314d
@averagejoe1 said"You say things that one has to wade through. If I buy a property giving money to the seller, that money is now in his possession, it is 'his property'. It follows that the land that I bought from him is my property."
? Your posts are becoming as unreal as the unrealistic Marauder. You say things that one has to wade through. If I buy a property giving money to the seller, that money is now in his possession, it is 'his property'. It follows that the land that I bought from him is my property. You two would say that the land is 'currently in my possession'.? Yeah, until I sell, o ...[text shortened]... u read Marauder. Fits his plans for the masses.
So please interpret what you are writing about.
Because the government guarantees it is so.
Because you can call the police, aka the government, if someone starts to build his house on your land or if someone steals that seller's money.
"You two would say that the land is 'currently in my possession'.?"
No, dumbass, because you DO have a government.
"I don't get where you are going with that,"
You never do. Don't worry, sometimes i may even explain to you so you still don't get.
"esp when you throw in tbat I need someone to protect my land? I do? Against what? Short of it being nationalized, it is mine and I have to protect it from trespassers"
Or call the police, if say, all your neighbours on your street suddenly decide they had enough of you and want to murder you and steal your land.
"Now I've thought of it, having govt take it over is possible when you read Marauder. Fits his plans for the masses."
He never said that, never would and it is hilarious you're so stupid as to thing anyone with a brain would believe he said that.
@zahlanzi saidNo. You say the government guarantees 'it' is so. The govt role is actually to guarantee that a person has fee simple in the title to that property....solely his property. To say 'it is so' means simply that the govt has laws, statutory made by people who RUN the government, regulating the exchange of properties. It is So that a man A can sell his property to man B. Private exchange, the govt is only there to be sure of legality.
"You say things that one has to wade through. If I buy a property giving money to the seller, that money is now in his possession, it is 'his property'. It follows that the land that I bought from him is my property."
Because the government guarantees it is so.
Because you can call the police, aka the government, if someone starts to build his house on your land or if som ...[text shortened]... uld and it is hilarious you're so stupid as to thing anyone with a brain would believe he said that.
You libs speak about government with big-time reverence. Hey, it is only an agency to regulate and protect. Like to get the police over if there is law-breaking. Your post about stealing the seller's money is infantile. If the seller sells, and lter someone gets the proceeds, what has that got to do with our subject? Get a grip. You went from title transfer to stealing the seller's money!!! Holy smokes.
The rest is equally silly.....calling police and stealing land. And Maruader does indeed interlace his opinions with equalling out the masses. Theoretically, maybe, but nevertheless. Although, he does dream about it, in my opinion.
Edit: As an aside, regarding stealing land, there is a commercial it is called Home Title Loss insurance. It is very misleading saying that someone can forge deeds etc and Take Your Title!! That is a total misrepresentation, I cannot believe they say that. Only with a legitimate signature without duress of the owner(s) can the title transfer. So, your statement above, 'steal your land' , cannot happen as you suggest.
314d
@averagejoe1 saidThe point is there was no title to land that you did not physically possess before the State. Therefore there is no "right" to own land you do not possess since our rights come from our nature which is evidenced by what occurred in the Natural State.
No. You say the government guarantees 'it' is so. The govt role is actually to guarantee that a person has fee simple in the title to that property....solely his property. To say 'it is so' means simply that the govt has laws, statutory made by people who RUN the government, regulating the exchange of properties. It is So that a man A can sell his property to man B. Pr ...[text shortened]... can the title transfer. So, your statement above, 'steal your land' , cannot happen as you suggest.
I realize you are too uneducated to even grasp the philosophical implications of this but that is your fault, not ours.
314d
@no1marauder saidA revealing statement, to say the least. Marauder takes the presented premise back to the stone age. The stone age, where a TRIBE settled,, like the Indians in America, and after a few meetings with the STRONGER (libs hate that word) of the members, they all agreed on a council, leaders, etc. They sectioned off a certain area for each citizen, and a society was born. Within it, rules were crafted about the ownership of land. These tribes, later to become involved in fights for the fittest in the wide expanse of the continent, established their ownership, which ownership was given by each citizen to the other. The land rights came from each other, not some etheral Natural State.
The point is there was no title to land that you did not physically possess before the State. Therefore there is no "right" to own land you do not possess since our rights come from our nature which is evidenced by what occurred in the Natural State.
I realize you are too uneducated to even grasp the philosophical implications of this but that is your fault, not ours.
Now, in 2024, Marauder is saying you guys don't understand, no one owns title to land. Yet we 'have' the land, and I ask Marauder to tell us who owns this land.
Note that he says he is speaking philosophically. Does such a point of view have any place in this discussion of all the landholders in the world? Further, is everyone here prepared to discuss philosophy? Further still, in the end, do you think Father Marauder will have convinced you that there is no right to own land?
314d
@AverageJoe1
PS: Marauder may say that the original tribe did not own the land in the first place, to section it off. So, nature owned the land. Y'all ready for that? I will tell him that they took it from whomever (mother nature) for themselves. Adverse Possession, you will, a form of titling recognized even to this day.
314d
@no1marauder said"Ours"??? You mean other forum members of your ilk? So they agree philosophically with your premise? Can they step forward and regale us with that? How do they know so much about philosophy, as you certainly do?
I realize you are too uneducated to even grasp the philosophical implications of this but that is your fault, not ours.
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
314d
@no1marauder saidOMG why don't we just give the land back to the one-celled protozoa, they were here first.
The point is there was no title to land that you did not physically possess before the State. Therefore there is no "right" to own land you do not possess since our rights come from our nature which is evidenced by what occurred in the Natural State.
I realize you are too uneducated to even grasp the philosophical implications of this but that is your fault, not ours.
314d
@jj-adams saidLand and natural resources properly belong to us all rather than being arbitrarily divided based on nothing more than brute force.
OMG why don't we just give the land back to the one-celled protozoa, they were here first.
Perhaps that is why vast inequality is something that we must be propagandized into accepting; it goes against our basic human nature. See my "What Color is a Banana? The Savanna Principle" thread.
314d
@no1marauder saidMarauder,, Marauder, Marauder.....are you a college student working on a thesis using us as guinea pigs? Throwing about unbelievalbe scenarios to see how we react? Well, you should make an A+ on that paper. You are destined for doing White Papers, I will recommend you to Donald.
Land and natural resources properly belong to us all rather than being arbitrarily divided based on nothing more than brute force.
Perhaps that is why vast inequality is something that we must be propagandized into accepting; it goes against our basic human nature. See my "What Color is a Banana? The Savanna Principle" thread.
@AverageJoe1
......................and I so much wanted to ask, in lieu of Brute Force, what would be the alternative way to deal with division of real property/land?
@averagejoe1 saidWhy won’t Marauder respond to this? He left his statement unclosed, by saying we djould not divide land by Brute Force? How, then?
@AverageJoe1
......................and I so much wanted to ask, in lieu of Brute Force, what would be the alternative way to deal with division of real property/land?
Oh, it slipped my mind that you think no one should own land in the first place?
312d
@AverageJoe1
Donald only hires WORTHLESS lawyers, and he goes HABBA HABBA, I WANT YOU.
Can you answer this, why have most of his lawyers jumped ship?
@sonhouse saidJoe 'salute the marines' Biden talks to a dead French president:
@AverageJoe1
Donald only hires WORTHLESS lawyers, and he goes HABBA HABBA, I WANT YOU.
Can you answer this, why have most of his lawyers jumped ship?