Liberty Activists Call WKBK’s “Talkback” 2008-09-06

Right, and we're not saying that the majority can't take land from the minority–they have the power to do that. We are (or at least, I am) trying to point out that the enforcement of imminent domain is immoral. You can say "the people have a right to take the land", but that's glossing over the dirty truth that "the majority have the power to relocate a person using force, according to the majority's best interests."

A voluntary society will be more difficult than our current system, because it will take more understanding and communication between people. On the bright side, though, we will truly be free, as opposed to the illusion of freedom that we currently have.

You folks need to learn about property law.

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

Fee simple is an estate in land in common law. It is the most common way 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 could also be limited by certain encumbrances or a condition in the deed. 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.

————–

All of my land was granted by the town of Kingston in 1719, as the 200 acre grants, each 3 miles east-west and 600 feet north-south.

Here is the record of land distribution in Keene in 1732:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/scripts/data/datab…

All land in NH was granted subject to the right of taxation by the government.

All of my land was granted by the town of Kingston in 1719…

And how, pray tell, did the "town of Kingston" come to own it?

Curt: 1719 was obviously before separation from Britain and before their first constitution. If The Crown, directly or indirectly, granted the land how is that common law and why is it that when purchasing property the idea of fee simple land ownership is not clearly communicated? Why is it assumed and why is that OK? Is it not deceptive to claim someone owns something if they can not do with it what they please? One can utter the sentence "I own this laptop, it's my property" or "I own this plot of land, it's my property" and according to you, implicitly, 'own' and 'property' have different meanings as a result of the subject. I don't find that to be a common happening in the language nor if it were would I consider it legitimate that it's left out of the agreement when transferring supposed ownership.

To respond to several points as succinctly as I can:

Kingston split off from Hampton, one of the 4 original NH towns (the others being Portsmouth, Exeter, and Dover) in 1694. Presumably the new town was granted any land not already granted by Hampton within its boundaries. How exactly Hampton got title is not exactly clear (to me). There were competing claims between the grant to John Mason in 1623, and the Massachusetts Puritans invaded. We've been calling them Massholes since then. But the main point is that all of our land titles came through government action. Basically the government of England, in its own right, or through authorized agents, took control of the land from the indigenous peoples who were here first. Our land titles today are based on those actions. So you can abjure what you call government violence, but simply by claiming a land title today you are complicit in that.

Regarding constitutions, the 1784 NH Constitution did not change any laws in force, statute or common law, that were not repugnant to it. There was also a temporary 1776 constitution enacted when Gov. John Wentworth fled the province and left it with no effective government. It was as of the 1784 constitution that the government could not take land without compensation. One of the shameful episodes of our NH history was when the Tories were kicked out and their land stolen for not going along with the revolution. The 1784 constitution had an escape clause to ensure that the property did not have to be returned under the new terms:

"[Art.] 90. [Existing Laws Continued if Not Repugnant.] All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved, in the province, colony, or state of New Hampshire, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall remain and be in full force, until altered and repealed by the legislature; such parts thereof only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution: Provided that nothing herein contained, when compared with the twenty-third article in the bill of rights, shall be construed to affect the laws already made respecting the persons, or estates of absentees."

Regarding the meaning of "ownership", this has always been understood to be a bundle of rights, and the "owner" is the person who has all the rights not specifically held by others. Such reserved rights could be an easement for utilities or a right of way for somebody to traverse your land to get to theirs. Not all rights are documented in deeds. Rights can accrue by usage over time.

Deeds used to be clearer about the complexity of ownership. Nowadays a deed says that the seller "grants" real estate to a buyer. Until 1951 the words were ''give, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, convey and confirm'' for a warranty deed or the words "remise, release and forever quitclaim.'' for a quitclaim deed.

Similarly deeds now simply say "with warranty covenants" or "with quitclaim covenants". It used to be with warranty deeds that the necessary language was "The grantor covenants, for himself, heirs, executors and administrators, that, at the time of the delivery of such deed, the grantor was lawfully seized in fee simple of the granted premises, that the said premises were free from all incumbrances, except as stated, that the grantor had good right to sell and convey the same to the grantee, heirs, successors and assigns, and that the grantor will, and the heirs, executors, and administrators shall, warrant and defend the same to the grantee and heirs, successors and assigns, against the lawful claims and demands of all persons."

Until 1981, a deed was presumed to be for a life estate only, reverting to the grantor or heirs on the death of the grantee, unless these words appeared after the name of the grantee: "his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns".

I don't think your various interactions with talk show hosts, judges, or town officials have been effective in getting your points across. And whether or not people can cite the legal bases, I think 99.9% of people understand that they are subject to taxation and some degree of regulation, and that they are OK with the concept of having some taxation or regulation, even if they object to specific amounts or measures. I think you take the benefits of our legal system for granted as you call for its destruction or for people not to use it.

According to Wikipedia and from what I've read in Murray Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty, page 225, Hampton was settled/chartered by orthodox Puritans in 1638 by the General Court of Massachusetts, being shortly after Mason died in 1635 and the existing settlers ignored inheritance of New Hampshire to his heirs.

