Topic: Government Regulation
Your Property Isn't Really Yours If you truly own your own property then it should at the very least, pass the following simple test. Are you legally allowed to dispose of or use it, as you see fit?by Dan Steward
(libertarian)
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Hardware stores sell mailboxes, some of them cheap, some ornamental, pricey and cute. [link edited for length]
They are yours to convert to an indoor bird feeder, if you decide to keep them in the house. Should you make the personal choice to put one or more in your yard, then it's no longer yours to control. Federal regulations immediately kick in and there are rules [link edited for length] that Uncle Sam insists that you will follow regarding this mailbox that again, you paid for.
Consider your very own name that mom & pop gave you so many years ago. That name is yours, as it is a widely held belief that, (save for despots) you may change it at your leisure, or can you really? You must apply in court to have it "legally changed" to whatever the courts will allow. You would at that time be compelled to show an actual "need" to change what is rightfully yours, that was never originally given to you by any court of law.
We slept while our liberties and property were being taken, bit by bit. If you like you may call it just another scam, a dirty trick that government plays upon us due to it's contempt for our freedom and lust for our property. Not to mention us all looking the other way while this goes on, as if it's happening to someone else.
With Liberty,
Dan Steward
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 18 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Steward only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Steward is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You forgot to include your own house where you live. Even after you payoff the mortgage you still have to pay the property taxes (which is like paying rent). Since you pay rent on the property that you are supposed to own outright, it is never yours, it is tetchinally own by your minicipal or county government.
Your test of ownership is about as accurate and believable as testing whether fairies exist by looking for flickering lights.
If you own a GUN, does that mean that you should be able to sell it to whomever you want, to use it however you want, and to dispose of it as you see fit?
Maybe you'll get the idea now. Although next you'll be telling us that the true test of our LIBERTY is whether we can do whatever we want to whomever we want to do it, whenever we feel in the mood to do it.
I guess you're just a little mixed up in your view of the world.
You are just here to pick at people without having anything of substance to back up what you say. Not only that, you continue to use the tired old leftist trick of calling others what you are.
As for the test of gun ownership & "faries". you must be congratulated in mastering the art of the non-sequiter. Your statement was hooey backed up with the usual chock-full-o-nuthin'. Gun ownership means that you may pass the gun on to your heirs, sell it outright, (you know, like in the good old days before onerous gun laws) or do with it as you wish.
Is force used in the equation, Carl? Is it instead voluntary action? To attempt to blur the line with rhetoric and babble is merely a display of dishonesty. Now you wouldn't ever dare be dishonest with us would you Mr. Conrad? hehehehe Oh no siree Bob.
Funny how you blame those who oppose the initiation of force in your response "do whatever we want to whoever we want...blah blah blah". No, Carl, that is what YOU support. The threat of the use of force for non-compliance with government diktat, is part and parcel of every move made by government. I support voluntary and peaceful activities and a non-initiation of force against anyone ever. You know that, you just lack the scruples and common sense to even act like you know what truth is.
I fear that you have run out of steam, Carl. You appear to have become a mere parody of what you claim to believe in. How sad and utterly pitiful for you. I wish you would go somewhere else to play your pathetic baby games. You're a senior citizen for crying out loud, it's way past time you started acting like an adult.
Of course I knew what "diktat" was supposed to mean, my reference was that I didn't know what point YOU thought YOU were trying to make with your ridiculous spelling. I guess that was just a stretch too much for you.
I made enough of a point to let other readers decipher which of us has been the more persuasive ~ you and your PeeWee Herman remarks, or me and my baby getting his face wiped clean. I think we know who wins that one, Danny boy.
Posted By: Steven A> Rosile
Date: 2008-11-16 15:07:28
Hello Master C, I go with Dan. When I first read your articles and comments I was certain that you must be in your 20's, basically brainwashed by media and academe, full of zeal and opinion but short on facts, history, experience and the ability to use logic and reason in your ravings, er, arguments. Grow up for Pete's sake, or, since that is probably not possible, at least stop your juvenile postings and wasting our time here on nolanchart.
(I wonder what the "A" stands for? I could offer some guesses, but I'm sure they would be too accurate even though incorrect.)
Your agreement or disagreement with anything I write has absolutely NO BEARING upon me whatsoever. I have written articles that FAR SURPASS the intellectual capability of many who might venture an opinion on this website while actually having no idea what they're commenting about. So, I neither hold that against you, nor look down condescendingly on you for your feeble contribution.
However, I'm glad that you feel that I am brainwashed by "media and academe" because that means that my views DIFFER from YOURS, and I would use that as a measure of the accuracy of my observations even more than their innate truth!
Even when it was shown to you just how the word "diktat" was actually spelled, you decided instead to deny reality and state instead that the spelling was "ridiculous".
