Printable View
When we used to kick this stuff around the campfire--there was someone who used to say--the only way you can have absolute ownership of land as private property, is if it had come into possession as a King's Grant. I don't know if that's true, but I'm pretty sure it's not currently available.
Is there a way remaining, in the U. S., to remove a piece of land from its real estate status with a perpetual tax lien, and make it into private property?
You can try what the Rockefellers did, and have your mansion recognized as a national historical site. That you get to live in. Without paying taxes.
shaberon--
Land Patent (in the USA) is the way to go, I believe. A fellow named Bob Schaefer has spoken about this on this site:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...d=46256&cmd=tc
Listen to these two shows for what he has to say re Land Patents:
-- 9/9/15: the first 30 minutes
-- 1/6/16: the first 41 minutes
He continues to do calls every week on Wednesday at 6:00 pm Pacific.
He starts off talking about a specific topic for the first 30-45 minutes and
then takes questions on any law-related topic.
He knows a LOT, but has no problem saying he doesn't know, if he
doesn't know. He has a personal law library of 9,000 books (!), has
been at it for 34 years, and is not a corporate US citizen. I trust him.
This Wednesday I plan to ask him about this video's approach to land
ownership:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqpB...&nohtml5=False
Tune in with your own questions!
Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve
Mine is not, but the house of my American patriarch is historical:
http://montourcountyhistoricalsociety.org/MontHiRes.JPG
http://montourcountyhistoricalsociety.org/
Most likely owned by a non-profit historical society who's not interested in me nosing in as an "heir".
Just for a quick look at Patent: yes, saying you can only own the land from a King's Grant is basically an oversimplification. It could have been granted by any leader after any of the expansions of territory. The Patent is the assignment of land to the recipient, heirs & assigns forever. You basically have to track down the original grant, and collect the chain of title as it passes through changes of the estate by equity deeds. In the end, you prove yourself as the "assigns" connected to the perpetual patent.
It might be a bit hard to collect all that stuff but it is out there somewhere.
in the US, the only way to own everything on the property ( to include the land and mineral rights etc..) is to have Allodial Title to the property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_titleQuote:
Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land
but even that has restrictions....
Perhaps so.
What I found so far, is that most of the U. S. land was put into the Bureau of Land Management (Federal) by treaties. However, that was hardly ever used around here: I found one Patent issued in 1980 under a 1976 Act of Congress, which gave land to two natural persons and one corporation, in which the U. S. kept 75% of the mineral rights. That wouldn't match "Allodial Title" but it still left the land as their private property--aside from the fact that the U. S. would be allowed to send in trucks and equipment to get their minerals, and I don't know if they were doing that or if it was just a fact on paper.
That could be a serious issue if it leaves them a door to regulate your water.
Apparently from being in the 13 colonies, this land was all owned by the state, and was sold as grants.
It's going to be rather frustrating...I am maybe a mile from a creek that has had the same name since 1780 when grants started being issued--I don't think the ones specifically along the creek are big enough to reach here, and I can't find any other geographical thing to even start from. They grant land starting from...an oak tree...and in relation to your neighbors. I am probably going to have to start making a little map.
In most of the rest of the country, you can just send in the township description of your property to the B. L. M. and they do the searching and will send you a certified copy of the Patent. All we have is a microfilm archive searchable online and in 80-90% of the cases, it's located by a creek. Which locates most of them away from here, and I'm not sure it leaves enough to work with, in order to include this place. And there again, I suppose the state may not have granted all its land by 1840 and it could be a completely different archive.
squatting... the land is for the living... the creative ones. you cant own it! The over 1000 billionares in the world can buy the world 5 times.
If they die, their money gives them eternal ownership because of the law mirror wall they made up. ignore it be creative squat and enjoy.
In my country even one of the royal kingdom palace castles got squatted... and the squaters lived happely ever after.
America is relative empty, ghosttowns everywhere...
What we see is in Europe is American cops shooting their own citizens for not parking right or less.
The only King americans got is burger king...so whats a kings grant... a burger? a dubble whopper...
So think act live play like a real sovereign human....
