Ian Questions City of Keene on Taxes

[John Edward Mercier]

So in your scenario there would be no rented/leased property?
These are the people that would be 'ruled over' much the same as they are today.

[McDuck]

So in your scenario there would be no rented/leased property?
These are the people that would be 'ruled over' much the same as they are today.

No, in my scenario there could and probably would still be rented and leased property. 

Unlike our current system, If a person was averse to being "ruled over", they could simply be fiscally responsible long enough to save up the required funds to purchase property outright and pay to convert the title (if it was fee simple) to allodial status.  They could then bask in the satisfaction of knowing that they have effectively 'liberated' themselves from tyranny, and never have to worry about leaving their property to being ruled again.

Keep in mind though that there is a strong possibility that not all people would choose to do this.  Some would be more than happy living under the 'tyranny' of only being allowed to have one pet, making sure their grass was mowed by every Sunday, making sure their rent is paid on time, or owning a plot of land in fee simple title status because they prefer the 'security blanket' of the state.

Realistically some people just don't (and will never) care about trying to achieve maximum personal liberty.  In my view this is fine, so long as those people know they have the ability to change that, if they wish.   

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Seems like Bill's assumption was that if all property was owned privately and there was no "common ownership" than said property would be too expensive for some. All evidence is that in a free market prices go way down, and on top of that there wouldn't be the vast disparity of rich and poor because the government wouldn't be fiddling with the economy in all it's ways. So there would be plenty of cheap property for those not as well off as others.
Question for Bill here, in your perfect mutualist world, how would keeping some property to be in "common ownership" be done without there being a state to use force in keeping said property commonly owned?

[BillKauffman]

Seems like Bill's assumption was that if all property was owned privately and there was no "common ownership" than said property would be too expensive for some.

No my question was simply how is this any different - described as "neo-fuedalism" - for those that don't own? Instead of a government to contend with they have a landowner who sets rules and uses force over a given territory. That's all.

Yes granted, there will be many more landowners to choose from than governments to choose from but the fact is that you still don't have a choice NOT to be ruled.

in your perfect mutualist world, how would keeping some property to be in "common ownership" be done without there being a state to use force in keeping said property commonly owned?

In mutualism there could be no absentee property ownership - so ownership would be based on occupancy and use.

[Pat McCotter]

In mutualism there could be no absentee property ownership - so ownership would be based on occupancy and use.

Yep, no land left open for recreation - hunting, camping, snowmobiling, etc - no occupancy and use by the owner. I say this because if a landowner leaves the land for recreation, under common ownership anybody can come in, level the trees and start using it for farmland - occupancy and use.

[BillKauffman]

In mutualism there could be no absentee property ownership - so ownership would be based on occupancy and use.

Yep, no land left open for recreation - hunting, camping, snowmobiling, etc - no occupancy and use by the owner. I say this because if a landowner leaves the land for recreation, under common ownership anybody can come in, level the trees and start using it for farmland - occupancy and use.

Under an occupancy and use scenario there would be a heck of a lot of land that is privately held today as an absentee landowner that would then be "free" for anyone to recreate on.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

No my question was simply how is this any different - described as "neo-fuedalism" - for those that don't own? Instead of a government to contend with they have a landowner who sets rules and uses force over a given territory. That's all.

Yes granted, there will be many more landowners to choose from than governments to choose from but the fact is that you still don't have a choice NOT to be ruled.

Most places you go anywhere are privately owned in reality, I don't feel as if I'm ruled where ever I go. If I go into a mall, I have to behave according to their rules but they don't want to make those ridiculous for most because then no one would go there, defeating the purpose of the mall and they make no money, because no stores would want to lease space there. Just an example.

In mutualism there could be no absentee property ownership - so ownership would be based on occupancy and use.

How would this "no absentee property ownership" be enforced without a state aparatus of some kind? If I own some land and live somewhere else most of the year, you're telling me that somehow it would be okay in mutualism that someone just come along and take over my land? I have my security force that checks on the property every day boot this party's ass off of there.
Seems like there needs to be a state to keep my security force from protecting MY land from your mutualist squator or to validate said squator's "right" to start building their house or cut my trees.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

From Wikipedia, though some parts of the entry on Allodial Title are disputed. These facts are acknowledged:

In the United States, "To say that land is owned 'allodially' is a fiction. For land is subject to expropriation by way of eminent domain. Before 1774, all land in the American colonies could also be traced to royal grants, usually one grant creating each colony. The original grantee then sold or granted parcels of land within their grant to private citizens and other legal entities. However, when the colonies won the Revolutionary War, they did not want to retain a feudal system of land ownership. The Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended formal hostilities and recognized American independence, also had the effect of ending any residual rights held by the original grantees or the Crown. Essentially, this merely recognized that no person holding land in the new United States owed any allegiance or duty to the Crown or any English noble. There is no specific reference to allodial title in the text of the treaty. Some states created a form of allodial title while others retained the tenurial system with the state as the new ultimate landholder.

... in reality, previous grants prior to those territories becoming U.S. possessions were recognized. In fact, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the United States Supreme Court ruled a New Hampshire law that attempted to revoke the land grant to Dartmouth College from King George III was unconstitutional.

