Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple
In English law, a fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the most common way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved for governments. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed.[ citation needed] How ownership is limited by these government powers often involves the shift from allodial title to fee simple such as when uniting with other property owners acceding to property restrictions or municipal regulation
So in the real the Government owns all property and the people run the government. So they have every right to be there...  / understands the can o worms is open... lol
|
Yeah I figured you would go for that argument. Hilarious, and pretty much sums up the level of intellect being shown by a good portion of this movement. It's sad really, there are good point s to be argued, and you come down to the type of argument we saw from Tower. Are you a free man on the land too?
Oh, and I figure I might as well burst your bubble while I'm here. One of the guiding principles of the United States is the right to own property without interference. How about we look at a couple of quotes from some guys who wrote that little Constitution thing:
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." - James Madison
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST" - John Adams
If you really want to get into an argument about the rights of property ownership in the United States I will gladly oblige, but please come back with an argument of actual substance. You cited (Wikipedia too, well done) an article that references the 4 limitations on property ownership under common law. Is your argument that the existence of a government power over something makes it government property? The ability to tax land makes that land under government control? The presence of an extremely limited right of eminent domain does the same? As does the presence of a police power (which doesn't directly remove a fee owned) or escheat, which only comes into existence when property has no owner through any other means?