Do not be fooled - - -
LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.Note: "Land for a time." That's qualified ownership - time of enjoyment is limited. Not private property. Not protected. Not a right.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
Word Twistery
Some folks have been misled regarding “allodial title” and “allodium”...
ALLODIUM - "Land held absolutely in one's own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens.“An estate held by absolute ownership” does not change the meaning of estate from qualified ownership. Substituting proper meaning, it should read: “An estate held by absolute qualified ownership.” No real change in meaning.
An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof. "
- - - Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th edition, pg. 76
“Not subject to feudal duties or burdens” to “superiors” is not synonymous with “not subject to or obligated to pay taxes to public servants”. If they worded it, “not subject to or obligated to pay taxes to ANYONE,” that would sound like private property.
Those who are subject citizens may owe a duty to the servant government, regardless of allodium. However, PRIVATE PROPERTY absolutely owned, is not subject to taxation or restriction. I have yet to find one constitutional delegation of authority that trespasses upon private property except in the pursuit of justice, for an injured party.
"PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."If you comprehend the distinction about single person, you'll understand the importance of coverture (the transfer of ownership of a wife's property to her husband).
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
"OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
COVERTURE - The condition or state of a married woman. Sometimes used elliptically to describe the legal disability which formerly existed at common law from a state of coverture whereby the wife COULD NOT OWN PROPERTY FREE FROM THE HUSBAND'S CLAIM OR CONTROL.(FYI - can you guess another reason why a wife’s property was put under the husband’s SOLE authority? And why “community property” and joint tenancy destroyed absolute ownership for a family? And why "licensed marriages" had different rules than "common law marriages?")
- - - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 366
What facts determine if land is absolutely owned by an individual?
__ The owner has the legal right (age, etc)
__ Title was alienated with lawful money (or bequest)
__ No superior claim exists
LAND PATENTS
Contrary to the mythology being peddled, a land patent is not the remedy. There is nothing about a land patent that determines whether the private ownership is ABSOLUTE or QUALIFIED.
Do not believe me - go read your own state constitution and statutes.
Verify that PRIVATE PROPERTY is explicitly protected, whereas estate (real estate, real property, tangible property, etc) is subject to ad valorem taxes.
Write polite questionnaires to the state attorney general, etc, and ask what constitutes a minimum domicile in your state.
A patent/grant alone, even with a chain of custody, won't do it. The only way I can see how those were qualified, is that the grantees were required to build a house and farm an acre (at least in this state). Without lawful money...we are going to come up empty handed every time.
From more digging around, I have come across numerous examples of deeds not being recorded--which if you do that, you've signed up for a government service, and that shoots it down. You are not required by law to record it.
If you don't...they cannot attribute the property tax to you, it will revert to the last person recorded as owner, who would then have to prove their way out of it.
Non-recorded deeds have happened a lot, and of course this messes up the chain of title on public record. It can leave you vulnerable to other issues; someone makes a claim or judgement and it's not publicly shown you're protected. And if you're not paying property tax, then you get no public services; would want a private trash hauler, for example.
I can't remember if it was here, or where we talked about placing your claim in the local paper, giving others 30 days to interject counterclaims, keeping a copy of course.
You can squat in some abandoned place; but for most people, moving a load of furniture and electronics into the woods is not particularly appealing.
The endowed right to absolutely own private property is something no other nation's people enjoy. How Americans were tricked into surrendering it, only shows that fools are born in all generations.Quote:
Posted by shaberon
And if ever a substantial number of Americans withdraw consent, etc, etc, it will trigger a collapse of "the System." To be frank, it won't end well. But the current system is also due to collapse, but from a different trigger. Either way, stock up supplies and be ready for the SHTF.
Ok...homing in, maybe the dust is starting to settle.
Must withdraw consent. Remove "citizenship" and "residency"...to become an inhabitant, with a domicile...a non-person, being a state national, or at extremis a U. S. national if that term refers merely to geographical area.
Collect silver dollars. The current owner then takes a property that has no lien or claim upon it, and sells it to me for 21 silver dollars, recorded only in the local newspaper. For the former owner to now obtain it as private property, then during the time I am holding it, they must go through the process of withdrawing their consent to be governed, and then I sell it back for 21 silver dollars (because it's supposed to be theirs and I am just doing what I can to make it possible).
