| | : The argument about "absolute ownership" is circular, and, in any event, contrary to the reality of property law. No ownership is "absolute." Much as it galls me, one's right to own property (in both Britain and the U.S.) is contingent upon the continued payment of property tax (in the case of real estate, anyway), avoiding illegal use of the property (in the case of personalty), and so forth. In short, you're venting about how you'd like things to be, rather than accurately describing how they really are. [[User:QBeam]] 5:32PM (EST) Nov. 27, 2007 | | : The argument about "absolute ownership" is circular, and, in any event, contrary to the reality of property law. No ownership is "absolute." Much as it galls me, one's right to own property (in both Britain and the U.S.) is contingent upon the continued payment of property tax (in the case of real estate, anyway), avoiding illegal use of the property (in the case of personalty), and so forth. In short, you're venting about how you'd like things to be, rather than accurately describing how they really are. [[User:QBeam]] 5:32PM (EST) Nov. 27, 2007 |
| | + | Your conclusions are not supported by the authorities cited herein. First, do not assume European definitions of land ownership are in force and effect. Second, at the founding of the nation, the sovereignty of the people was recognized by the government. Third, sovereignty and property are inseparable. Fourth, there are NO tax levies on private property. All ad valorem taxes are levied on estate NOT private property. I challenge you to produce ONE constitutional clause that delegates the power to tax private property. Fifth, no state requires the recording of private property transactions. |