DescentBB

I'm far too lazy to search for myself. Please enlighten me as to why I don't own the car I purchased myself. Cash purchase, not on a payment plan.

I rent, but I suppose if I bought a house I would own it, too, and the land on which it stood.

Slavery is illegal, so certainly no one else owns my body.

Perhaps by saying we don't own these things what you actually mean is that the government has imposed restrictions on what we can do with them. That does not imply a lack of ownership.

Paul wrote:That does not imply a lack of ownership.

It does imply a lack of complete and total ownership.

Also, for anyone worried about the gun laws thing, if everyone had guns and regular practice was encouraged and facilitated, if some nut pulled one out and tried to attack people, they'd be gunned down in seconds. As I recall there was a thread here with regard to Swiss gun culture. Interpret that as you wish.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

Paul wrote:That does not imply a lack of ownership.

It does imply a lack of complete and total ownership.

Also, for anyone worried about the gun laws thing, if everyone had guns and regular practice was encouraged and facilitated, if some nut pulled one out and tried to attack people, they'd be gunned down in seconds. As I recall there was a thread here with regard to Swiss gun culture. Interpret that as you wish.

1: Well tell us, why does it not imply a complete lack of ownership? Because don't forget that two or more people can own the same object. (presuming that it is possible to own an object)
2: Firstly, there are many, many examples of gangs created to prevent a person from dying on the spot by other people. Secondly, a nut that pulls out a gun and tried to attack a person could only be gunned down by another nut that pulls out a gun and tries to attack a person.

I haven't read the whole thread. sry.

just gunna add my 2 bits. I think we're loosing a lot more rights through the actions of groups such as the ACLU than we are any outward government actions.

Also keep your eye on the UN.

Duper wrote:Also keep your eye on the UN.

i don't understand how you can say this.
All first world nations are part of the UN, & USA is one of the LEAST free of any of those first world nations.
Yet America complains the most about the UN signifying loss of freedom for America?

hmm, i guess i can see a possible angle this is comming from: it's the freedom of america to exclude itself from the world's freedom - to set itself seperate if it so desires.

The freedom to (as a country) say "no" to the personal freedoms that citizens of OTHER nations enjoy.

Mobius wrote:You used to have the right to reverse engineer things to see how they work. But the DMCA stopped all that.

Not with all things. I do exactly that for a living. Quite legally too I might add

Read this
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 6/LODI.TMP

TIGERassault wrote:1: Well tell us, why does it not imply a complete lack of ownership? Because don't forget that two or more people can own the same object. (presuming that it is possible to own an object)

If two or more people own the same object, then the object in question is only partially owned by each party, therefore neither party completely owns that object. In most cases of dual or greater ownership, the terms set by the owners are mutual and breaking them can only damage the relationship between the people, but in the case of partial government ownership, the terms are applied rather unilaterally, and disobedience is responded to by fines or jail time. I'll concede that it is possible to change those terms, but it s a slow process that requires the combined will of most people.

You only have a certificate of title to a car. the actual title belongs to the state. The car manufacturers ship the MSO to the state when the car leaves the assembly line. It was never yours, even if you paid cash.

You used to own property/cars by Allodial title. This has changed sometime in the past, I forget when. You do not own your home, because if you don't pay the taxes, the government takes it. You do not own your car, because the actual title is stolen by the state. This is why these major ticket items you don't own are taxed every time you sell them.

roid wrote:i don't understand how you can say this.
All first world nations are part of the UN, & USA is one of the LEAST free of any of those first world nations.
Yet America complains the most about the UN signifying loss of freedom for America?

So, we have the lowest percentage of our income taxed out of any first-world country, we have a greater freedom to spend more of our money the way we want it than anyone else...and yet we're the LEAST free country out of the First World? All because of some anti-terrorism legislation that will never affect over 99% of American citizens in the least and will probably be repealed by 2009, if not sooner? I'm not seeing the correlation here.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:1: Well tell us, why does it not imply a complete lack of ownership? Because don't forget that two or more people can own the same object. (presuming that it is possible to own an object)

If two or more people own the same object, then the object in question is only partially owned by each party, therefore neither party completely owns that object. In most cases of dual or greater ownership, the terms set by the owners are mutual and breaking them can only damage the relationship between the people, but in the case of partial government ownership, the terms are applied rather unilaterally, and disobedience is responded to by fines or jail time. I'll concede that it is possible to change those terms, but it s a slow process that requires the combined will of most people.

Ah, but you never said anything about 'you cannot completely own *object*'. You just said 'you cannot own *object*.
And it certanly does not, and I quote, "imply a complete lack of ownership".
Although I do agree that you can't completely own something.

Testiculese wrote:You used to own property/cars by Allodial title. This has changed sometime in the past, I forget when. You do not own your home, because if you don't pay the taxes, the government takes it. You do not own your car, because the actual title is stolen by the state. This is why these major ticket items you don't own are taxed every time you sell them.

Yes, but this is debatable. I would say that both you and the government partially own it, but others would say that the government owns it but are letting you use it. It really depends on what way you look at it.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

Paul wrote:That does not imply a lack of ownership.

It does imply a lack of complete and total ownership.

So, since there are laws prohibiting murder, I guess that means we don't have complete and total ownership over any item that could potentially be used as a murder weapon, since we no longer have the right to murder people with it.

Knife... scissors... pen... gasoline... matches... a newspaper... these could all be murder weapons, but since we're not allowed to murder with them, I guess we don't own them, after all.

Testiculese wrote:You only have a certificate of title to a car. the actual title belongs to the state. The car manufacturers ship the MSO to the state when the car leaves the assembly line. It was never yours, even if you paid cash.

You used to own property/cars by Allodial title. This has changed sometime in the past, I forget when. You do not own your home, because if you don't pay the taxes, the government takes it. You do not own your car, because the actual title is stolen by the state. This is why these major ticket items you don't own are taxed every time you sell them.

And if you break laws, the government can take you and throw you in jail. But that doesn't mean the government owns you. It just means that people have decided that in order to form a more perfect union, laws must be enforced, and crimes must have punishment.

Please explain to me what is a crime? You seem to be missing the distinction.

testi, can you provide any specific supreme court cases, court case numbers would be great, or any sections within the US Code, read NOT Uniform Commercial Code, or even sections within state codes to support your arguments

Don't tell me to search the internet, read it myself, because frankly, I have read large sections of the US Code two years ago trying to support the same exact claims you are making and I could find nothing.

Under Idaho law, the sections are contained within this article. This is the same throught the country, however. Do a Google for MSO and \"Certificate of Title\" and you'll find plenty, I'm sure.

I'm looking for TLD's with gov in them..... not .com .net .org .biz .tv etc...

Shadowfury333 wrote:It does imply a lack of complete and total ownership.

TIGERassault wrote: Ah, but you never said anything about 'you cannot completely own *object*'. You just said 'you cannot own *object*.
And it certanly does not, and I quote, "imply a complete lack of ownership".
Although I do agree that you can't completely own something.

I said that one cannot completely own something under that system, not that there is a complete lack of ownership. You paraphrased, incorrectly, I might add.

Shadowfury333 wrote:I said that one cannot completely own something under that system, not that there is a complete lack of ownership. You paraphrased, incorrectly, I might add.

So I did. I apologise for that.

TIGERassault wrote:So I did. I apologise for that.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Paul, correct that about owning a house. You may own the house, but at any time if you do not pay taxes they can take it away. They can also make you move if they feel a road or a shopping mall would better suit the community, so you DO NOT own the land underneath it.