Along the way, we lose the privilege of voting and jury duty. And yes, probably a good idea to load in a bunch of storable food, find a generator that uses a better technology than gasoline...fortunately in my particular case, the property is old enough to still have a hand operated well, so I think it would be wise to repair and prime it.
Should we bother with mapping the chain of title to original grant? It seems like a lot of the outside information some of us are bringing into these threads is spurious or moot, and quite possibly just another way for lawyers to prey upon paranoia, leaving someone empty-handed in the end, still being subject citizens.
An up to date survey is not out of the question. People often forget where property lines are.Quote:
Posted by shaberon
Haha yes...charging $1 for my services sounds fair. The chain of title thing sounds like a grand version of title search which usually only goes back 60 years. Trying to DIY this myself right now; looks like someone died, willed it to about six children who all had to come in to sign it over to the guy who's selling it now. Which is why they say hire a professional, in case any of those children had a judgement, tax delinquency, etc., that might be hooked onto it, or maybe this guy's wife has a construction loan on it. Looking at deeds and considering all possible encumbrances is a headache, I would hate to do that for a living, but it sounds like--once established as private property, none of those things could even exist! If you keep it in that condition; you would have the right to contract with it, but if you did so, you would tarnish absolute ownership.
Pretty sure there is a recent survey as I saw new looking stakes.
I like this:
“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge
- - - Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926)
. . .
Fools they be, who consent to government “taking” from one to “give” to another. For they are the “taken,” and their liberty lost forever.
. . .“To support the Constitution, to observe the laws, is to be true to our own higher nature. That is the path, and the only path, towards liberty. To resist them and violate them is to become enemies to ourselves and instruments of our own destruction. That is the path towards servitude. Obedience is not for the protection of someone else, but for the protection of ourselves. It needs to be remembered that it has to be secured not through the action of others, but through our own actions. Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.”- - -
- - - President Calvin Coolidge, 21 September 1924, "Authority and Religious Liberty", Address delivered to the Holy Name Society, Washington, D. C.
In America, where governments are instituted to secure rights, rights are not subject to taxation.
Ownership of private property is a right, not subject to taxation.
The practice of any religion is also a right. Thus religious property is never subject to taxation.
AS to ad valorem taxes on estate (real and personal property), held with qualified ownership (a privilege), that is entirely different.
Those who exercise the privilege of citizenship, surrender endowed rights and accept mandatory civic duties - including a tax on their property, duly registered as estate, for once they consent, more than one has a claim upon them, their liberty, and their property.
This is exactly what George Washington was referring to:“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
If we are, as Calvin Coolidge said, equal, with endowed rights, and only by consent are governed, then it's not entirely the fault of the government for our dire situation. We "closed our eyes" while the fox crawled into the chickenhouse. And now the foxes rule us.
.
Link to post:Quote:
Posted by Pris
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1580696
Well, being reminded of this thread.
[Note: multiple copies due to database error, please delete]
This little-used sub-forum was created around this discussion.
It took me until around post #11 to figure out the one coherent argument I have found here.
Back then, it was noisy and difficult. No one knows what happens to Ozmirage. The associated posts appear to be copy--pasted from a pre-planned routine. My inquiries have been met with such, and then nothing happens when I continue to press points. His suggestion was reasonable, "don't believe me, find out for yourself".
So I did.
There are numerous fatal flaws in that argument.
I have trotted it around the forum numerous times, and, I don't think anyone has confirmed or denied anything about it.
On its own merit, it confesses to the worst kind of Lincoln's Empire State-ism.
I found out strange facts, like, the closest thing in America to hereditary nobility is "Sons and Daughters of the Revolution", which I cannot participate in, since as far as I can tell, my ancestor was part of a state militia, not the Continental Army.
"Private property" existed in India since at least 600 B. C. E.; kings did not own the lands or the state.
What is irritating is the line about "citizen" because it cribs Thomas Jefferson. The remark "consent of the governed" has been tossed around lightly, as if it were an option.