So you can abjure what you call government violence, but simply by claiming a land title today you are complicit in that.

In many cases back then lands were bought from the natives. I've not seen any evidence that what is now Keene was but not all land was taken violently though often the land bought was expanded violently or terms abused. In any case, I believe it's an incorrect logical jump to say claiming a land title today means you are complicit in what occurred back then. Rothbardian's (which i'm not claiming those here are) believe that the original owner still has rights to the land but the practicality of it all negates being very proactive about it. The person who ignorantly receives stolen property isn't guilty of theft nor performing an illegitimate act by purchasing the property, knowing or not knowing it was stolen. Either way however he does not hold legitimate claim to the land. If the original owner or heirs who are verifiable were to request reparations for damages done they should be. Though ideally it should be those most closely related to the crime originally committed. Given the situation that's likely improbable if not impossible.

I understand the early constitutions adopted the previous governments laws 'adopted, used, and approved.' However, that doesn't make the land legitimately owned. I doubt anyone here would claim that the transfer of illegitimately chartered land from the Crown to the newly independent colonies magically gave them legitimacy.

Not all rights are documented in deeds. Rights can accrue by usage over time.

That seemingly goes against the ideas of general contract. If someone was to enter a condominium (which I understand is a fairly recent US property idea) without being told the rules, what their dues are, etc., the general public would be outraged should that person be kicked out without compensation for not living up to those assumed responcibilities. If the existing common law real property system works in that way why is it that the condo contract/deed clearly defines the requirements and the deed to one's plot of land does not? Simply because people 'understand' that they are subject to taxation and regulation does not legitimize it. Should I understand that if I leave my HDTV on my front porch someone will steal it doesn't mean I condone the action of its theft. I may be stupid but I'm still a victim of aggression. Without explicit knowledge of a rules, written or spoken, society generally will rule against those who have been deceptive. A cell phone contract may have lots of small print and they may be sneaky but it's all their in black and white. The belief that any random person performing a purchase of land understands common law real property ownership and knows the real differences from personal property would be very naive. There are many theories about property. Communists usually differentiate between personal property and private property. Capitalists generally don't. I think it's safe to say many libertarians / anarcho capitalists / voluntarists / etc. believe real property, personal property and private property are one in the same. (Though some don't left libertarians, geolibertarians, libertarian socialists and communists, etc.) I think your average home owner would have a difficult time defining the difference in supposed rights between personal property and real property. That alone shows me that there is a deficiency in the land transfer systems, education systems, contract enforcement systems currently employed.

I'm very proud of you Curt for knowing all the trite little factoids and happenings that comprise the veil of legitimacy government has. What you seem to be missing is that a collective cannot own anything unless voluntarily agreed upon. I don't have ownership of some state park for simply living in a certain geographic area. If you want to actually discover any thoughts or emotions worth having, delve outside of this neat little box of laws (read: lies) that carve up the world into slices of fiction and see the world for what it really is. And don't try and exalt the glorious justice system as you seemed to be earlier. There is nothing just about kidnapping people for smoking a plant, or refusing to be extorted. Don't think taxes is democratized extortion? Stop kidding yourself.

Curt: Don't you think explicit language would have preempted this entire issue? Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that people have different definitions of property and property rights and simply advocate clear, explicit, concise language in deeds and contracts? I think that would definitely make things better.

Nonviolence is better, understanding is better. That can all be placed on top of the current system.

To reply to Curt:

I definitely can, could and will come up with something better. To illustrate how simple justice really can be, I'll give you a perhaps simplistic view of it as they teach it in Kindergarten – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So simple is just human interaction that a child can understand it. I do think it's interesting, as pure history, the facts you gave about land grants and so forth. The only point we are making in the Free State Project, the liberty movement in general – the voluntaryist, anarcho-capitalist, free marketeer ilk – is that there is the world as it IS and as it OUGHT to be. We believe in the dynamic human spirit of unrestrained creativity and vigor that took our species from the caves to the skyscrapers. No "government" did that. It was individuals working (often collectively) toward a common goal. Are the Pyramids of Giza as awe inspiring when you realize they were built by the forced labor of enslaved men as tribute to the "undying spirit" of their rulers? We do not recognize the "state" as anything but a fictitious entity like any goblin, ogre, or closet beastie. We refuse to sit idly by while this (not our country but our HOME) is reduced to the graveyard that became the USSR. It's about evolving beyond the superstitions and conventions of the past and into a future OF OUR CHOOSING. Reality and justice are not pieces of paper, they exist in the hearts and minds of free men who think and act on their own volition. We live on our terms, and our terms are a man's right to exist for his own sake, by his own means, toward whatever ends and goals he deems worthy of his time, his effort, and his labor – that is his LIFE. This goes well beyond pieces of paper granting permission to sit on a plot of land for a determined amount of time at a fixed rate of extortion. What guides this movement is not simply the buzzwords of "freedom" and "liberty". What guides this movement is a realization of man's nature, of reality and his place in it. All men are only equal in potential toward excellence, and I guarantee you civilization will only exist more peacefully, more productive and more EQUALLY in a voluntary society.