Parking Tickets and the “Consent of the Governed”

[FTL_Ian]

Checkmate.   

[John Edward Mercier]

Ian is the guy with a boot against his neck and a firearm pointed at his temple, trying to 'enforce' his position.
He has no clue as to whether the land was 'stolen' or transferred to the parking authority without the use of force... and thus will need to make his case.

In Ian's case, the 'facts' are unknown. How did the City of Keene attain the land beneath the space? Would the meter apply to all user groups? Is it a tax or a user fee derived from direct benefit?

In Dave's non-registration case, his argument is pristine. If registration is a property tax used to offset the expense of a road... wouldn't all non-colonial common law users be required to pay such tax? If not is that tax fair and just under the NH Constitution?

[srqrebel]

Ian is the guy with a boot against his neck and a firearm pointed at his temple, trying to 'enforce' his position.
He has no clue as to whether the land was 'stolen' or transferred to the parking authority without the use of force... and thus will need to make his case.

In Ian's case, the 'facts' are unknown. How did the City of Keene attain the land beneath the space?...

This is a valid point. Has anyone actually reseached how the land came into the possession of this fictitious entity? What if it was voluntarily bequeathed to the city by a private landowner with valid rights to the use of the land?

It seems this issue is being framed incorrectly. It is not about the existence of an implied contract -- there obviously exists an implied contract when one chooses to park in a space not owned by oneself, that is equipped with a clearly visible parking meter with no posted exceptions.

The real question is, do the people who collect the fees actually own the use of the land, or did they obtain the use of the land through coercion? If the latter is true, then they are not in a position to enter into a valid contract permitting another to use the space, nor do they have the right to collect a fee for its use.

[FTL_Ian]

No one owns the "City of Keene", therefore no one owns "public" land.  It matters not if someone bequeathed their land to the "city".  Someone doing that simply turned their land over to the state of nature.  In this case, men with guns calling themselves "government" now have active possession over it, but not ownership.

[Caleb]

Ian is the guy with a boot against his neck and a firearm pointed at his temple, trying to 'enforce' his position.
He has no clue as to whether the land was 'stolen' or transferred to the parking authority without the use of force... and thus will need to make his case.

In Ian's case, the 'facts' are unknown. How did the City of Keene attain the land beneath the space?...

This is a valid point. Has anyone actually reseached how the land came into the possession of this fictitious entity? What if it was voluntarily bequeathed to the city by a private landowner with valid rights to the use of the land?

It seems this issue is being framed incorrectly. It is not about the existence of an implied contract -- there obviously exists an implied contract when one chooses to park in a space not owned by oneself, that is equipped with a clearly visible parking meter with no posted exceptions.

The real question is, do the people who collect the fees actually own the use of the land, or did they obtain the use of the land through coercion? If the latter is true, then they are not in a position to enter into a valid contract permitting another to use the space, nor do they have the right to collect a fee for its use.

This is where a valid philosophy on the nature of land ownership would be helpful.    It would eliminate these meaningless quibbles over whether the State had acquired land properly or not.

The weird situation here is that most of the people here inherently "get" on an intutive level that Ian is right. But someone presents some point, and it causes your mind to contradict your heart on some level, to second guess yourself. Your hunch will tend to be correct. If there is a dichotomy between what you "feel" and what you "think", check your premises. In this case, the faulty premise is tied to the notion of land ownership.

[SethCohn]

No one owns the "City of Keene", therefore no one owns "public" land.

It's managed, first of all, by whatever structure the residing citizens have put into place (ie selectman, council, mayor, town admin, etc...), so the question of 'ownership', in a legal sense, isn't the issue here - they do 'own' it for all intents and purposes, and secondly, the state of NH is NOT a "home rule" state, meaning that in fact, the State 'owns' all of the land within its' borders, which is why they can grant (or deny) authority to local officials.  Other states which have 'home rule' are another matter, but NH isn't one of them.

It matters not if someone bequeathed their land to the "city".  Someone doing that simply turned their land over to the state of nature.  In this case, men with guns calling themselves "government" now have active possession over it, but not ownership.

Are you really making the argument that someone bequeathing private property to the 'city' (or other legal group/entity) in fact disowned their property, making it a commons you have a right to use?  Let's see how you wiggle your way out of that, Ian... because the consequences of that train of logic are that someone doesn't have the right to do with their own property as they wish, unless it meets with "Ian approved" requirements as to what they do with it.  If 'little old lady' gives her fortune, including her real estate, to the local library, which is owned by the same 'city', what happens to it, in your view?

[FTL_Ian]

Are you really making the argument that someone bequeathing private property to the 'city' (or other legal group/entity) in fact disowned their property, making it a commons you have a right to use?  Let's see how you wiggle your way out of that, Ian...

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting I need to wiggle out of.  Srqrebel said this:

What if it was voluntarily bequeathed to the city by a private landowner with valid rights to the use of the land?

If it was bequeathed to the "city" then that is akin to it being surrendered to the state of nature, and becomes unclaimed property.  As individuals, the people calling themselves government that occupy these properties are doing business by the threat of violence.  As such, their attempts to homestead or claim the properties should in no way be seen as valid.  If they would choose to stop using coercion to make a living, they could easily homestead those unclaimed lands for themselves.

because the consequences of that train of logic are that someone doesn't have the right to do with their own property as they wish, unless it meets with "Ian approved" requirements as to what they do with it.

