Secession ? One Lot at a time? (Freedom Zones)

[Lloyd Danforth]

Oh Shit!  Caleb's channeling Frank.....er...Bill Grennon!

[Caleb]

Not quite.  I haven't mentioned Economic rent yet. 

[cyberdoo78]

Caleb, I think I understand where you are coming from on your issue of land rights. The more and more I think about it, all the land in the united states wasn't owned by anyone, and if anyone did own it, that land belonged to the people who were already here, the American Indians. However, they did not work all the land, they worked only a small fraction of it. This land they worked was theirs for all purposes because they took the raw nature and created fruits from it.

Now most of the land in the US is 'owned' by someone, if by title and deed, and if believed, illegally so. The opinion that I am forming as I read more about the issue of land rights as it applies to anarchy leads me to believe, that quite a bit of the land in the US is not 'owned' by anyone because they have not invested any labor into it. If you can just plant a flag and say 'this is mine' and then do nothing with it till it can make you some money, is that just? I don't think so. Use it or lose it, seems to be a fair use thought.

While I am not abdicating 'stealing' someone's property, but if they don't want to use it except to just let it sit there while inflation moves the 'value' of the land up, or the market drives the price of existing land around it up, then why shouldn't someone who wants to use it, will use it, and can eventually pay for it if needed, be denied because someone wants the instant gratification of making some money?

I'm leary of community owned property because if everyone has equal right to it, then those who wish to use it for one purpose can do so if they are the majority, while the right to use it by the minority is denied. If the land was privately owned then it would seem to me that one could decide what to do with it as he pleases. If he wants to use it for something that would offend the rest of the community, then the rest of the community could decide not to do any business with that person.

We see what government, and even housing associations have done to private housing, denying the right to use the land as they see fit is for me a tenet of liberty, one that I will not easily give up, unless it is in my best interest. Its horrible that I can't build a earthship because some person who is totally uneducated about earthships, won't let me. The processes are over 30 years old, the buildings are still standing and safe, and ever engineer that looks at it, will tell you its sound.

I agree with your idea of 'absolute ownership of land'. I think that you own the land for as long as you continue to use the land. Once you stop using the land, then either sell it to someone who will use it, at a cost of labor basis, not some market value price that is hyper inflated because of inflation, or because the supply and demand of that property dictates a higher price. If everyone sold their property for their cost, plus labor, more people would own instead of being taken advantage of by landlords and their rents. For someone to sell a property that they paid $100,000 for and without any major modification to the property and without any real amount of labor, in three years time be able to sell that property for $125,000 is theft, pure and simple, in my opinion.

[Russell Kanning]

I agree with Kurt, you can't build a home that doesn't use utilities(they won't let you).

I'm thinkin that you can.

[powerchuter]

For someone to sell a property that they paid $100,000 for and without any major modification to the property and without any real amount of labor, in three years time be able to sell that property for $125,000 is theft, pure and simple, in my opinion.

Anything...any property...including real estate will sell for whatever price is agreed upon by the buyers and sellers...this is the free market at work...do the research...

And...

Due to inflation(pricing "increases" due to the deliberate devaluation of the USD)...$100K isn't $100K after three years...

[lordmetroid]

Ohh dear we got a georgi on our hands... Great economical mislogic. Rothbard really puts everything on the table of this irrational economical believes with the excerpt from one of his book found on mises.org

Such society would surely lead to catasrophical economical consequenses. Real estate and land is different things. Land is the space in 3 dimentions while the real estate is the goods on that land. In a free market one should of course be able to buy the space as well as the real estate on the land or either one of them if such deal is made.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Now most of the land in the US is 'owned' by someone,

I would guess that most of the land in the U.S.is 'owned' by governments

[cyberdoo78]

For someone to sell a property that they paid $100,000 for and without any major modification to the property and without any real amount of labor, in three years time be able to sell that property for $125,000 is theft, pure and simple, in my opinion.

Anything...any property...including real estate will sell for whatever price is agreed upon by the buyers and sellers...this is the free market at work...do the research...

And...

Due to inflation(pricing "increases" due to the deliberate devaluation of the USD)...$100K isn't $100K after three years...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying so I will try to restate what I was trying to say. Whatever two people decide on as a price for something is their choice. If someone wants to pay 1M for a property who's value is much less, go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot, I'm not going to stop you.