At the time, it meant a Revolutionary Oath. It meant you agreed to take up arms against the British, or, you would have been evicted from the state, and there are a few instances of that happening. Not much of an option, but, technically, you had a choice.
As far as what it means in the U. S. under the Constitution, this argument was rendered groundless by the first election for the House of Representatives in 1789. A young, successful candidate was challenged that he might not be a citizen, because he was too young to have taken the Oath.
At that time, it was decided that everyone was grandfathered in--if you were born here, you are a citizen, unless you turned around and pledged back to the British.
Moreover, the person who made the challenge issued a written apology in a tract on what "citizenship" meant.
Non-citizen inhabitants or nationals consisted of negroes/slaves, or women with no right to vote, or other disenfranchised individuals.
So the argument is actually that the U. S. Constitution is a New Covenant with god, dressed up in semantics. That Lincoln's Empire has to be preserved.
It is true that you can no longer own land because of real estate, the perpetual tax lien, and the lack of clear title, but this has nothing to do with citizenship per se. It is additional, burdensome legislation which has been applied to the citizenry.
The argument is half true, in that you can use a type of post-1940 tax shelter, but this poster's own testimony includes "lacking a domicile"--so if it's not working in a way that actually leads to true land ownership (in over twenty years), what is the point?
There are no solutions to be found through the Constitution, as someone speaking from a pre-Revolutionary heritage, I would remind you that extremely stiff resistance was seen in North Carolina and Rhode Island, for example. We were warned about a consolidated government and a federal taxing power, which were not there previously.
The Bill of Rights is something like a defrayal, and obfuscation of the issues, that was satisfactory to some, that I would call window-dressing propaganda, since the Constitution as such is the vessel of Wall Street, which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was trying to prevent. It is a rushed compromise, not a well-designed satisfactory social contract. Jefferson then also said it probably should be altered or abolished by every generation.
My apologies for temporarily thinking that "citizenship" was the determining factor; I cannot agree with numerous points used to substantiate this view.
I am not sure "sovereignty" has any meaning in the personal sense, and I definitely do not believe in rights endowed by a creator. Process of collective bargaining subject to scrutiny and review. That is all.
My ancestors fled Britain physically, fought them off in the Revolution, then campaigned and held a few offices on the Anti-Federalist platform, and after that, we have been beaten back down by nearly everything. I have no clue why I should be under the same government as the former Republic of Texas or Kingdom of Hawai'i. Nothing much after Andrew Jackson really "represents" anything we were going for.
Land Ownership is certainly necessary for a Jeffersonian Agricultural Economy independent from Wall Street, which the U. S. has completely murdered, the best example now being Russia. Currently, Russia has plenty of cheap, workable land, where a person can feasibly succeed with a small farm, exactly like the former American colonies.
Once you figure out that the American founding fathers were mostly copyists of the same principles that had already spread to Russia, then, all they really "designed" were a few details such as the number of representatives. They were mainly copying France. So now we see the results of how these various interpretations have been applied.
I don't trust anything that doesn't normalize small farming.
One can see how devastating this has been when Big Ag continues to roll through places like Germany and India.
Let alone Ukraine.
Currently the only decent example I know of is "American farmers who moved to Russia"--and yes, you would need to become a citizen and pay taxes--so? That is not what I am objecting to. I am not trying to get rid of government, just "forms of government" even if they are republican.
Well, being reminded of this thread.
This little-used sub-forum was created around this discussion.
It took me until around post #11 to figure out the one coherent argument I have found here.
Back then, it was noisy and difficult. No one knows what happens to Ozmirage. The associated posts appear to be copy--pasted from a pre-planned routine. My inquiries have been met with such, and then nothing happens when I continue to press points. His suggestion was reasonable, "don't believe me, find out for yourself".
So I did.
There are numerous fatal flaws in that argument.
I have trotted it around the forum numerous times, and, I don't think anyone has confirmed or denied anything about it.
On its own merit, it confesses to the worst kind of Lincoln's Empire State-ism.
I found out strange facts, like, the closest thing in America to hereditary nobility is "Sons and Daughters of the Revolution", which I cannot participate in, since as far as I can tell, my ancestor was part of a state militia, not the Continental Army.