Many state constitutions (Arkansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York) refer to allodial title, but only to clearly distinguish it from feudal title, which appears to be illegal throughout the United States. The conditions under which the government can compel the sale of privately owned real property for public benefit are established by eminent domain laws of either the federal or state governments, respectively. ( sarcasm mode == on: And we can all attest to how "fair" the goons are in applying eminent domain laws! sarcasm mode == off) The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires just compensation for eminent domain compelled sale. ( ) The right to tax real estate is preserved in the Constitution though it is a right reserved for the states. (Please note that says it is a right of the states, not municipalities.

In summary:

1. New Hampshire laws against allodial title (titles granted by the "Lord" - King/State/Soveriegn) that grant complete and unencumbered ownership of the land have been declared unconstitutional.

2. The original receivers of such land grants in turn further divided and granted parcels to others which were also covered under the original land grant and therefore also allodial titles.

3. States have willfully and knowingly destroyed allodial title by making "fee simple" title the norm. Thus taking the property out of the realm of the original land grant and placing it under the control of the State. (And taxing the hell out of it!)

4. IF one were to take the time and make the effort to trace their personally owned parcel back to the original land grant (in the original 13 colonies, that'd be the land grant from King George III) and then "bring it forward" so that your personal ownership was covered as being part of the historical "heirs and/or assigns" (if you didn't inherit, you can still be an "assign")... Then, one could (after doing all the research, taking the time, getting the historical sequence of ownership complete back to the original land grant), refile their property with the necessary proof of "allodial title". If the town/city/municipality were to balk, then precedence has already been set in NH by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Dartmouth College v. Woodward.

5. Since this will/would take a LOT of time and effort, the vast majority would never dream of wasting their time to do so. Then again, the "vast majority" don't believe they are slaves to the system anyway.

"It is time for the People to stop fearing the Government and time for the Government to start fearing the People"

[John Edward Mercier]

No. The purchaser changed it to fee simple. Its based on type of deed.
Most simply don't know the difference between various types.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

But I think someone who desires could do the research and take the time and re-register as an allodial title. My point wasn't to address what the current state was, but what it could be. According to precedence and with the research to back up the claim, one could re-register as an allodial title. I've met people who've done this, but I personally have no real expertise in it... only what I've been told and read. I haven't gone through the time, effort, or process myself.

take care...

[John Edward Mercier]

Maybe, but I think the State of NH has never issued allodial title...

You have to remember that the lands granted to old families under allodial title of the Crowns (French/British/Spanish) could only be removed from you by the Crowns themselve. No other party could render claim.
Sort of 'what the King gives, the King can take away'... I would suppose the State would deem itself to have the same power as the King.

[Russell Kanning]

good 2 know the guy who gets paid big bucks by the city of keene knows who the head of the mafia is .... the feds
they
fought a war ... case closed

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

Maybe, but I think the State of NH has never issued allodial title...

All true. That's why I cited the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward where the SCOTUS held that New Hampshire could not use eminent domain to take away land that had allodial title, even if it was granted prior to the formation of the U.S. by George III. With that ruling, there is precedence for anyone wishing to take the time and make the effort to trace their particular parcel of land back to the original land grant, bring forward their claim as an "heir or assign" (usually the latter), and (re-)register their property with "land grant title" (IE: Allodial title, meaning "granted by the lord or sovereign") status. You can argue or disagree. That's fine. The case history creating precedence is there. I've heard that it has been used successfully on other occasions since, but like I said I haven't done any of this myself. I've also heard that the Dartmouth College SCOTUS ruling has been used by someone who had taken the time and effort to perfect their property with allodial title in another State... and subsequently successfully stopped paying property taxes to their local municipality.

I'm sure that everyone that is in any position of power as the "authorities on this matter" are obviously giving advice in the best interests of anyone considering even looking into this. If there is no such thing in the State of NH and NH still refuses to recognize such title, then Dartmouth College must certainly be shaking while waiting for the impending confiscation of their properties... despite the SCOTUS decision. Maybe it would be recognized, maybe not. Regardless, there is a SCOTUS precedent setting decision on record. Naturally, no piece of paper, regardless of what it says, can protect you, your family and your property from "Government Goons with Guns" (GGG) (tm).... 

[McDuck]

^Totally agree.  That being said, the NH constitution allodial title amendment is going to become my pet project after I make the move.   

[John Edward Mercier]

What I said is the State of NH has never used allodial title...

The Counties under power of the State issue different deeds... but not allodial.
Once something has been changed from allodial to another format. The wording becomes quite different.
The original 'title' would say something about being 'granted from the Crown of XXXX'. The current deed usually stipulates 'in the County of XXXX, State of NH'.
The current deed holder is 'granted' the land under the State, while Dartmouth was granted the land under the 'Crown'. Once it moves to simple fee it would change the nature of the deed.

The reason for the Marple constitutional amendment was to establish true allodial title as an option for deed under the State. It lacks full understanding of allodial in some sense. Grants from the King, where still considered part of the Kingdom... subject to all Crown seizure, decree, and tribute.

The nature of force is very unique in the sense that many Native Americans are seeking the return of their common lands taken by force and 'granted' by the Crowns to others.