who owns the world?

[q1a2z3]

If the government OWNED the property, there wouldn’t be a private land owner to pay the PROPERTY tax. You just got yourself entangled in a logical conundrum! Taxes simply do not function as rent. Land owners do NOT have leases with their respective governments. In the U.S., as I assume in most other places, property owners hold titles.

So who owns the world? No one, yet; but in the libertarian world view, any asshole who gathers enough personal power and money has every right to own every fucking square inch, right? I mean no government should stand in his way?

WOW!!! I'm seeing some daylight in that statement and yes!!! property taxes like many other taxes need to GO!!! Taxes should never be more than 10% of ones total annual income. Everyone should pay their taxes including those who make $1.00/yr. Cough up your 10 cents! Government, all government should never be allowed to have more than 10%. If government employees want to create crazy programs they can hold telethons on TV to fund them. Taxes, just like government-run school systems are part of the communist manifesto and need to be abolished.

[trish]

So where did the magical 10% come from? The fact our number system is base ten? The fact that ancient Jewish law was based on ten commandments? The fact that people generally have 10 fingers? The fact that you have 10 brain cells? Why 10%. What's so special about ten one hundredth of your total annual income? You bring up an interesting example: the person who makes only a dollar a year. Doesn't the very existence of such a person demonstrate the need for a graduated tax?

And what pray tell, what does this latest rant have to do with the post you quoted? Are you admitting now that taxes aren't rent? Are you saying we only own our land if we annually pay ten percent of our income to the government? Does the government own our land if we pay less? More? Could you endeavor to be a little clearer on this subject? Are you aware that public school systems pre-date the communist manifesto? Are you aware that the Constitution of the United States grants the Federal Government the power to levy taxes for military purposes and for the general welfare and that the Constitution pre-dates the communist manifesto? Are you aware that the people are the Federal Government, that Federal lands are Public lands?

[hippifried]

WOW!!! I'm seeing some daylight in that statement and yes!!! property taxes like many other taxes need to GO!!! Taxes should never be more than 10% of ones total annual income. Everyone should pay their taxes including those who make $1.00/yr. Cough up your 10 cents! Government, all government should never be allowed to have more than 10%. If government employees want to create crazy programs they can hold telethons on TV to fund them. Taxes, just like government-run school systems are part of the communist manifesto and need to be abolished.

Well... I guess that 10% forced tithe you want everybody to pay makes you a commie. I think there should be a special surtax on whiners & another one on stupidity. That'd pretty much keep you in the poor house where you belong.


Trish,
You being generous on the brain cell count?

There was like 14 or 15 commandments at least. Everybody just plays fast & loose with them so they don't get confused by having to take off a shoe. For instance: The Catholics blew off the one about graven images. The Protestants resurrected it & combined the "covets" to maintain the number at 10. I saw a full list somewhere, but I'm disinterested enough that I won't bother looking for it. Of course it started with just one. The burning bush gave Moses the original commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself, & he took it back to the wandering throng. The next day or so he had to go trekking back up the hill to tell the bush that it was just too damn complicated & they needed details. Oh well. I guess the Randian libertarians aren't a new phenomenon after all.

[trish]

Jehovah could have used a little advice from MicroSoft's Clippie: "I see you're trying to make a list. Would you like some help?"

[Virtualdistance]

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about...ef=patrick.net

The shits who always owned it , vatican , DC , london inner city ...
And i can tell ya they are furious they cant own DPRK go juche

[Virtualdistance]

Well, doesn't every property owner pay some sort of land tax? In a sense paying that tax everyone is renting from the government.

Which is plain wrong cause everyone should be in the goverment , then we'd get goverment checks instead cause everyone would be leader of the board of the country : Shared chairmanship...

[loveburst]

Even though you haven’t explicitly answered my question, I think I see your tact. By using the modifier “really” or "truly" you hope to distinguish between “real ownership” (which is, according to you, the current relation between “the” government and “your” land) and “pseudo-ownership” (which currently passes for ownership and is the current relation between tax paying property “owners” and “their” land).

