nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 180:
Line 180: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Problems with definitions
:The next question is - ''Why are people registering their private property as taxable estate?'' Ask your friendly officer of the court (real estate lawyer) who writes up your title deed, "for $1 in hand..." Then examine the 7th amendment about the requirement that the value in question exceed 20 dollars U.S. before your RIGHT to a trial by jury under the rules of the COMMON LAW are secured. Perhaps "someone" doesn't wish Americans to have any public evidence that they can seek recourse under the rules of the common law.
:The next question is - ''Why are people registering their private property as taxable estate?'' Ask your friendly officer of the court (real estate lawyer) who writes up your title deed, "for $1 in hand..." Then examine the 7th amendment about the requirement that the value in question exceed 20 dollars U.S. before your RIGHT to a trial by jury under the rules of the COMMON LAW are secured. Perhaps "someone" doesn't wish Americans to have any public evidence that they can seek recourse under the rules of the common law.
:--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 19:43, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:--[[User:Jetgraphics|Jetgraphics]] 19:43, 9 December 2007 (EST)
== Problems with definitions ==
I've just read this article for the first time, and find myself disagreeing with key points. How much this is because Jetgraphics (the source of the points I dispute, it seems) is simply wrong, and how much is due to my perspective not being an American one I don't know.
My understanding of "private property" is property owned by persons, whether actual (human beings) or legal (companies), as distinct from property owned by governments. Now that's not necessarily a legal definition, but this article should not be limited to legal definitions. And in this country, what I know as private property is definitely taxed. And in this country, there is no such thing as property that is beyond government reach. Governments cannot resume property without fair compensation, but they ''can'' resume property. And control what happens on it.
Also, the bit about what the Bible means has an unstated assumption that, if wrong (as I believe it to be) destroys the argument. The sentence is "Since ''there can be no collective absolute ownership'', the only valid conclusion is that individual men are endowed with the birthright to absolutely own themselves, the fruits of their labor, and that which they harmlessly acquire, including land." (my emphasis). The emphasised phrase is unsupported, unintuitive, and as far as I'm concerned, plain wrong. And if anything, this biblical point says the exact opposite. Because "man" (i.e. mankind or humanity) is given ownership of the Earth, that in itself suggests ''collective'' ownership. The disputed phrase is what manages to turn this suggestion 180 degrees to mean the opposite.
Further, whilst I definitely agree that the Bible recognises private property (else laws against theft are pointless), I would also say that the Bible recognises no such thing as ''absolute'' right or ownership. Although man has been given the Earth, ''everything'' belongs to God, so our "right" to property is actually a right to make use of ''His'' property.
I would also ask, what if a husband and wife jointly own property? Is it therefore not "private property" because it's not owned by an ''individual''? The distinction is arbitrary and without apparent foundation.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)