LF: What We Own...

It’s interesting that the only things we can say we truly own we have no legal title to.

The clothes I am wearing, for instance. They are fully, meaningfully mine in that I have absolute control over them; the government (i.e., organized other people, who’ve empowered themselves to do violence to whomever the please, “legally”) doesn’t decree the style I am allowed to wear. No “shorts are unsaaaaaaaaaafe, you might scrape a knee.”

Or the size or the price.

There are cheap clothes and expensive clothes and practical clothes and hugely impractical clothes.

I can wear my clothes as long as I like – no matter what anyone else thinks of them – and even if they have holes in them.

No inspections!

But the really defining thing as regards my ownership of my clothes is that I am not compelled to pay those organized other people – the “government” – for the conditional privilege of being permitted to continue wearing them.

These organized other people who style themselves “the government” do not yet require me to send them a rental payment each year in order to be allowed to continue wearing the clothes on my back; if they did require such a payment – and had the legal ability to enforce it – then they would be the actual owners of my clothes, irrespective of any piece of paper I might produce – such as a bill of sale/receipt or a title indicating they are allegedly “my” clothes.

If they could require – and enforce – such payment I would merely be someone whom they’ve allowed to wear their clothes … and only for as long as I continue to pay them the required rent.

Interestingly, the law recognizes meaningful title to our clothes without our having actual title to them, or even (necessarily) a bill of sale. It is sufficient that we posses them – absent some claim that we stole them.

It is illegal – a crime – for the government (those organized other people or just individual people, not organized) to take your clothes or to extort money from you, to restrain them from taking them today… but not necessarily tomorrow.

And if they do take them, at any time, the law considers them thieves – which of course, they are.

We are even free to destroy our clothes, if we wish – without fear of prosecution by the law. Other people – organized or not – may not like this, but there is nothing (legally) they can do to stop us, nor can they punish us for doing so.

Contrast the above – the absolute title in allodium (in actuality, if not literally) we enjoy with regard to our clothes and our other minor possessions – with the functionally meaningless “ownership” we have of things like vehicles, our homes and land, even our own bodies.

Meaningless – titles of ownership notwithstanding – because we are not permitted to do as we wish with these things, including even our own bodies. Other people – “the government” – lay claim to them to one degree or another and express their claims via laws prescribing and proscribing what we may (and may not) do with these things we supposedly “own.”

These other people control the things which we delude ourselves into believing are our own things, because we have a piece of paper describing us as the owner.

The very same entity (and people) – “the government” – which confects the fiction of our “ownership”- also confects the fiction of people compelled to deal with it (and them) as its “customers.”

But owners – if the word has any meaning – control their property. Exclusively.

Just as a customer has an absolute right to say no.

An owner – by definition – doesn’t need to obtain permission from others to use his property in whatever manner he sees fit; if he does need to obtain it, then he is at best a steward of the property in question – an employee (at will) of the true owners, who may chasten, punish and (so to speak) fire him at their whim.

What sort of ownership is it when (speaking of a home or land) the alleged “owner” cannot even put up a fence or add a bathroom without prior permission from other people (i.e., this agglutination which styles itself “government”) and if he does so without their permission, opens himself up to ultimately murderous violence by armed other people, who will literally drag him off “his” property and seize it for themselves if he continues to insist on doing as he likes with it?

What does it mean to say that “slavery is illegal” when it is legal to plunder men, to take by force the product of their labor? To decree what a person may do with (or put into) “his” own body?

The legal prohibition of “slavery” is as meaningless as the legal fiction of “ownership” of things we have title to but which others control and which those others can compel us to pay them rent for the conditional privilege of temporary possession – that possession contingent upon our continuing to pay for the privilege.

It is actually worse than meaningless – because the fiction of ownership dulls us to the reality of our indenture in perpetuity; to the hard fact that we literally own nothing except for the clothes on our backs and whatever small things we can carry that other people haven’t yet decided they own.

Deckard, it is true: you do not own the land. You hold the land in fief. Occupation is granted to you, in perpetuity if the title is fief-simple (fee simple absolute). But such tenancy in land is always subject to the authority of the sovereign, who is the ultimate owner of the land. The sovereign may take the land through eminent domain (Yes, the Constitution directs that the government must pay "fair value"...as determined by the government), and may take the land if you do not pay the taxes that accrue upon it.

