3 ms·

Here you go[1]. The rights it refers to are the old Common Law rights. And no, poached game isn’t “papers and effects.” Also land patents and allodial title[2

by User23 5y ago

Here you go[1]. The rights it refers to are the old Common Law rights. And no, poached game isn’t “papers and effects.” Also land patents and allodial title[2] are virtually extinct in the USA. We all are renting our property. Stop paying your “property tax” if you’d like confirmation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

woodruffw 5y ago
Allodial title is one specific kind of title structure. It’s not the only form of ownership, as the phrase structure “X title” implies. Having to pay taxes on your property invalidates the nature of property no more than paying income tax invalidates the nature of income.
- User23 5y ago
  Wrong. Legally speaking the State is your superior landlord. “Property tax” is legally a rent you pay to the state. The federal income tax is an entirely different creature, created by the 16th amendment. It’s completely incomparable legally. Title held in allod is subject to no superior landlord. That means it can’t be taxed or liened or otherwise legally encumbered. Edit: > And the fact that the state has a superior title in extremely limited circumstances doesn't make it a landlord. Nah[1]. [1] https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0560.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0560.htm
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The problem with these tortured uses of "landlord," "taxes as rent," etc. is that they go both ways: I can observe that a superior title is still subject to the whims of The Man With The Big Stick, and that any funds you spend preparing your land for defense against The Main With The Big Stick's changing whims is a de facto tax on you. But that's silly, because it isn't really a tax. And the fact that the state has a superior title in extremely limited circumstances doesn't make it a landlord.
    - causi 5y ago
      I would think the difference between a tax and a rent is that taxes only apply to the same piece of property once and rent applies over and over. If I'm paid a hundred thousand dollars I pay income tax on that once and after that I can keep it in a trunk until the end of time without anyone worrying about it. Whereas if I spend a hundred thousand dollars on a parcel of land the only thing stopping me from paying an infinite amount of "rent" (taxes) on it is the fact one day I'll drop dead and then someone else will start paying the infinite amount of rent on it. That property tax on a square foot of grass totals much less than rent on a square foot of apartment seems like a difference only in amount, not in fundamental nature.
      - JadeNB 5y ago
        > I would think the difference between a tax and a rent is that taxes only apply to the same piece of property once and rent applies over and over. I think that one might say that income tax taxes not money per se but income—it's, as it were, a tax on velocity (though this seems not to be quite the classic sense of "velocity of money"), on moving money rather than money at rest. Property taxes, in turn, may be viewed as taxes not on hectares (or whatever), but on hectare-years—because a hectare can't easily be valued, but a hectare-year can (comparatively). (Of course ha-yrs are not fungible, but neither are $/yr, as evidenced by different marginal tax rates at different income levels.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
krastanov 5y ago
Could you elaborate on 1? The phrase "common law" does not appear in that page and I do not seen how the 10th ammendement says anything that overrules protections from the 4th when game wardens are involved.
- arcbyte 5y ago
  The US constitution was an agreement among the states to delegate power to a federal government. State governments had absolute power. Any powers not specifically delegated to the newly created federal government through the constitution were obviously retained by the states. Incorporation doctrine after the 14th amendment is just an extension of the federal government saying "well if states agreed to the 14th amendment and the 14th amendment says privileges and immunities of us citizens can't be infringed, then the states are logically giving up whatever extra powers they held previously to not respect rights enumerated in the constitution". It's a bit dubious but it helped clean up the mess of slavery. The point being that prior to Incorporation, the bill of rights was irrelevant to states. State governments didn't have to respect your right to free speech or guns or jury trials or anything (unless the constitution of that state required it to). So game wardens had plenty of power. Incorporation doctrine has had a long, messy history and it's possible that no one has specifically challenged game wardens power in the right way to trigger a review of it constitutionally.

by User23 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

Allodial title is one specific kind of title structure. It’s not the only form of ownership, as the phrase structure “X title” implies. Having to pay taxes on your property invalidates the nature of property no more than paying income tax invalidates the nature of income.

User23 5y ago
Wrong. Legally speaking the State is your superior landlord. “Property tax” is legally a rent you pay to the state. The federal income tax is an entirely different creature, created by the 16th amendment. It’s completely incomparable legally. Title held in allod is subject to no superior landlord. That means it can’t be taxed or liened or otherwise legally encumbered. Edit: > And the fact that the state has a superior title in extremely limited circumstances doesn't make it a landlord. Nah[1]. [1] https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0560.htm https://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-r-0560.htm
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The problem with these tortured uses of "landlord," "taxes as rent," etc. is that they go both ways: I can observe that a superior title is still subject to the whims of The Man With The Big Stick, and that any funds you spend preparing your land for defense against The Main With The Big Stick's changing whims is a de facto tax on you. But that's silly, because it isn't really a tax. And the fact that the state has a superior title in extremely limited circumstances doesn't make it a landlord.
  - causi 5y ago
    I would think the difference between a tax and a rent is that taxes only apply to the same piece of property once and rent applies over and over. If I'm paid a hundred thousand dollars I pay income tax on that once and after that I can keep it in a trunk until the end of time without anyone worrying about it. Whereas if I spend a hundred thousand dollars on a parcel of land the only thing stopping me from paying an infinite amount of "rent" (taxes) on it is the fact one day I'll drop dead and then someone else will start paying the infinite amount of rent on it. That property tax on a square foot of grass totals much less than rent on a square foot of apartment seems like a difference only in amount, not in fundamental nature.
    - JadeNB 5y ago
      > I would think the difference between a tax and a rent is that taxes only apply to the same piece of property once and rent applies over and over. I think that one might say that income tax taxes not money per se but income—it's, as it were, a tax on velocity (though this seems not to be quite the classic sense of "velocity of money"), on moving money rather than money at rest. Property taxes, in turn, may be viewed as taxes not on hectares (or whatever), but on hectare-years—because a hectare can't easily be valued, but a hectare-year can (comparatively). (Of course ha-yrs are not fungible, but neither are $/yr, as evidenced by different marginal tax rates at different income levels.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

krastanov 5y ago

Could you elaborate on 1? The phrase "common law" does not appear in that page and I do not seen how the 10th ammendement says anything that overrules protections from the 4th when game wardens are involved.

arcbyte 5y ago
The US constitution was an agreement among the states to delegate power to a federal government. State governments had absolute power. Any powers not specifically delegated to the newly created federal government through the constitution were obviously retained by the states. Incorporation doctrine after the 14th amendment is just an extension of the federal government saying "well if states agreed to the 14th amendment and the 14th amendment says privileges and immunities of us citizens can't be infringed, then the states are logically giving up whatever extra powers they held previously to not respect rights enumerated in the constitution". It's a bit dubious but it helped clean up the mess of slavery. The point being that prior to Incorporation, the bill of rights was irrelevant to states. State governments didn't have to respect your right to free speech or guns or jury trials or anything (unless the constitution of that state required it to). So game wardens had plenty of power. Incorporation doctrine has had a long, messy history and it's possible that no one has specifically challenged game wardens power in the right way to trigger a review of it constitutionally.