers lurking where it suits their needs...

But really, Filburn's problem was his argument. It was junk. He never claimed his excess wheat was for "personal consumption". And if it was, consider this: he was allotted 11.1 acres, and planted 23. Yes. "Personal consumption" indeed.


I do not here argue against the economic insanity of destroying goods to keep prices high...

[LoveFreedomAndLiberty]

Even if a family is only growing the food for themselves?  If a family just wants to live an independent, off the grid lifestyle, they would be subject to the farming laws and taxes?  

My understanding is that the answer is "yes", and it's one of the reasons I am an anarchist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption.[...] Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

There's an inconvenient fact that a lot of people overlook when they talk about Wickard v. Filburn. This wasn't a case of just a random farmer minding his own business having his property taken from him. This was a case of the farmer on 640 acres trying to double dip. This Act did not apply to farms under 15 acres.

Filburn participated in this federal program because he had a large farm. He then tried to grow more than his allotment. And he got caught. But Filburn is often quoted removed from its context. And this case has been a monster ever since. Courts finding new and improved governmental powers lurking where it suits their needs...

But really, Filburn's problem was his argument. It was junk. He never claimed his excess wheat was for "personal consumption". And if it was, consider this: he was allotted 11.1 acres, and planted 23. Yes. "Personal consumption" indeed.

I do not here argue against the economic insanity of destroying goods to keep prices high...

What I am talking about is under 15 acres.  I have heard of some families choosing to live a more back to basics lifestyle.  Therefore, they grow most of their own food (due to food costs, personal budgets, organic desires, etc.).  Only the family consumes the food grown in their gardens in this case. 

Moving is a lot of work.   If someone's vegetable garden (even if they grow enough to can) is subject to taxation, that might be a deciding factor on the topic of moving or not moving somewhere.

[Denis Goddard]

If someone's vegetable garden (even if they grow enough to can) is subject to taxation

I don't believe a personal vegetable garden is subject to any NH taxes


But then again, IANAL

[John Edward Mercier]

None directly on the growth or commerce.

[John Edward Mercier]

time4liberty...

Accurate in the sense that it was actually taken... and by real force. Men, women, and children were killed... not simply allowed to accept a new government.

And the federal government doesn't have anything to do with the property tax.
Property taxes are majority made up of local municipal decisions... and the municipalities and land within them are subject to being cojoined and ceded continuously.

At the State level... historically the landowners gave up their Crown Granted alloidal titles for State protection from Britain.
Redcoats were only a short distance north of NY, NH, and Massachussets...
And during the War of 1812... these three nearly ceded from the Union and joined Canada.

The NH Constitution was voted on by freeholders... people that actually owned property... at the time only a freeholder could vote.

[time4liberty]

"allowed to accept" a new group of men extorting money and arbitrary obedience from them on threat of violence (and death, in many cases). Well you certainly have a nice way of euphamising things, mr. Mercier.

[weatherford]

I also share the preference for sales taxes -- but overall, taxes are far lower in nh than elsewhere. Most other places have property tax AND incone/sales tax.

And every state I know that has started sales and/or income taxes to "relieve the burden of property taxes" (along with the promise to abolish them) has failed miserably!