Okay let’s go with that. The modifier “truly” suggests there is such a thing as "true", or “real ownership”. That “real ownership” is something more than a social construct; something more than what we define it to be through custom or law. But what can this relationship between a person and his property be, if not a social construct? If it were a physical relationship one would expect to discover physical tests for ownership. Perhaps elementary particles are exchanged between an owner and what she owns. In that case we could test for the exchange of possessive-gluons. If the relationship were metaphysical, then of course you could never know whether you owned something or not in so far as the metaphysical realm is inaccessible from and transcends ordinary understanding.

Libertarianism is the last bastion of theology; its god is the metaphysical notion of property. The rest of us are clear. We know there is no such thing as “real ownership” distinguishable from the social construct of “ownership” that is determined by custom and law. The notion of ownership is society dependent (likely originating in some biological dispositions toward possessive behaviors) and its understanding varies from place to place and time to time. At one time people in the U.S. could own other people. No longer.

It seems libertarians have some confusion about what the social construct of property IS in the U.S. They seem to think that if you own something, you can do anything you want with it. That, however, is not our understanding of property. If you own a gun, there are legal constraints on how it may be used. If you own giant speakers, you may find that you still have to obey the noise ordinances in your neighborhood. If you own property within the border of a municipality, you may find that you are required to help maintain the local roads, the traffic lights, the bridges, the sewer system, the school system and other infrastructure that advantage your choice of location. Usually these things are supported by property taxes. Municipalities do not have the same rights as property owners. They do not own your land and you do not pay rent to the local municipality. You pay taxes and you have all the rights that American society and law accrues to property owners; just not all the "rights" that libertarians think they should have.

Do I think local infrastructure and public schools should be supported by means other than property tax? Yes and no. Most municipalities depend way too heavily on this particular source of revenue. I would like to see more State and Federal support for local infrastructure and education, through the tax on income, including income earned through the trading of stock. Perhaps you don’t care if the road to your house is pitted with potholes, the traffic lights in your town aren’t working and the sewers occasionally back up and flood your neighbor’s basement. Perhaps you don’t care if your neighbor’s kids learn to read, write and cipher. Perhaps you just don’t want them to learn on your dollar. Too bad, whiner. In the U.S. we expect a certain amount of cooperation for our mutual benefit, and we have written those expectations into law. Repeatedly break the law, and you may wind up having to sell your property to pay your lawyers.

Hello,

Interesting thoughts here, (good ones I mean) and I wished to adress this abit..

..I think what is in consideration here, is the person, who is the one with the capacity - in terms of what law allows - to by their own decision, affect whatever happens on a part of land.

Incase, the laws would allow for the total and last voice to be heard from the Queen / whomever is the legal owner of the ..hmm.. "area of land", then we can consider that person to be the one who truly can - according to the law - have the most affection over it, incase they so choose.

Also, if we consider someone having the right to even sell that part of the land, then we can consider that someone as the one who has the only legal right over getting the doe from mere decision, or from a swift of hand... without having to do much for their income - atleast on that certain case, compared to the others, who either live on the area, or have other relation to the place in general.

Therefor, incase what is shown here turns out to be true, atleast we can say that the one who has the legal rights to that property, has some advantage over others - who might by their birthright (onto this planet, as souls and consciousnesses on earth) have just as good a right to make something useful out of that certain part of land, by their own means, as the one now having that right to that special decision.

What I mean by this, is not wheter one can build a house to a certain place and do lawnmowing on whatever the day they wish to, but to really turn things around in that place... or choose not to turn around might be better way to explain this, since the one who does have the final say in the matter of what happens to a certain place, ie. will there be a railroad or not, or will there be houses or roads built on top of, is the one, who in terms of the law truly has that right. Wheter the Queen now possesses this right, or wheter she/their family etc. the kingdom have sold it to someone else to handle, or wheter she/they or any group of beings have this right and advantage over others, is I think, the question here, when we consider whomever has an ownership..

Though I do not know about the leagal hassles, and different requirements in the different parts of the world regarding as to what one must co-operate with in order to be eligible to their parts of the land.. I know that in the end, we might consider the owner, or the true one having the overall power over that landscapes destiny to be the one, who can get a red pen, mark a certain area on the map, and receive goods for handing that part over to someone elses theorethical posession. Be it how much metaphysical, or behind the scenes, the one benefitting of such a transaction could be considered, as to I think the poster meant as being the "true owner".