I'm just saying for those people who believe that it is just to buy a piece of land for the purpose of trying to sell it for excessively more then what you paid for it, is theft, and they shouldn't be too surprised when the land they offer takes years to sell because they over priced it.

As far as $100K not being $100K in three years, I don't think I said that, let me check....nope didn't say that, so what was that comment about? Please explain yourself a bit better.

Further as I stated it is a forming opinion, meaning one could change as more information becomes available, but currently this is what I believe.

Lordmetroid, two things about your post. Are you suggesting I am a Georgi, that is one who believes the ideas of Henry George? If so, why is that a bad thing? If not, is that a good thing? Or either question vis-versa. I think time would be better spent educating people, rather then this whole, 'lets slam someone because I don't agree with them' mentality that I see when topics of debate come up. Rather then insult a person, why not try to help everyone else out and explain why you believe something is one way and not the other way.

I don't go around slamming you saying your an idiot for continuing to live in a country that regards you more as property then as a person, of course I can't say that the picture is any different over here, but there is something different over here then over there.

Having said that, I will lead by example and say this. I think you are under the assumption that there exists real estate on the land, that is houses, outhouses, garages. The lands I refer to, and will always refer to is that land which no improvement has been made apon. No house, no garages, no outhouses, simply the land exists as the Creator made it. If real estate is as you defined it, then it would seem to me that someone who holds title to land wouldn't be able to sell the title for very much more then he bought it, if the said land has nothing done to it. If you don't put any labor into something, its only worth as much as you bought it for, and maybe less then that because it is in a state of decline. I don't believe anyone makes the distinction you raise between land and between real estate. Most people view the land and real estate as the same thing. Ask any buyer what he believes he is buying, most would say, I'm buying a house. However if you ask the seller, I'm sure they would say they are selling more then just a house.

The argument I was trying to make is that the current title owners didn't create the land, nor did anyone before them, governments included. So if they didn't create them, then how do they claim to own them, especially if they own them by only title and not in actuality. I think there is alot to be said of the anarchist ideas that exist that most people are unaware of and that since we are in a group of people that lead toward the idea of less government and some who believe in no government we ought to define or redefine what things are and not as most of us were raised believing by discussing the points made by historical people of the past.

As error pointed out, all land is government owned, you are given title to use the land, but not title to own the land. If you were given true ownership of the land, then government could not tax your land. You would own all that is above and all that is below your land, government does not permit you this so you can't own the land, you can only rent the land. That is the true nature of property taxes. It is serfdom in the United States. You can never really own the land, because you will always be taxed by the government for the land you own.

[lordmetroid]

Sorry, I am truly sorry for comming out hard on you. I feel quite bad about having done so as there is no reason to be cut-throat enemies and grow dismal between us. I should have critisized the idea and not you personally, there really is no excuse for doing what I did.

I do believe subscribing to the idea of Henry that land can't be owned is a flawed logic and an economical catastrophy if such would be implemented as demonstrated by the small pamphlet. Land is not defined as the real estate but rather as the three dimensional space. The idea that you can't own what always been there and you can't aquire land by the means of homestead. But by just using the space I would in fact be homesteading it, don't you agree?
On the idea that the land was aquired by force and hence can't be owned because it was not rightfully be able to claim the property by volountery exchange of stolen goods. I think, is crazy, such a long time since such event happened has passed that the idea of not being able to own any land because of the wrongfully aquireing it initially by force is as useless as an ideas as paying restoration to the now living descendants of black slaves. All land available on the earth has been conquered at one point in time and even though it is wrong to obtain the property with such means. That is the nature of things today that the very means to defend and protect the land who is the property owner. Sad that humans have not yet stopped being such barbarians but what can one do? Surely the ownership needs to start somewhere.

It is true that today you can only aquire tenanship and become a tenant of the land but it wasn't always like that if I understood the texts I found on the internet regarding American history correct. From what I have been able to distinguish you could own land by the proof of a land patent(receipt) which lawfully couldn't be breached or bought and never be used for payement of debt. Literary you couldn't loose the land. The only way you could remove yourself from the land ownership was by gift or heritage.

[cyberdoo78]

Sorry, I am truly sorry for comming out hard on you. I feel quite bad about having done so as there is no reason to be cut-throat enemies and grow dismal between us. I should have critisized the idea and not you personally, there really is no excuse for doing what I did.

