This Forum is Closed
November 21, 2019, 03:12:13 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home: http://forum.globalgulag.com
 
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

Hey Slaves, You Cannot Live on Your Own Land and Stay Off Our Control Grid!

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hey Slaves, You Cannot Live on Your Own Land and Stay Off Our Control Grid!  (Read 397 times)
Optimus
Administrator
Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1242


Routing out & defeating the globalist pigs


View Profile
« on: December 02, 2010, 10:34:24 am »

Madison County to Evict Man Living in Camper on His Own Land
http://cryptogon.com/?p=19045
December 2nd, 2010

Via: WISH:



Thompson faces eviction from his 38 acres in Madison County. The county lawyer tells 24-Hour News 8 it’s because Thompson is breaking too many rules, laws and ordinances; Thompson has no water, no sewer and no electricity in his recreational trailer that he calls home.
Report Spam   Logged

EvadingGrid
Administrator
Full Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 177



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2010, 06:40:55 am »

When I get my slice of land, I will assert allodial property rights...
Report Spam   Logged
ghostmaster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2010, 12:47:53 am »

When I get my slice of land, I will assert allodial property rights...



Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says "allodium" is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to "feud." In the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states within the US (notably Nevada and Texas) have provisions for considering land allodial under state law, but such land remains rare.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

Our founding fathers gave us this privilege from what I understand.  I just don't understand their reasons for taking this land away from this man just because he lives simple.  Perhaps there is a reason underneath that has not quite made it to the surface?  Maybe someone wants the land and can't claim it as eminent domain because that would be illegal?  I say look at the land the man is on.  Then look to the city, and county and see if there is a underlying reason for them wanting him off the property. 

I also wonder if this could be it, and they knew he wouldn't put up much a fight over it because not only is he a simple man, but he is not really bright when it comes to knowing exactly that he maybe sitting on a maybe gold mine.  City/county is about broke they need the land, and will get it any means they can with in their means money wise.   How long has he lived there I wonder?
Report Spam   Logged
EvadingGrid
Administrator
Full Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 177



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2010, 08:30:33 am »

We have been robbed.

The fact that we do not really own any land is the legal basis of a good chunk of our problems.
Report Spam   Logged
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2010, 06:41:21 pm »

The fact that we do not really own any land is the legal basis of a good chunk of our problems.

That so many millions of people have no legal right to any portion of the earth's surface (and hence no right to live upon it) is the inevitable result of a land tenure system that -- in the name of "liberty" and "private property rights" -- allows a mere subset of the population to assert exclusive, unconditional "ownership" of the land on which all must live yet which none produced.

This will continue to be the case so long as Henry George's Single Tax remedy remains unimplemented.



"The chief weapon against the teaching of Henry George was that which is always used against irrefutable and self-evident truths. This method, which is still being applied in relation to George, was that of hushing up....People do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it. (And it is impossible to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree.)"

-- Leo Tolstoy
Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
EvadingGrid
Administrator
Full Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 177



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2010, 01:29:14 am »

I'd point sanity limits on any individual's right to wealth.

NO - that does not make me a communist, it simply means that I don't think anyone should be a Billionaire or own 100,000's of acres of land. I've not got anything against people getting lucky, but there must be some limits ? - Limits that would prevent a mega-elite of super rich people.

A system which means that NoBody gets to own their own land is not satisfactory.



« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 01:31:53 am by EvadingGrid » Report Spam   Logged
Geolibertarian
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 455


9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.ae911truth.org


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2010, 03:26:40 pm »

I'd point sanity limits on any individual's right to wealth.

There's already a built-in natural limit: the individual's ability to actually produce -- rather than appropriate -- wealth.

Quote
NO - that does not make me a communist, it simply means that I don't think anyone should be a Billionaire or own 100,000's of acres of land.

As long as the Single Tax remains unimplemented, it's inevitable that a privileged few will end up owning hundreds of thousands -- and in some cases millions -- of acres of land.

Quote
I've not got anything against people getting lucky, but there must be some limits ? - Limits that would prevent a mega-elite of super rich people.

Yes, but if we are to avoid a cure that's even worse than the disease, then we must be certain that those limits are not arbitrary, but rooted in basic principles of justice.

Quote
A system which means that NoBody gets to own their own land is not satisfactory.

Here's the key question: is the right of access to the earth on which all must live yet which none produced an equal right held by everyone, or an unequal right held only by those who happen to have land titles?

If your position is that the right to land itself is an equal right, then I ask that you please understand the futility of attempting to secure that right in any way that does not involve securing -- via taxation -- the equal right to the economic rent of land.

----------------------------

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what State absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis original]

-- Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, pp. 320-1



“We do not propose to assert equal rights to land by keeping land common, letting any one use any part of it at any time. We do not propose the task, impossible in the present day of society, of dividing land in equal shares; still less the yet more impossible task of keeping it so divided.

"We propose—leaving land in the private possession of individuals, with full liberty on their part to give, sell or bequeath it--simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on it....We would accompany this tax on land values with the repeal of all taxes now levied on the products and processes of industry--which taxes, since they take from the earnings of labor, we hold to be infringements of the right of property.”


----------------------------

If it's any consolation, though, both "liberals" and "conservatives" -- and everyone in between -- seem equally opposed (albeit for different reasons) to the Georgist "Middle Way" approach to economic reform.

Consequently, publicly-created land values will continue to remain privatized, and the paradox of poverty amid plenty will continue to plague humankind.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:29:54 pm by Geolibertarian » Report Spam   Logged

"For the first years of [Ludwig von] Mises’s life in the United States...he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.” -- Richard M. Ebeling

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162212.0
EvadingGrid
Administrator
Full Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 177



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2011, 12:43:40 pm »

There's already a built-in natural limit: the individual's ability to actually produce -- rather than appropriate -- wealth.

Yes, actually they originally recognised and defined this in what could be ploughed by oxen in medievel days...  In fact thats how they worked out the size of one acre, as in it could be ploughed by one man in one day. So, sane workable limits could be defined in the past, so why not the present ?

As long as the Single Tax remains unimplemented, it's inevitable that a privileged few will end up owning hundreds of thousands -- and in some cases millions -- of acres of land.

How about simply limit what an individual can own in land, as it is a finite resource ?

Yes, but if we are to avoid a cure that's even worse than the disease, then we must be certain that those limits are not arbitrary, but rooted in basic principles of justice.

As I mentioned earlier, sensible, fair, understood limits where used in the past, so we can do it now.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.152 seconds with 16 queries.