Property Rights: You don't really own anything.

I've always been a huge fan of property rights, but when it comes down to the end-game it seems really contrived and I have to think there may be something better. The reason I say this is because of a hypothetical scenario that is possible. Say one person is able to legally take control over 99% of Earth's land and the other 5,999,999,999 people are starving to death on their tiny plot. Say that one person has no interest in sharing. It then makes no sense from a moral perspective to allow that one person to continue to own their property and rather the people stuck in their tiny plot of useless land should forcibly take(steal) the rich man's land. The concept of property rights is basically entirely in our heads. For example its not as if there are fundamental particles such as "propertons" projecting out ownership. "Mine" is just a word people make up for their own benefit.

The whole concept of property ownership certainly seems to enhance the lives for all of humankind because we have to work for what we get, and since we want a lot of stuff we do a lot of work, which leads to creation of a lot of stuff. I'm just wondering how the lines should be drawn and at what point you say "we are taking away your property because we need it more than you do". If you had a simple policy like: "If you need something more than another person, then it is yours." then you'd end up with nothing more than a whole lot of disputes over who needs what more and who values what property more than others. Our current property ownership system is really quite clear cut about who gets what. I love the simplicity and for the most part it seems to work. But I'm wondering if under a property-less system it would be possible to have a system that works to the benefit of mankind even more. I certainly object to a Marx-like idea of simply dividing everything up equally, because if you don't have to work for what you get, you are going to work the bare minimum even if you are working at what you do best (according to your abilities).

I'm just trying to think of a way that avoids my hypothetical scenario by abandoning the idea of property ownership but really can't come up with something to replace it at the moment.

In the grand scheme of things, having "too much" is an embarrassment.

Once you have enough to survive, the value of all the additional stuff is short-lived and hollow. We get bored with it quickly. Some people keep trying to get more and more to keep up the thrill, but it never works.

In the end its the people in your life and the quality of relationships that is the most lasting and satisfying. Bad relationships on the other hand will be the most harmful to life quality regardless of the amount of property one "owns".

Some people will add spirituality to the mix with human relationships, or even relationships with nature.

In the end, our "ownership" is temporary for the duration we are here and if property is all you focused on then you may leave this life with nothing more than a bruised and battered spirit.

reply to post by truthquest


Autowrench:
What you say is true, friend. I will touch on two things, your home and your car to prove this. Do you own your home? No, if you have bought a home, what you did buy was "Real Estate." Real Estate is what sits on the property, not the land. You do not own the land, the State does, and they rent it back to you, the rent is paid in the form of property taxes. There is a think called Allodial Title....
www.public-information.net...
or a "Land Patent."
www.teamlaw.org...

Once you patent your land, provided that you own it free and clear, no liens or mortgages..it can be taken off the tax rolls. And, it cannot be seized by any government rules or law.

Now to your car, your automobile. You own that car, you say? Well, you do have a "title" for it, don't you? Well, true ownership is in the form of a "Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin." This is traded in to the registering State for a Title. you do not own the car either, you rent it, and pay those pesky taxes to be able to park it in your driveway.

All these things, including Marriage, were once rights of every Sovereign American. These were taken away, and made into "Privileges" which require a "License" to be able to do. Is this right? No! it isn't.

Our American Common Law
www.svpvril.com...

U.C.C. Uniform Commercial Code
www.law.cornell.edu...

The U. C. C. Connection
www.landrights.com...

America’s Two Constitutions (One for the Rich, One for the Poor)
www.dmiblog.com...

WHAT DID THE CONSTITUTION OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1787 CREATE?
www.edrivera.com...

THE SHERIFF - MORE POWER THAN THE PRESIDENT
fourwinds10.com...

Know your own law, your birthright law, the true law of this country.
www.tpuc.org...

Do you know that you are not a “person”, because the statute law also defines a “person” as a corporate entity?

Do you know that the registered name that appears on your birth certificate is not your name, but a carefully engineered trade-name that sounds exactly the same as your true, proper-name?