I accept your appoligy, and appreciate your show of good character.

I do believe subscribing to the idea of Henry that land can't be owned is a flawed logic and an economical catastrophy if such would be implemented as demonstrated by the small pamphlet. Land is not defined as the real estate but rather as the three dimensional space. The idea that you can't own what always been there and you can't aquire land by the means of homestead. But by just using the space I would in fact be homesteading it, don't you agree?

Sure I could agree that using the space would be the same as homesteading and as such, you would own the land. I don't think I said that land can't be owned, maybe I did, however I think that land could be owned. I was thinking more about what you were saying some. I'm still working it out in my head. I read the texts provided and the issue to me seems to be not who owns the land, but how ownership has been established.

He created us and then gave us the right to own ourselves. If the Creator created the land, he owns the land, does he not? Now if he created the land, then how do you transfer that ownership? The Creator needs no cash, no product, nor anything that you could exchange for it. So how do you purpose that transfer of ownership takes place? If taking your property is theft, then taking His property is also theft. It was preposed, as I understand it, that any land not currently in use, was reserved to all people till someone starts using it. If you left it, it returned to the 'community' ownership till someone else came along and started using it.

On the idea that the land was aquired by force and hence can't be owned because it was not rightfully be able to claim the property by volountery exchange of stolen goods. I think, is crazy, such a long time since such event happened has passed that the idea of not being able to own any land because of the wrongfully aquireing it initially by force is as useless as an ideas as paying restoration to the now living descendants of black slaves. All land available on the earth has been conquered at one point in time and even though it is wrong to obtain the property with such means. That is the nature of things today that the very means to defend and protect the land who is the property owner. Sad that humans have not yet stopped being such barbarians but what can one do? Surely the ownership needs to start somewhere.

So if I come to your house with several armed men, and then force you out of it. Further I give your house to several generations of my heirs and they keep your heirs off the property as well. Do we rightfully and legally own your property? As I said before you can own land, property, and other things so long as you continue to maintain it. Once you stop maintain it or using it, then someone who wants to use and maintain it should be able to use it.

I agree that it is almost impossible to find who the original owners of abandoned property. From what I read, if this happens ownership is returned to the people as a whole with ownership to be awarded to those who will use it. I think we all will agree that if the government decides to take your land and give it someone else, this is theft plain and simple. However if you aren't using the land, if you aren't planning on using it, or doing anything with it, it just sits there.

The problem with the current system, as I see it, is one where people who just sit around and do nothing are able to reap the profits of other's labor. That people who are born into this world without anything, execpt their labor can get into a position where their very existance is threatened because they have no way to create anything. They are purpetually slaves because they can't afford to buy land.

I'm still trying to figure this part out.

It is true that today you can only aquire tenanship and become a tenant of the land but it wasn't always like that if I understood the texts I found on the internet regarding American history correct. From what I have been able to distinguish you could own land by the proof of a land patent(receipt) which lawfully couldn't be breached or bought and never be used for payement of debt. Literary you couldn't loose the land. The only way you could remove yourself from the land ownership was by gift or heritage.

Land patents were very much like the patents we have today that grant intellectual property to people. You basically found some land that didn't already have a patent on it and then filed with the patent office and got title and deed. However you didn't have to pay much for the patent, no market value. I'm sure there were restrictions and limits and stuff but, I don't believe that land patents are a legal way to establish ownership of land. Imagine you could buy a widget for next to nothing and then sell it far in excess of its real or utility value? Basically you are stealing from the rest of us. I do not oppose the free-market, execpt when it attempts to sell stolen goods or services. If you want to own undeveloped land, then you ought put some labor into it, rather then to continue to accept and sell stolen goods.

I'm still trying to figure this anarchy thing, alot of you have a head start on me so I may come around to your point.

[lordmetroid]

I see your point by the creator creating the land. But for an atheist, bhuddist or something else such ownership wouldn't have been establish. I think we both crossed each other thaughts as we assumed where the land came from. I as an atheist assumed the land wasn't pre-owned by anyone or anything though as a concisious being I would have self-ownership by the nature of homesteading my own body. While you came from the point of view that God owned everything but gave you your ownership of your body, I can see that reasoning but it creates a whole lot of trouble considering how diverse reliegous belifes are.