What are you talking about?  The scenario involves someone giving up ownership of their property to the state of nature.  Have you ever thrown something out?   

If 'little old lady' gives her fortune, including her real estate, to the local library, which is owned by the same 'city', what happens to it, in your view?

It comes under the control of bureaucrats.  As soon as they stop doing business by coercion, they would have a legitimate claim on that bequeathed fortune.

[SethCohn]

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting I need to wiggle out of.

If 'little old lady' gives her fortune, including her real estate, to the local library, which is owned by the same 'city', what happens to it, in your view?

It comes under the control of bureaucrats.  As soon as they stop doing business by coercion, they would have a legitimate claim on that bequeathed fortune.

But hypothetical 'little old lady' legitimately _gave_ her land to the "city", regardless of _your_ concern about 'coercion', SHE did with her property as she wished - she gave it to the library.  Are you saying that she cannot do that?  What is the status of said property in your world view?  Is it the city's do with as they wish, as 'heir'?  For the record to avoid splitting hairs (heirs), said 'old lady' was not coerced into her bequest, she enjoyed the library, it's services and staff and mission, and wanted to reward it with her property of her own free will.

[FTL_Ian]

But hypothetical 'little old lady' legitimately _gave_ her land to the "city", regardless of _your_ concern about 'coercion', SHE did with her property as she wished - she gave it to the library.  Are you saying that she cannot do that? 

No.  What would make you think I said she couldn't do that?

All I'm saying is, she cannot give her property to a building.  She could give it to an individual or several individuals.  Presumably, as soon as they start operating on a voluntary basis, the individuals representing "the library" would come under legitimate control of that particular property.

What is the status of said property in your world view?  Is it the city's do with as they wish, as 'heir'?

The city cannot wish to do anything, because it does not exist.

For the record to avoid splitting hairs (heirs), said 'old lady' was not coerced into her bequest, she enjoyed the library, it's services and staff and mission, and wanted to reward it with her property of her own free will.

Yep!  Good for her.   

[srqrebel]

A business may act as a separate entity, but in reality it is a mechanism for natural entities with legitimate ownership to delegate the privileges associated with their ownership, for their own valid purposes. A business derives genuine legitimacy from the consent of its owner(s).

Does the same apply to the fictitious entity called the city of Keene? Who owns this particular fictitious entity? Are there actual, specific, rightful owners? If the answer is "no", then it indeed follows that anything bequeathed to this fictitious entity with no legitimate owner leaves the realm of ownership, and is simply disowned property. It would be no different from a rightful owner bequeathing his property to Santa Claus, and it being thereafter controlled by individuals claiming to be Santa's agents.

[Caleb]

Except what do you do when she bequeathes her property to Santa Claus, you infringe on it, and he pulls you over and his reindeer stomp on your head? 

[SethCohn]

But hypothetical 'little old lady' legitimately _gave_ her land to the "city", regardless of _your_ concern about 'coercion', SHE did with her property as she wished - she gave it to the library.  Are you saying that she cannot do that? 

No.  What would make you think I said she couldn't do that?

All I'm saying is, she cannot give her property to a building.  She could give it to an individual or several individuals.  Presumably, as soon as they start operating on a voluntary basis, the individuals representing "the library" would come under legitimate control of that particular property.

Ian, Ian, Ian: she is giving it to a organization known legally as the "City Library" (or whatever).
Again, she isn't giving to a 'building', nor to an individual, but to a legal entity.  Are you seriously claiming that she cannot do this?

What is the status of said property in your world view?  Is it the city's do with as they wish, as 'heir'?

The city cannot wish to do anything, because it does not exist.

Sure it does, in a legal sense.  You might not recognize the legitimacy of it, but SHE did... thus her bequest, or (again) are you saying that your views can trump hers?  Again, what is the legal status of the property, in your view?  Are you really going to claim that she didn't give it away to a group/entity and instead it is now public domain?

[srqrebel]

Except what do you do when she bequeathes her property to Santa Claus, you infringe on it, and he pulls you over and his reindeer stomp on your head? 

...check myself into a rehab center

[FTL_Ian]

Ian, Ian, Ian: she is giving it to a organization known legally as the "City Library" (or whatever).
Again, she isn't giving to a 'building', nor to an individual, but to a legal entity.  Are you seriously claiming that she cannot do this?

I tire of clarifying this, so this'll be the last time.  You either understand this, or you don't:

There is no such thing as legal entities.  There are individuals, and there is property.  The old lady in question, gave up her property.

Sure it does, in a legal sense.

That sentence is nonsense.  Legal land is a fantasy.

You might not recognize the legitimacy of it, but SHE did... thus her bequest, or (again) are you saying that your views can trump hers?

My views here are not a factor.  Just because the woman suffers from the delusion that fictitious entities exist, does not change the situation that she bequeathed her property to the state of nature.

Again, what is the legal status of the property, in your view?

I don't claim to know anything about the details of this legal-land fantasy you appear to be suffering under.

Are you really going to claim that she didn't give it away to a group/entity and instead it is now public domain?

I don't know what "public domain" means, but it seems pretty clear to me that if she did not give it to individuals, then she surrendered it as unclaimed property.

[SethCohn]

Except what do you do when she bequeathes her property to Santa Claus, you infringe on it, and he pulls you over and his reindeer stomp on your head? 

...check myself into a rehab center

He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!

Santa Claus, now he's in charge of Homeland Security!