Do you know that there is no provision in the rules that govern the English language to allow for a proper-name, i.e. John Doe Smith to be written in all-capital-letters, i.e. JOHN DOE SMITH and any such alteration turns your proper-name into a fictitious corporate trade-name, which is defined as a nom de guerre? Look it up at
dictionary.reference.com...

Do you know that the Governor-General of the “Commonwealth of Australia” did not proclaim an end to the Second World War,
www.panacea-bocaf.org...
and that this is one of the main reasons why the fictitious corporate all caps trade-name, that appears on all your legal documents i.e. a charge and summons from the police, your drivers license, passport, home loan, car registration, telephone account, all government documents, etc. etc., is not your true, proper-name, but your government created nom de guerre?

Do you know that when you go to court, you are being subjected to admiralty law (military law) not the common law which protects your inalienable human rights, one of which includes a compulsory trial by jury, i.e. a court hearing that is absolutely free and governed by twelve of your peers, not some tyrant sitting in a chair higher than yours?

Do you know that “the Government” used your original registration of birth document to formulate a cestui que trust, (look up here)
www.reference.com...
and then issued Treasury Securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, to raise capital in exchange for guaranteeing your original registration of birth document, as a security i.e. collateral, for the fiat money that was created; at the same time, investing the proceeds in the stocks and/or bonds market?

Positions of power:
1. Supreme creator
2. People
3. Government
4. Persons

Who created people? The supreme creator. Can the people rule over the supreme creator? No.
Who created government? The people. Can the government rule over the people other than for keeping the peace and rule of the supreme creator? No, unless you are crazy enough to think you are a person.
Can the creation rule the creator of that creation? No.

The roots of evil:

Money being financed to certain interests, and uncertain terms in contracts.

It amazes me people who fight unfair traffic fines and still want to keep their driver's license. Do you even know what a driver license is? An adhesion contract with the State and stepping down to STRAWMAN (slave) position, handing over your rights in exchange for a plastic card saying you can drive. If it gets cancelled, the contract is closed. Though it can be good for ID purposes other than road use. If you hand your license to a police on the road, you are entering contract and they have a STRAWMAN to pick at! Is it a transaction of a security interest? Has there been a breach of the peace?
Who's driver license? The States? The only thing that is yours on it is your photo and signature! Its not your name on that document! Mine is signed,
Xxxxx Xxxxx sui juris, All Rights Reserved, UCC-207
Sign your driver's license like this, get a traffic ticket, and show the license to the Judge. No contract, no fine.

Know the Law, or be a Victim of the Law.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by truthquest

 

Autowrench:
What you say is true, friend. I will touch on two things, your home and your car to prove this. Do you own your home? No, if you have bought a home, what you did buy was "Real Estate." Real Estate is what sits on the property, not the land. You do not own the land, the State does, and they rent it back to you, the rent is paid in the form of property taxes. There is a think called Allodial Title....
www.public-information.net...
or a "Land Patent."
www.teamlaw.org...

Once you patent your land, provided that you own it free and clear, no liens or mortgages..it can be taken off the tax rolls. And, it cannot be seized by any government rules or law.

Sorry, but that is simply not so. Real Estate is land and and things permanently attached to land and buildings. If it's not attached, then it's personal property.

Land patents document the transfer of land ownership from the federal government to individuals. Once the original transfer is done, it can only be transferred by deed. You cannot go back and "patent" your land.

www.quatloos.com...
You may want to read this case in its entirety, but here’s the important part:

In Hilgeford, this court held that an action based upon a land patent drafted by a party in order to give that party rights within property is a legal nullity. The patent cannot support federal jurisdiction because it is a patently obvious attempt to create superior title in land through personal fiat. Any pro se litigant who can read or write knows that one cannot give oneself better title to land by simply saying so on a piece of paper. As this court said in Hilgeford, "the court cannot conceive of a potentially more disruptive force in the world of property law than the ability of a person to get 'superior' title to land by simply filling out a document granting himself a 'land patent' and then filing it with the Recorder of Deeds. Such self- serving, gratuitous activity does not, cannot and will not be sufficient by itself to create good title." 607 F.Supp. at 538

Now, granted, the folks in the lawsuit were doing this to get out of a mortgage, but it doesn’t matter.