The question remains, -though- wheter the statistics shown on the quoted site remain true, or not..

btw. sorry for the long reply, and thank you for thoughtraising ideas Trish.

[trish]

Thank you, loveburst, for your kind considerations. It's been some months since I wrote that post. On rereading it seems right to me that property is neither a physical nor a metaphysical relation connecting owner to owned, but rather a social construction that plays into the natural possessive and territorial dispositions in human behavior. Consequently I don't think its possible to arrive at a definitive philosophical theory of ownership. Being a social construction the boundaries of the notion will always be under negotiation(both in ordinary social interactions and in law) and those boundaries will differ from place to place and time to time.

You bring up some interesting issues. Your example of one who has the legal right to sell land he has no "connection" to as opposed to those who live on the land and are intimate with it. Cases like this abound. One that comes to my mind is the Louisiana Purchase. Here there were at least two different cultures (Native & European) and hence at least two different social constructions of ownership and therefore at least two different conceptions of how the notion of ownership should be applied to the territories in that purchase. Unfortunately these sorts of conflicts usually end in violence and the final decision goes to the power lucky enough and positioned well enough to come out on top.

Your own example is a less violent one: the property owners whose properties are condemned in order to make way for a railroad, or a highway etc. In this example there's one society and one legal system and one social construction of property. But there is conflict because the example is near the boundary of our notion of property and hence open to negotiation, in this case the negotiations are likely to take the form of litigation toward legal settlements.

The notion of property is complex. Who has the sole use of an object or a piece of land (if anybody) is not the only issue. Who has the right to the water that flows across the borders? What can they do with that water? Who has the right to the toxic waste that is produced by the owner of a factory? Can he do whatever he wishes with that waste? On his own property can the owner of a gun fire it randomly in any direction? The use, safe use, disposal, and the safe keeping of property are all issues of property that have no one single answer. Our society and the law constantly visits and revisits these issues on a case by case basis as questions and conflicts occur. I don't think that in most cases of interest there is an ultimate owner, not the Queen, not the government not stock owners, not homeowners...because each one has a responsibility to the other in regards to the property in question.

[hippifried]

In the grand scheme, the Afro-Eurasian concept of land "ownership" is brand new. Only a few centuries. It didn't exist in pre-columbian America at all, or any of the so called "primitive" agrarian societies. I suppose one could make the argument that it dates back to at least the time of Abraham & all the rituals of birthrights & such for passing down the family farm, & even that's still biting everybody in the ass. Title ownership is a tweak on the universal social construct of territorial control for usage, whether by the society as a whole or a specific individual.

The idea of title ownership is a 2 edged sword. It can be used as a protection for the controling land user. But more often than not, it's used as a tool to involve third parties in the takeover of land. The law is just basic rules set down to aid society in using its social constructs. It's not supposed to be complicated. Philosophy turned meme makes it complicated.

Too often, a tall tale, told enough times, becomes historical belief used to prop up ideologies & arbitrary rules. One of my favorite comic myths is that some Dutch settlers "bought" Manhattan Island from the Lenape Indians in the early 17th century. How do you "buy" something from somebody who has no concept of title ownership or currency? What really happened was that there was an exchange of gifts & a friendship established which allowed the Dutch to live unmolested in the putrid swamp that was lower Manhattan at the time. Over & over we hear the stories of how land was "bought" from mythical chiefs & kings, & how violence was justified in keeping the purchased land from being taken by savages who tried to welch on the deal.

The concept of land ownership is feudal for the most part. Titled ownership goes hand in hand with titled nobility. Even our own southern rebellion was feudal landlords trying to maintain control over vast tracts of arable land & their human "property" that was the farm equipment used to make it produce. Every time we turn around, there's somebody using property as an excuse for violence toward & subjugation of other people. Control of land is control of resources.

We need a rethink on our priorities.

[Silcc69]

I'm jsut sayin though

Allodial title is a concept in some systems of property law. It describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any superior landlord. Allodial title is secured by various state constitutions. An individual's allodial title is alienable, in that it may be conveyed, devised, gifted, or mortgaged by the owner, and may also be distressed and restrained for collection of taxes or private debts or condemned (eminent domain) by the government.
In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says "allodium" is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to "feud."