Did you even try to look up the spelling if you didn't believe me? It cam estraight from Miriam's (sp?) Dictionary. Of course this is more deflection from you when you really don't have either the inclination nor the ability to refute this simple fact of the test of true ownership. No doubletalk from you as everyone can see through your ploys. No personal attacks against me to divert from the truth. If you have something, Carl Conrad, show it as all else is moot.
I'll put it forth again, and thank you to actually deal with the topic at hand instead of your usual ranting. If you can't logically refute it then you've lost the debate, as you always do.
Please also keep in mind that your responses should be decent and should also be devoid of the needless vulgarities you've used in place of actual dialogue on your part , in your previous venomous spews. Children are reading this site as well.
Refute the statement below if you dare, save the baloney, nobody wants to read it and everyone is wise to it:
The true test of actual ownership of property is that you, as owner, may trade, keep, sell, give away, leave to one's heirs, or otherwise dispose of it as said proper owner sees fit, with no exceptions nor any intereference involved, from any provate or governmental body, ever. Ownership is absolute.
If unwanted infringements exist upon such contract or rights of ownership which are repugnant to the original owner, then true ownership has been abrogated and/or infringed upon without the permission of owner.
Now's your chance to show us if you really know anything you are talking about. I think you will just regurgitate more of your previous nonsense and claim some sort of superiority & hollow victory for doing nothing more than acting infantile on a Libertarian site.
You can try to prove me wrong if you actually got anything though. I welcome a real debate if you got it in you.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2008-11-16 21:54:07
Hello again Master C. The "A" is for Arthur. Some of us are not afraid to use our real names. You claim to have written articles that far surpass the intellectual ability of many nolanchart contributors to comprehend and comment on? Your contributions here certainly do not demonstrate any such ability. Why don't you accept Dan's challenge and show us that you are capable of a reasoned, coherent discourse regarding property rights. Certainly no real property is owned by Fee Simple Absolute title in this country anymore. And, as time passes, less and less personal property truly remains in the domain of it's purported owner. I understand that a folk saying in the former Soviet Union was "everyone owns everthing so no one owns anything" and agree with it. Absolute ownership of property has many benefits to both the owner and to society. Surely you, as a former economics professor, have heard of some of them, such as maintenence and conservation, generosity and hospitality, best use, capital formation, job creation, etc. These are things that are important to development of character and personality in individuals and for developing businesses, jobs, trade and material wealth in society.
In the statist regime you seem to favor, the central planners will invariably screw up the business end of things as they are not focused on prices and profit (private property) since they are not at all concerned with making a profit. The goal, necessity actually, of profits in a competitive market, provides the incentive for quality and efficiancy in producing goods and services. This incentive just doesn't exist for central planners because there are not a number of competing entities each trying to make a "profit" in order to survive. Any one or more of these can fail with little ill-effect for the industry or society as a whole. However, when a central planner makes a mistake it affects the whole industry/society negatively and possibly disasterously so. Even without major miscalculations the total costs to society of providing goods and services in a centrally planned economy will be much greater than providing the same goods and services through a private enterprise, market-based economic system. This is why libertarians (and others) champion private property rights so much, they are the bedrock of a free and sucessful society.
I appreciate your rather demented allusions toward missing the significance of my comments, but I understand how difficult it may be to actually follow something as simple and straightforward as I put it. In one way, ownership is a matter of "possession" not of "dispensation". For you to insist that a condition of ownership is the ability to get rid of it in some fashion is like saying that the effectiveness of a hammer is how well it PULLS OUT nails!
Why would ANY definition or condition of "ownership" depend upon DISCONTINUING your possession of it? There are many, many things ~ actually MOST ~ that I OWN but I don't have the slightest notion that I want to get rid of them IN ANY FASHION. Why would a condition of me OWNING them then require that I be able to GET RID OF THEM without interference of any kind? I think you're putting the HORSE behind the CART as is often the case.
Secondly, the unfettered (which may be a little bit bigger word than you're used to, but perhaps you'll grasp its meaning from my explanation) ability to sell or dispose of a good SHOULD be restricted for many reasons ~ health, safety, morality, etc. You try to insist that NOTHING, NO ONE, NO HOW should be able to interfere with your disposing of something you OWN ~ if you REALLY, REALLY own it ~ and that's completely WRONG, RIDICULOUS, and ILLOGICAL. If you own something like a GUN (as I've said several times to use an EASY example for you) and you want to give it to a felon, a sociopath, someone who threatens other people with it or misuses it in some way, you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to do that even though you OWN it. I don't see how this is a difficult concept for you at all. I guess sometimes the sieve just doesn't hold water.
You're giving me a lot of mumbo-jumbo about having some absolute right to sell or get rid of something which neither proves OWNERSHIP nor disproves the SALE of a possession. Usually a title, a deed, a certificate of some kind, a bill of sale PROVES ownership, not the ability to SELL it.