"Private property" existed in India since at least 600 B. C. E.; kings did not own the lands or the state.
What is irritating is the line about "citizen" because it cribs Thomas Jefferson. The remark "consent of the governed" has been tossed around lightly, as if it were an option.
At the time, it meant a Revolutionary Oath. It meant you agreed to take up arms against the British, or, you would have been evicted from the state, and there are a few instances of that happening. Not much of an option, but, technically, you had a choice.
As far as what it means in the U. S. under the Constitution, this argument was rendered groundless by the first election for the House of Representatives in 1789. A young, successful candidate was challenged that he might not be a citizen, because he was too young to have taken the Oath.
At that time, it was decided that everyone was grandfathered in--if you were born here, you are a citizen, unless you turned around and pledged back to the British.
Moreover, the person who made the challenge issued a written apology in a tract on what "citizenship" meant.
Non-citizen inhabitants or nationals consisted of negroes/slaves, or women with no right to vote, or other disenfranchised individuals.
So the argument is actually that the U. S. Constitution is a New Covenant with god, dressed up in semantics. That Lincoln's Empire has to be preserved.
It is true that you can no longer own land because of real estate, the perpetual tax lien, and the lack of clear title, but this has nothing to do with citizenship per se. It is additional, burdensome legislation which has been applied to the citizenry.
The argument is half true, in that you can use a type of post-1940 tax shelter, but this poster's own testimony includes "lacking a domicile"--so if it's not working in a way that actually leads to true land ownership (in over twenty years), what is the point?
There are no solutions to be found through the Constitution, as someone speaking from a pre-Revolutionary heritage, I would remind you that extremely stiff resistance was seen in North Carolina and Rhode Island, for example. We were warned about a consolidated government and a federal taxing power, which were not there previously.
The Bill of Rights is something like a defrayal, and obfuscation of the issues, that was satisfactory to some, that I would call window-dressing propaganda, since the Constitution as such is the vessel of Wall Street, which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was trying to prevent. It is a rushed compromise, not a well-designed satisfactory social contract. Jefferson then also said it probably should be altered or abolished by every generation.
My apologies for temporarily thinking that "citizenship" was the determining factor; I cannot agree with numerous points used to substantiate this view.
I am not sure "sovereignty" has any meaning in the personal sense, and I definitely do not believe in rights endowed by a creator. Process of collective bargaining subject to scrutiny and review. That is all.
My ancestors fled Britain physically, fought them off in the Revolution, then campaigned and held a few offices on the Anti-Federalist platform, and after that, we have been beaten back down by nearly everything. I have no clue why I should be under the same government as the former Republic of Texas or Kingdom of Hawai'i. Nothing much after Andrew Jackson really "represents" anything we were going for.
Land Ownership is certainly necessary for a Jeffersonian Agricultural Economy independent from Wall Street, which the U. S. has completely murdered, the best example now being Russia. Currently, Russia has plenty of cheap, workable land, where a person can feasibly succeed with a small farm, exactly like the former American colonies.
Once you figure out that the American founding fathers were mostly copyists of the same principles that had already spread to Russia, then, all they really "designed" were a few details such as the number of representatives. They were mainly copying France. So now we see the results of how these various interpretations have been applied.
I don't trust anything that doesn't normalize small farming.
One can see how devastating this has been when Big Ag continues to roll through places like Germany and India.
Let alone Ukraine.
Currently the only decent example I know of is "American farmers who moved to Russia"--and yes, you would need to become a citizen and pay taxes--so? That is not what I am objecting to. I am not trying to get rid of government, just "forms of government" even if they are republican.
Well, being reminded of this thread.
This little-used sub-forum was created around this discussion.
It took me until around post #11 to figure out the one coherent argument I have found here.
Back then, it was noisy and difficult. No one knows what happens to Ozmirage. The associated posts appear to be copy--pasted from a pre-planned routine. My inquiries have been met with such, and then nothing happens when I continue to press points. His suggestion was reasonable, "don't believe me, find out for yourself".
So I did.
There are numerous fatal flaws in that argument.
I have trotted it around the forum numerous times, and, I don't think anyone has confirmed or denied anything about it.