Yes, you could come to my property and take it by force but that wouldn't mean you would own it... I would still own it even if I lost possession because I have the title(recepit). Barbaric kings and states as we know have never been good at recognizing such and have done whatever they wanted by the might of theirs and hence the international laws have developed so that conquest and means of defense was the only way to own a country. As flawed and wrong as that is, that is how it was and hence I say ownership by title needs to start be recognized or we will always be trapped in this barbaric customs.

[eques]

There are individuals far more learned than me who have developed these thoughts on private property, but I can think of two things that I think are necessary for private property to exist:

1. The owner of said property must be able to protect it in some way.
2. Social sanction must exist against those who despoil the private property of others and provide a method of recourse against those who do.

They feed into each other, as social sanction will act as a barrier to some (certainly not all) who would violate that individual's rights.

The defense against a group of thugs overpowering you and driving you out of your home lies in the above.  A society composed of individuals that understand that tyranny unresisted is tyranny empowered must join with the owner in denouncing said act and reclaiming said property as well as any further damages due the original owner.

Unfortunately, the majority of individuals composing society understand the above maxim in a limited sense and do not have the mind to extend it to government.  In their minds, the government has the tacit approbation of those it governs, setting up the organization as "legitimate."

[cyberdoo78]

I see your point by the creator creating the land. But for an atheist, bhuddist or something else such ownership wouldn't have been establish. I think we both crossed each other thaughts as we assumed where the land came from. I as an atheist assumed the land wasn't pre-owned by anyone or anything though as a concisious being I would have self-ownership by the nature of homesteading my own body. While you came from the point of view that God owned everything but gave you your ownership of your body, I can see that reasoning but it creates a whole lot of trouble considering how diverse reliegous belifes are.

I specifically used the word Creator not to reference a God as such, but that which created everything. I'm a pagan by religion and I believe in an intelligence of some sort created the universe. I understand your concept as far as creation goes and I will submit to you then the following.

If we are to assume there is no Creator, and then man is by just existing, granted domain over himself, then we must consider that if land isn't created but just exists, then some type of ownership must exist. There can only be two methods by which land not currently owned by anyone can exist. The first is that to own the land, one must work the land. That is to take what is raw and to add to it ones labor and there by create something, and become owner of it in doing so. If this is the case, then land must first be worked before it can be owned and once owned, as I have suggested, must continued to be worked to maintain ownership. From there the land can be gifted or sold as the individual sees fit, to the point that the individual continues to maintain it until its sold.

The other method by which land not currently owned by anyone, excluding the first argument, would be that Humanity then owns the land collectively. That by take that which is raw and processing it by adding ones own labor, one transfers ownership from the collective into the private. Once it is indeed private, then it can be gifted or sold to another. Continued ownership would mean that you would have to maintain it, else you no longer own it and it is then returned to the collective by failing to maintain it.

[/quote]
Yes, you could come to my property and take it by force but that wouldn't mean you would own it... I would still own it even if I lost possession because I have the title(receipt). Barbaric kings and states as we know have never been good at recognizing such and have done whatever they wanted by the might of theirs and hence the international laws have developed so that conquest and means of defense was the only way to own a country. As flawed and wrong as that is, that is how it was and hence I say ownership by title needs to start be recognized or we will always be trapped in this barbaric customs.
[/quote]

I'm trying to follow your logic, so if I can not own your property by taking it away, then how can you say that someone owns something that they can not trace back to the original owner, if one exists. Even if one could trace it back to the original owner, how does that one establish they own it? Governments of men have long taken and claimed that which they can not establish rightful ownership of. For you to say, you own your land because you paid someone for it, does not prove you own it. Even a title saying you own it, does not make it so. The only way to justify true ownership is to work and maintain the land. That once you have established this, you own the land because you took what was once nothing and created something from it.

A title system is not needed. You own what you invest your labor into. If you accept that a title maintains your right to ownership, what happens if someone comes forth with a title older then yours? Do you say, well my title was the latest so I own it, or do you accept that someone else had claim to the land prior to you and grant it back?

Not to mention that it is a government that issues title, and that title to land, does not make owner of land, but that you are legally allowed to use the land. Governments never sell you the land, they only allow you to use it. If they actually sold it to you, then they can not claim to tax you on your land, because you are the supreme owner of that land.