If I buy a washing machine, the proof of my ownership of that washing machine isn't my ability to SELL IT or GIVE IT AWAY to anyone, anytime, anywhere I want to, it is the document that they give me when I purchase it that PROVES my ownership. In fact, if you want to sell a HOUSE or an AUTOMOBILE, before you can do so, the purchaser (if they're SMART, which may not include everyone who reads this, I realize) will check to determine if the person selling it ACTUALLY OWNS IT! That's what a title search is for, or a UCC (uniform commercial code) search. You may have even heard the old expression that "possession is 9/10ths of the law". Does that put you on the right track at all?
Your whole notion that ownership is dependent upon the unfettered (which means unrestricted or unregulated, etc) ability to SELL or DISPOSE of something is as ludicrous (perhaps I should stay with ridiculous as I said before so that it doesn't become confusing, but I'll let EITHER notion suffice in this instance) as saying that the test of whether something is REAL or not is whether you can SELL it.
So a DREAM is not "real" because ~ as YOU would say ~ it can't be sold (even though it COULD if it were sold as a story or a recollection, etc., but we won't complicate the example at this point). I, on the other hand ~ and ANYONE else of sound mind, I would think ~ would determine that a DREAM was not "real" not because I couldn't SELL IT but because I couldn't POSSESS IT. Possession, and PROOF of possession, is the criteria for OWNERSHIP, not the ability to sell or dispose of something.
Now, I realize that your ears must be ringing like I just stuck your head under a HUGE BELL and hit it with a HAMMER, but I guess that's the only way I could actually make sure that you GOT THE MESSAGE. If it's still unclear to you, I'll be glad to make other efforts to spoonfeed my response to you so that it is clearer, but we're really getting to the point where I don't think you can actually MISS the error you're making without actually looking foolish by admitting that you've missed it.
Of course, that's just MY evasive ~ and, I'm sure YOU feel "venomous spew" because it strikes with the same deadly accuracy as a rattlesnake ~ correction of your somewhat EMPTY and totally "refuted" concept of ownership. But, perhaps I've helped in some way. I sure hope so because the inability to see how far off the range you've strayed only makes some of us wonder where you've gone.
I appreciate your rather demented allusions toward missing the significance of my comments,
- strange how the "signifigance" of your comments appears to only be supported on this site by...you. No Keynsians nor their sorely misinformed appear to be stumbling over themselves rushing to your rescue. Imagine that?
but I understand how difficult it may be to actually follow something as simple and straightforward as I put it.
- I've always found it "difficult" to follow those that ask the individual to sacrifice for the group, Carl.
In one way, ownership is a matter of "possession" not of "dispensation". For you to insist that a condition of ownership is the ability to get rid of it in some fashion is like saying that the effectiveness of a hammer is how well it PULLS OUT nails!
- If your analogies make sense to you then give yourself a pat on the head & get yourself a cookie out of the jar, with my blessings for a job well done actually trying to debate an issue. To me they are not a fit substitute for life here in the real world.
Why would ANY definition or condition of "ownership" depend upon DISCONTINUING your possession of it?
- That's why also I put in the word "keep" in my definition. I refuse to accept responsibility for you ignoring or picking and choosing parts of my text then running off ranting about how it doesn't make sense to you. It made sense to someone else here. I'll stand on that. It depends upon lots of stuff, Mr. Conrad.
There are many, many things ~ actually MOST ~ that I OWN but I don't have the slightest notion that I want to get rid of them IN ANY FASHION.
- Again see "keep", also "leave to your heirs". I'd like to think that you are smart enough to not subscribe to that 19th century piece of bad comedy writing known as the "Communist Menefesto" that stupidly favors abolishing the rights of inheritance.
Why would a condition of me OWNING them then require that I be able to GET RID OF THEM without interference of any kind? I think you're putting the HORSE behind the CART as is often the case.
- Again you missed the word "keep" and are basing your entire arguement upon such. You're in my class now, Carl. Sit up straight, pay attention, and you just might be able to fill that "mind full of mush" with something you can use.
Secondly, the unfettered (which may be a little bit bigger word than you're used to, but perhaps you'll grasp its meaning from my explanation) ability to sell or dispose of a good SHOULD be restricted for many reasons ~ health,
- like the FDA going after vitamins
safety,
- don't tear those tags off the matresses or I'm calling the cops
morality,
- "morality"? You gotta be kidding me, right? Morality is subjective at best. Everyone has their own view of what morality is. The nice thing is that YOU don't get to decide what is moral and what is not.
etc. You try to insist that NOTHING, NO ONE, NO HOW should be able to interfere with your disposing of something you OWN ~ if you REALLY, REALLY own it ~ and that's completely WRONG, RIDICULOUS, and ILLOGICAL.