Holding land in fief from the sovereign has been a staple of Anglo-Saxon Common Law since 1066. There's nothing new about it. Obviously it aggravates you. I'd find something else to be aggravated about, if I were you, because this is never going to change.

Perpetually disgruntled libertarian whiner doesn't like needing a driver's license or a vehicle license or vehicle safety inspections or vehicle emmission control standards...

Maybe Eric should drive his dune buggy around the Gobi desert if that's what he wants...

But in more populated jurisdictions, he needs to follow the same rules of the road as everybody else...

I won't live in states with those bullshit "safety inspection" scam stickers on the car windows.

Or the ones whose car dealers weld an ugly metal dealer ad to the back of the trunk. Who's dumb enough to allow that being done to their vehicle?

Actually, the Citizen is the Sovereign under the founding documents. Governments are instituted BY the governed, and serve at the pleasure of the same. The problem comes with people being comfortable giving Monarchical power to elected officials. On its face, that should be Unconstitutional.

THIS IS A TAG LINE...Exercising rights is only radical to two people, Tyrants and Slaves. Which are YOU? Our ignorance has driven us into slavery and we do not recognize it.

Would you own the land if you held allodial title rather than some certificate of title to that land?

I’m not being argumentative here. In the USA, none of those distinctions matter. Federal and State governments have constitutional eminent domain power that simply doesn’t fit into either the traditional Anglo-Saxon Common Law or the Roman Civil Law traditions. It is sui Genesis to the USA. Your land is taxable, and the government can take it through eminent domain, and there is no legal structure to avoid it. This seems to be one of those psycho-ideological “hard points” for some folks, perhaps because the final implication of it is that there is no ultimate refuge within the United States from the laws of the United States, and because the universality of property taxes make it impossible to tie up land in perpetuity without producing some sort of income to pay the taxes. This, in turn, comes exposure to the money economy in some sense, which then exposes one to the full reach of the laws. I think men want to believe that they can ultimately retreat and secede from society, but land taxation makes that impossible. Everybody always has to have enough of a toe in the economy to pay the rent, or the land tax (which is a sort of rent). Having been through this discussion before, I know that what cones next is that some men who do not want what I have said to be so will start bellowing at me that it ISN’T so, and will start impugning my character dor telling them the way things are, as though I somehow will it to be so by merely describing what IS, and as though I approve of the way things are by merely acknowledging reality. I consider such men to reason like children. I am not describing the way things ought to be, or the way that I would have them be. I am describing what is so. It would be wonderful if, somehow, the little kid who stuck the knife into the electric outlet DIDN’T get fried. I wish he wouldn’t. But he will. Some things are so. Eminent domain is one of those things. There is no land title in America that is superior to the government’s right to tax, right to seize, and (if certain formalities are met), right to enter. Those powers of government in the US are Supreme, and there is no superior countervailing law. Never has been. Probably won’t ever be. In any case, there’s no serious suggestion on the table anywhere for us to amend this system, so we’re dealing with a fundamental structural element of our society.

So I'd have to search for an attorney who specializes in allodium title of ownership of real property.

For what purpose? To escape from eminent domain or paying property taxes. In American no lawyer can get you out of those, for their is no legal barrier to them. Beyond those ultimate purposes, which are what interest me, what other aspect of this is of interest?

No, but to truly own your real property and to be able to tranfer it to other heirs without having to deal with tax fees. This is not right but is purely communism. Just saying.

It’s not Communism. It’s the land law of the entire English-speaking world, and has been since a couple of hundred years before there WAS an English language. Under the Common Law, all land is held in fief from the sovereign. To find the concept of allodium title, land NOT held in fief from the sovereign, you’d have to go to France or Italy, but such title only existed there because, unlike England (which was all conquered by one single French duke, who then became King of England), France was cobbled together by the marriage of several different royal houses each holding sovereign title to part of the land), then giving personally fealty to an overlord. England’s land was all in the hands of one monarch and parceled out as rewards for service, in feudal tenure. Some of France’s land was also - the whole structure came to England from France. But in France, no king conquered it to unite it. It was unified through some conquest, but more through alliance and marriage and custom. That left most of the land held in fief, as in England (or here), but some of the land held by former sovereigns who were vassals of the overlord King, but who did not acquire their land from that king. All of this became theoretical with the French Revolution, but in general land title in France is more tenacious than in Common Law countries, and powers such as our eminent domain operate differently in practice, and are more difficult for the government to use.