As they say, possession is 9/10ths law. This comes from the idea that those who own the land are the ones who work the land and not the Lord who holds title to the land.

There are individuals far more learned than me who have developed these thoughts on private property, but I can think of two things that I think are necessary for private property to exist:

1. The owner of said property must be able to protect it in some way.
2. Social sanction must exist against those who despoil the private property of others and provide a method of recourse against those who do.

They feed into each other, as social sanction will act as a barrier to some (certainly not all) who would violate that individual's rights.

The defense against a group of thugs overpowering you and driving you out of your home lies in the above.  A society composed of individuals that understand that tyranny unresisted is tyranny empowered must join with the owner in denouncing said act and reclaiming said property as well as any further damages due the original owner.

Unfortunately, the majority of individuals composing society understand the above maxim in a limited sense and do not have the mind to extend it to government.  In their minds, the government has the tacit approbation of those it governs, setting up the organization as "legitimate."

I believe your points dovetail nicely into my ideas. Allow me to explain, if I may. You create something, you are owner of that something till you transfer title(that is where our idea of a receipt comes from, change of ownership) to someone else. You have a right to protect that which you own, however title does not make you an owner, it only allows you to have certain rights of control. Currently to own something, you have to take it from someone, because no piece of land exists today that someone has not claimed to own.

However if you come from the other side of things, someone can not own that which they have not placed their labor into. Then no one owns land which has not had work done to it. That's why you see things like 'Established 1798', that is their claim that ownership was established on that date. Then you can trace back the records and find the original owner. Prior to that time, there was no original owner.

As to point 2, you say social sanctions. I assume this to mean, government. If we believe we are individuals and truly own ourselves, which I agree we do, then that means that government is created by the people, and can only do those things that individuals have the right to do. A individual has no right to take from someone their life, liberty, or property, therefore, government can not take anyone's life, liberty, or property for 'breaking the rules/law'.

I propose that if one creates something from raw materials, or refines from legally bought processed materials that they own it, and have the right to protect, by force if needed, to stop someone from taking that which is their's. Social modification does not work for everyone, however the thought that someone could be deprived of life, liberty, or property for trying to take someone else's is one way that works equally for all.

[eques]

Social sanctions imply "governance" but not the coercive monopoly which is colloquially known as "government."  To truly separate these concepts, it is probably best to refer to "government" as "the State," though I admit to not being as careful with my language as I ought.

Social sanctions are the rules by which a society runs, but a rule does not necessarily need a ruler, and in the cases where rules must be enforced an an agent of some kind, it is a leap to go from requiring some sort of rule enforcement to requiring a coercive monopoly on rule enforcement.

Likewise, I would shy away from "legally" (due to the current meaning) and substitute "justly."  In that, the only criteria is, did the acquisition of these materials come about by way of discovery or voluntary trade?  If not, then the acquisition is unjust.

I guess these are nitpicks, mostly.  Finer points, not major ones.

[cyberdoo78]

Social sanctions imply "governance" but not the coercive monopoly which is colloquially known as "government."  To truly separate these concepts, it is probably best to refer to "government" as "the State," though I admit to not being as careful with my language as I ought.

Social sanctions are the rules by which a society runs, but a rule does not necessarily need a ruler, and in the cases where rules must be enforced an an agent of some kind, it is a leap to go from requiring some sort of rule enforcement to requiring a coercive monopoly on rule enforcement.

Likewise, I would shy away from "legally" (due to the current meaning) and substitute "justly."  In that, the only criteria is, did the acquisition of these materials come about by way of discovery or voluntary trade?  If not, then the acquisition is unjust.

I guess these are nitpicks, mostly.  Finer points, not major ones.

I don't know, I wouldn't call them nitpicks. A government is different then a social contract, generally speaking of course. As I learn more about anarchy I see that the pros outweigh the cons as opposed to our current form of government.

If I agree to the terms of a social contract and grant that I will give up my life, liberty, or property if found guilty of braking the rules, then I would say that it is just. However if someone says to me, here are the rules and if you don't follow them, then we will take your life, liberty, or property.

Perhaps we ought to start pointing out that this is a fatal flaw in our system of goverment. That if a jury decrees you ought to lose your life, liberty, or property, you will lose these things. Perhaps amending it to read something else would be best.

I propose that we change it to say something like, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and on a verdict of guilty by a jury of peers and only with consent of the guilty"