A few questions for abolitionists

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK. Now let me present a hypothetical.

Mr. X breaks into Mr. Y's house and takes a chair. Mr. Y claims it's his chair.

A dispute ensues.

Mr X and Mr Y come to me, an impartial third party, to settle their dispute.

Should I consider anything other than the fact that Mr. Y has possession of the chair?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Mr. X had possession of the chair, after taking it?

That aside, you are only given the power to resolve this dispute of theirs by their agreement.

My position is that ownership is determined by agreement or force, or a combination of the two.

If these to gentlemen agree to have you resolve the dispute, rather than seek force, knowing that you may very well take the legitimacy of the prior ownership into consideration, that is entirely up to them to agree too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I thought legitimacy doesn't matter.

Does it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There are distinct differences in definition, and the concepts as commonly accepted by most, but when you peel back all those artifical constructs you see at it's most basic level that ownership and possession run parallel, in the abscence of a higher authority to enforce a differentiation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about such an absence?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, I thought legitimacy doesn't matter.

Does it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would work if they owned the land and you were renting it from them.

They don't and you aren't, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh....but they do own the land, they just employ different terminology to give the appearance that you do.

Please understand, I'm not trying to debunk AC, and I certainly am not some statist......but bear with me a second here and think outside the box.

For all intents and purposes, the state "owns the land", but they use terminology different from such in order to give the soothing appearance that you own it, when in fact, they are allowing you partial ownership in exchange for agreeing to certain restrictions and paying certain fees.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have the strong and distinct suspicion that this is emphatically NOT how the Founding Fathers of the USA viewed private ownership of land in the USA? Methinks that your interpretation (and probably the interpretation of many politicians and bureaucrats today) is wrongheaded, and distinctly un-American. I don't think the authors of the U.S. Constitution thought that government owned all the land in the USA and merely allowed its citizens partial ownership. One of the differences is that in America we are intended to be citizens not subjects.

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are wrong, John. I think that's exactly how the Founding Fathers viewed it (not that I agree with them). There was private land ownership in the colonies before the US was founded, and claims of private ownership were still subservient to the charter for the colony -- in other words it was English territory. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the land to be owned completely by private individuals, but to be the territory of the USA. If it was owned privately, then any association as part of the USA is a voluntary agreement by each individual land owner. Are you really suggesting that this is how the Founding Fathers viewed private ownership? Hell no. Every land owner was subject to the government under their system -- nothing voluntary about it. So no land owner truly owned their territory outright, and they never saw it any other way. Any other interpretation is either wishful thinking, misunderstanding, or hero worship / propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they thought the private idividuals owned it although it still fell under territorial jurisdiction. Redbean is saying that means the gov't owned part of it. I disagree and think the Founders didn't see that as being partial ownership. Semantic difference? Maybe, but I think it is also a difference in philosophical outlook.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your land falls under somebody else's jurisdiction, how do you completely own it outright?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jurisdiction does not necessarily equal ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't move the goal posts! Nobody said the ownership was equal. So what are you trying to pull with that reply other than a total dodge? The point is that you can't own a parcel of land outright if somebody else has jurisdiction over it (i.e., they can come and go on your land as they deem necessary and impose the rules over your land, and if need be remove the land from you for failure to comply with their rules).

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand me, I was not saying both parties had equal ownership. I was saying that jurisdiction does not necessarily = ownership.

I think the problem is that you and Redbean are defining ownership differently than I am. You are defining it only as being a state of absolute and total control. I don't subscribe to that definition nor believe it is the best definition.

A condominimum owner owns his condo outright (if it is paid for) yet he still must abide by the rules of the Homeowners Association. You own your body outright yet you still cannot escape the rules of gravity while on Earth. And real estate often changes hands carrying certain deeded restrictions even though the ownership is not shared with any other parties.

I think the reason for our difference of viewpoint is that we have different definitions. I don't see total and absolute control, in any and every aspect imaginable, as being a requisite condition for ownership. I don't believe that is you for some reason have less than 100% control in any and every aspect imaginable, you don't really own something. Do you own your dog? Do you have absolute control over your dog? No you do not, but you do own your dog and nobody else does.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is that you and Redbean are defining ownership differently than I am. You are defining it only as being a state of absolute and total control. I don't subscribe to that definition nor believe it is the best definition.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not defining ownership in that manner.

I define ownership as that which a person can defend, either through force or agreement.

It can be through total and absolute control, or it can be through a complicated agreement in which two adversarial parties maintain a partial ownership.

Put simply, folks can agree to whatever type of ownership agreement they imagine.

[ QUOTE ]

A condominimum owner owns his condo outright (if it is paid for) yet he still must abide by the rules of the Homeowners Association.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't own in outright, then. You think you do, and everyone tells you that you do, but you really don't. The HA has some stake, however small, in the ownership of the property....through agreement in this case.


[ QUOTE ]
And real estate often changes hands carrying certain deeded restrictions even though the ownership is not shared with any other parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said from the outset, the terminology used gives the impression you have outright ownership, but the reality is that you don't.

[ QUOTE ]

I think the reason for our difference of viewpoint is that we have different definitions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see total and absolute control, in any and every aspect imaginable, as being a requisite condition for ownership.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't, it is but one method of ownership.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that is you for some reason have less than 100% control in any and every aspect imaginable, you don't really own something.


[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that the state can easily assume 100% ownership via their current small stake in your property......would you say that you outright own your property.....or would it be more apt to define it as them allowing you to maintain your majority ownership by an implicit agreement, through the implied use of force on their part.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you own your dog? Do you have absolute control over your dog? No you do not, but you do own your dog and nobody else does.

[/ QUOTE ]

You only own what you can defend, either through agreement or force.

You cannot defend your property from the state, if they chose to exercise their claim to ownership of your property. They own your property, we just call it something else so it doesn't seem so bad. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Founding Fathers never envisioned the land to be owned completely by private individuals, but to be the territory of the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Please reread the Declaration of Independence and try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DoI was a fine propaganda tool to rally support against English tyranny. In the end, it replaced this tyranny with a tyranny imposed by the wealthy elite of the United States. If you want to start using the DoI as your basis, then you'll have a tough time explaining how slavery continued to exist in America, even by those who fervently supported the DoI. In no way shape of form was the DoI, the Constitution, or the FF's vision to have a territory where individual property owners owned their land outright. In fact, the wealthy elite land owners who comprised the FFs would much prefer a system with control of much more than their own individual plots of land through laws and regulation imposed by a government made up of men like themselves. There was a lot of noble words being said at the time, but when it comes to property and true ownership, the govt, not the individual, was the final say, from the very beginning. Hence, who was the real owner? Try to tell the State of Virginia in 1780 that you'll no longer be paying taxes because your own plot of land has seceded from the state, and you will not permit outside roads or militia forces to trespass your land. You will quickly be removed from your plot of land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you totally missed what I was disagreeing with.