On its own merit, it confesses to the worst kind of Lincoln's Empire State-ism.
I found out strange facts, like, the closest thing in America to hereditary nobility is "Sons and Daughters of the Revolution", which I cannot participate in, since as far as I can tell, my ancestor was part of a state militia, not the Continental Army.
"Private property" existed in India since at least 600 B. C. E.; kings did not own the lands or the state.
What is irritating is the line about "citizen" because it cribs Thomas Jefferson. The remark "consent of the governed" has been tossed around lightly, as if it were an option.
At the time, it meant a Revolutionary Oath. It meant you agreed to take up arms against the British, or, you would have been evicted from the state, and there are a few instances of that happening. Not much of an option, but, technically, you had a choice.
As far as what it means in the U. S. under the Constitution, this argument was rendered groundless by the first election for the House of Representatives in 1789. A young, successful candidate was challenged that he might not be a citizen, because he was too young to have taken the Oath.
At that time, it was decided that everyone was grandfathered in--if you were born here, you are a citizen, unless you turned around and pledged back to the British.
Moreover, the person who made the challenge issued a written apology in a tract on what "citizenship" meant.
Non-citizen inhabitants or nationals consisted of negroes/slaves, or women with no right to vote, or other disenfranchised individuals.
So the argument is actually that the U. S. Constitution is a New Covenant with god, dressed up in semantics. That Lincoln's Empire has to be preserved.
It is true that you can no longer own land because of real estate, the perpetual tax lien, and the lack of clear title, but this has nothing to do with citizenship per se. It is additional, burdensome legislation which has been applied to the citizenry.
The argument is half true, in that you can use a type of post-1940 tax shelter, but this poster's own testimony includes "lacking a domicile"--so if it's not working in a way that actually leads to true land ownership (in over twenty years), what is the point?
There are no solutions to be found through the Constitution, as someone speaking from a pre-Revolutionary heritage, I would remind you that extremely stiff resistance was seen in North Carolina and Rhode Island, for example. We were warned about a consolidated government and a federal taxing power, which were not there previously.
The Bill of Rights is something like a defrayal, and obfuscation of the issues, that was satisfactory to some, that I would call window-dressing propaganda, since the Constitution as such is the vessel of Wall Street, which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was trying to prevent. It is a rushed compromise, not a well-designed satisfactory social contract. Jefferson then also said it probably should be altered or abolished by every generation.
My apologies for temporarily thinking that "citizenship" was the determining factor; I cannot agree with numerous points used to substantiate this view.
I am not sure "sovereignty" has any meaning in the personal sense, and I definitely do not believe in rights endowed by a creator. Process of collective bargaining subject to scrutiny and review. That is all.
My ancestors fled Britain physically, fought them off in the Revolution, then campaigned and held a few offices on the Anti-Federalist platform, and after that, we have been beaten back down by nearly everything. I have no clue why I should be under the same government as the former Republic of Texas or Kingdom of Hawai'i. Nothing much after Andrew Jackson really "represents" anything we were going for.
Land Ownership is certainly necessary for a Jeffersonian Agricultural Economy independent from Wall Street, which the U. S. has completely murdered, the best example now being Russia. Currently, Russia has plenty of cheap, workable land, where a person can feasibly succeed with a small farm, exactly like the former American colonies.
Once you figure out that the American founding fathers were mostly copyists of the same principles that had already spread to Russia, then, all they really "designed" were a few details such as the number of representatives. They were mainly copying France. So now we see the results of how these various interpretations have been applied.
I don't trust anything that doesn't normalize small farming.
One can see how devastating this has been when Big Ag continues to roll through places like Germany and India.
Let alone Ukraine.
Currently the only decent example I know of is "American farmers who moved to Russia"--and yes, you would need to become a citizen and pay taxes--so? That is not what I am objecting to. I am not trying to get rid of government, just "forms of government" even if they are republican.
Well, being reminded of this thread.
This little-used sub-forum was created around this discussion.
It took me until around post #11 to figure out the one coherent argument I have found here.
Back then, it was noisy and difficult. No one knows what happens to Ozmirage. The associated posts appear to be copy--pasted from a pre-planned routine. My inquiries have been met with such, and then nothing happens when I continue to press points. His suggestion was reasonable, "don't believe me, find out for yourself".