- makes sense to me. I fear you'd be lost in a world or no or severely limited government. No lost souls to push around with decrees, laws, and diktats. (yeah, I threw that one in again, and the spelling is perfect, dude)
You're giving me a lot of mumbo-jumbo about having some absolute right to sell or get rid of something which neither proves OWNERSHIP nor disproves the SALE of a possession. Usually a title, a deed, a certificate of some kind, a bill of sale PROVES ownership, not the ability to SELL it.
- In your view it does, in mine it simply doesn't. 'Nuff said.
Your whole notion that ownership is dependent upon the unfettered (which means unrestricted or unregulated, etc) ability to SELL or DISPOSE of something is as ludicrous (perhaps I should stay with ridiculous as I said before so that it doesn't become confusing, but I'll let EITHER notion suffice in this instance) as saying that the test of whether something is REAL or not is whether you can SELL it.
- Sez you, and on this site, it appears, only you.
Now, I realize that your ears must be ringing like I just stuck your head under a HUGE BELL and hit it with a HAMMER, but I guess that's the only way I could actually make sure that you GOT THE MESSAGE.
- Bang your hammer all you like, Carl. You will not change my Libertarian & Voluntaryist (sp?) views one iota. My code of ethics does not allow me to set aside what I as an individual, know is right.
If it's still unclear to you, I'll be glad to make other efforts to spoonfeed my response to you so that it is clearer, but we're really getting to the point where I don't think you can actually MISS the error you're making without actually looking foolish by admitting that you've missed it.
- like with the word "keep"? Naughty man, such hypocricy on your part.
Of course, that's just MY evasive ~ and, I'm sure YOU feel "venomous spew" because it strikes with the same deadly accuracy as a rattlesnake
Nope, "venomous spew" as in you substitute personal attacks for actual debate.
~ correction of your somewhat EMPTY and totally "refuted" concept of ownership. But, perhaps I've helped in some way.
- You helped by actually trying to debate (in between your current swarms of cheap shots) instead of basing your entire past diatribes on insults and vulgarities that were removed due to violations of the terms of service for this site.
I sure hope so because the inability to see how far off the range you've strayed only makes some of us wonder where you've gone.
- I'm still right here. Which "some of us" other than you, are wondering? I'm a man of vision but I just don't see them folks. You lost this round too. Feel free to get another cookie from the jar, for actually putting forth some effort (although a quite strained one) to actually deal with a topic, rather than just sling your usual mud at me.
It seems that your argument has now reached the precipice. It teeters on ONE WORD that you think still holds it together ~ "keep". And, even THAT WORD wasn't used in the context of "ownership" it was used in the context of where something RESIDES. Ha! Ha! Well, let me push you the REST of the way, Mr. Liberty, since you don't seem to realize how tenuous your point has become.
Here is the statement you made in the headline of your article: "If you truly own your own property then it should at the very least, pass the following simple test. Are you legally allowed to dispose of or use it, as you see fit?" I'm afraid there's no "KEEP" mentioned at all there. Your point STRICTLY rests upon the notion that SELLING something PROVES OWNERSHIP.
You do use the word "USE" in your statement, however this is laughable in its naiveté. If you OWN an automobile, it doesn't give you any RIGHT to drive it (use it) any way you wish. Your speed is regulated, when you can cross intersections, how old you must be, and whether you are inebriated or not. Blah, blah, blah. Another one down for Mr. Liberty.
Any COURT OF LAW IN THE LAND is going to determine OWNERSHIP based upon your ability to show TITLE, DEED, or BILL OF SALE. The test of OWNERSHIP in NO WAY involves your ability to SELL or DISPOSE of it; in fact, you would be PREVENTED from doing so if you couldn't SHOW OWNERSHIP of the thing you were trying to dispose of. Even your HEIRS would have to give it up if someone else could show TRUE OWNERSHIP.
Lastly, let me just knock this one out of the park by saying that NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH SOMETHING ~ as you say: The true test of actual ownership of property is that you, as owner, may trade, keep, sell, give away, leave to one's heirs, or otherwise dispose of it as said proper owner sees fit, with no exceptions nor any intereference involved, from any provate or governmental body, ever. Ownership is absolute."
In order to do ANY of these things, you must FIRST be able to PROVE OWNERSHIP. Otherwise, the REAL OWNER can take whatever it is you have AWAY FROM YOU ~ legally, and permanently. If you don't have a RECORD of ownership, and someone else DOES, you lose, buckeroo! TITLE, DEED, or BILL OF SALE always determine OWNERSHIP. And, I think that makes a GRAND SLAM for Master C! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Try again sometime when you want to debate whether marshmallows are candy or cookies, Mr. Liberty. I think that's the level of your ability to unravel the difficult issues of life. Ha! Ha!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