So I did.
There are numerous fatal flaws in that argument.
I have trotted it around the forum numerous times, and, I don't think anyone has confirmed or denied anything about it.
On its own merit, it confesses to the worst kind of Lincoln's Empire State-ism.
I found out strange facts, like, the closest thing in America to hereditary nobility is "Sons and Daughters of the Revolution", which I cannot participate in, since as far as I can tell, my ancestor was part of a state militia, not the Continental Army.
"Private property" existed in India since at least 600 B. C. E.; kings did not own the lands or the state.
What is irritating is the line about "citizen" because it cribs Thomas Jefferson. The remark "consent of the governed" has been tossed around lightly, as if it were an option.
At the time, it meant a Revolutionary Oath. It meant you agreed to take up arms against the British, or, you would have been evicted from the state, and there are a few instances of that happening. Not much of an option, but, technically, you had a choice.
As far as what it means in the U. S. under the Constitution, this argument was rendered groundless by the first election for the House of Representatives in 1789. A young, successful candidate was challenged that he might not be a citizen, because he was too young to have taken the Oath.
At that time, it was decided that everyone was grandfathered in--if you were born here, you are a citizen, unless you turned around and pledged back to the British.
Moreover, the person who made the challenge issued a written apology in a tract on what "citizenship" meant.
Non-citizen inhabitants or nationals consisted of negroes/slaves, or women with no right to vote, or other disenfranchised individuals.
So the argument is actually that the U. S. Constitution is a New Covenant with god, dressed up in semantics. That Lincoln's Empire has to be preserved.
It is true that you can no longer own land because of real estate, the perpetual tax lien, and the lack of clear title, but this has nothing to do with citizenship per se. It is additional, burdensome legislation which has been applied to the citizenry.
The argument is half true, in that you can use a type of post-1940 tax shelter, but this poster's own testimony includes "lacking a domicile"--so if it's not working in a way that actually leads to true land ownership (in over twenty years), what is the point?
There are no solutions to be found through the Constitution, as someone speaking from a pre-Revolutionary heritage, I would remind you that extremely stiff resistance was seen in North Carolina and Rhode Island, for example. We were warned about a consolidated government and a federal taxing power, which were not there previously.
The Bill of Rights is something like a defrayal, and obfuscation of the issues, that was satisfactory to some, that I would call window-dressing propaganda, since the Constitution as such is the vessel of Wall Street, which is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was trying to prevent. It is a rushed compromise, not a well-designed satisfactory social contract. Jefferson then also said it probably should be altered or abolished by every generation.
My apologies for temporarily thinking that "citizenship" was the determining factor; I cannot agree with numerous points used to substantiate this view.
I am not sure "sovereignty" has any meaning in the personal sense, and I definitely do not believe in rights endowed by a creator. Process of collective bargaining subject to scrutiny and review. That is all.
My ancestors fled Britain physically, fought them off in the Revolution, then campaigned and held a few offices on the Anti-Federalist platform, and after that, we have been beaten back down by nearly everything. I have no clue why I should be under the same government as the former Republic of Texas or Kingdom of Hawai'i. Nothing much after Andrew Jackson really "represents" anything we were going for.
Land Ownership is certainly necessary for a Jeffersonian Agricultural Economy independent from Wall Street, which the U. S. has completely murdered, the best example now being Russia. Currently, Russia has plenty of cheap, workable land, where a person can feasibly succeed with a small farm, exactly like the former American colonies.
Once you figure out that the American founding fathers were mostly copyists of the same principles that had already spread to Russia, then, all they really "designed" were a few details such as the number of representatives. They were mainly copying France. So now we see the results of how these various interpretations have been applied.
I don't trust anything that doesn't normalize small farming.
One can see how devastating this has been when Big Ag continues to roll through places like Germany and India.
Let alone Ukraine.
Currently the only decent example I know of is "American farmers who moved to Russia"--and yes, you would need to become a citizen and pay taxes--so? That is not what I am objecting to. I am not trying to get rid of government, just "forms of government" even if they are republican.