If I own land in the United States, is it really my land or does it belong to the government? I am free to buy and sell land to anyone as if it was the same as any other kind of property, but could I say, sell my land to the government of another country? I can sell anything I own to anyone in the world, but does land work the same way?

5/26/2009 7:28:26 PM

you could sell your land to another country, but i believe that land that is sovereign to america, regardless of what you want to do with it

kind of like you can't just grow weed on your own land

5/26/2009 7:36:58 PM

By definition, one does not own something if he has to continue making payments to a 3rd party simply in order to retain possession of it. So, no, nobody who pays property taxes owns their property.

Putting that nit-pick aside, there are plenty of other restrictions like you mention.

5/26/2009 7:38:16 PM

1. It is your land.

2. You can sell your property to the government of another country...it would then become something like an embassy. The hard part would be convincing the government of another country to purchase your property.

5/26/2009 7:38:55 PM

it is your land until the government decides to build a road through your house

5/26/2009 7:40:39 PM

^Or if they just want to hand it over to a developer to build a mall

5/26/2009 7:47:47 PM

Quote :

"it is your land until the government decides to build a road through your house"

Or Dick Cheney decides to label u a terrorist and throwing u into the black hole of some CIA op secret prison

5/26/2009 9:31:33 PM

or if you stop paying property taxes on it.

5/26/2009 9:40:55 PM

or the mafia makes you an offer you can not refuse

5/26/2009 9:56:12 PM

"can not refuse"

5/26/2009 10:24:30 PM

^^In which case I have to pay property tax to the government and tribute to the mob for protection.

Oy.

5/26/2009 11:50:56 PM

or if you dig a ditch, and the rain fills it in..and the EPA declares it a wetlands, forbids you from developing it...Now useless...you are forced to sell it to an "environmental" group like the Nature Concervancy for a song...who in turn sell it to the gov't for a big profit.

5/27/2009 12:10:10 AM

Seriously though, how would it work say if Indian tribes were to buy adjacent land to their tribal territories? Would they be able to expand their areas that way?

5/27/2009 2:00:41 AM

Pretty simple (but unbearably ambiguous) answer. You're asking about the nature of fee simple, which is the type of land ownership common in the U.S.:

Quote :

"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."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple)

In other words, it's ownership in the basically same sense that you 'own' your body. Take that analogy where you will ...

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 2:26 AM. Reason : foo]

5/27/2009 2:25:55 AM

Quote :

"or if you dig a ditch, and the rain fills it in..and the EPA declares it a wetlands, forbids you from developing it...Now useless...you are forced to sell it to an "environmental" group like the Nature Concervancy for a song...who in turn sell it to the gov't for a big profit"

EarthDogg, you usually make sense, but you stupid fucking anti-endangered-species/habitat-libertarians will fucking kill the party. You are irretrievably wrong about this, so just shut the goddamn fuck up already. As if it weren't bad enough that you types don't seem to give a fuck about nature, but you also have the fucking nerve to mislabel it as a form of eminent domain. You are mother-fucking stupid for defending land developers in the first place, you're even mother-fucking stupider for disregarding the well-being of endangered wildlife and ecosystems, and you are, without a doubt, the mother-fucking stupidest of all for framing it as "the government taking your land". Fuck you for setting back the libertarian cause a few decades. Fuck you.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 8:07 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2009 8:05:54 AM

Quote :

"You are irretrievably wrong about this,"

How so?

This actually happened to Korean War vet Brandt Child in the 1990s. It's a fact.

Many average Americans have lost property to crazy gov't environmental regulations. Check out the "Instutute for Justice" website. This is a group of libertarian-leaning lawyers who take on cases of gov't abuse.

http://www.ij.org/

5/27/2009 10:27:08 AM

Quote :

"By definition, one does not own something if he has to continue making payments to a 3rd party simply in order to retain possession of it. So, no, nobody who pays property taxes owns their property."

True. And it also depends on what type of deed one holds:

http://usainvestmentlandandhomes.com/types-of-deeds-used-in-realestate.htm

^ True, too. And what about the crazy SCOTUS holding that can give just your property to an entity that pays more taxes!

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2009 10:47:37 AM

^^
environment >>>>>>>>>>>>>> human liberty

Fuck you.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 10:48 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2009 10:47:58 AM

^ Who decides what's environmentally correct?

5/27/2009 10:51:20 AM

Quote :

"Pretty simple (but unbearably ambiguous) answer. You're asking about the nature of fee simple, which is the type of land ownership common in the U.S.: Quote : "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." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple) In other words, it's ownership in the basically same sense that you 'own' your body. Take that analogy where you will ... [Edited on May 27, 2009 at 2:26 AM. Reason : foo]"

I like how every little political or legal thing really HAS a legal point or explanation to it.

even ILLEGAL things or things outside of the law have legal points and definitions attached to it

I find the very essence of the dichotomy between de jure and de facto to be very very interesting

5/27/2009 11:03:36 AM

It's called common law.

5/27/2009 11:11:59 AM

Quote :

"Who decides what's environmentally correct?"

People.
People such as scientists, lawyers, politicians, regular citizens, etc. simply, (or not so simply,) apply the libertarian principle, with the understanding that the commons (nature, wildlife, etc.,) is co-owned by everyone.

Again, the concept of "reasonable" comes into play. It is reasonable to let an endangered snail go extinct, so that a single individual can build a swimming pool on their property? No. It is reasonable to allow the decimation of a non-endangered flower to the point that it is endangered, so that the entire state of florida can be evacuated for a category 5 hurricane? Yes. Did I pick two easy examples? Yes.

5/27/2009 11:15:47 AM

^What if your mother was vacationing in FL and a hurricane was on the way. Would you put that flower's "right" to be non-endangered over your mother's safety?

5/27/2009 11:28:16 AM

^
READ:

Quote :

"It is reasonable to allow the decimation of a non-endangered flower to the point that it is endangered, so that the entire state of florida can be evacuated for a category 5 hurricane? Yes."

5/27/2009 11:36:36 AM

I figured that was sarcasm

5/27/2009 11:37:25 AM

Quote :

"apply the libertarian principle, with the understanding that the commons (nature, wildlife, etc.,) is co-owned by everyone."

Libertarian principle generally pushes for private ownership over gov't ownership of land. The idea being that a private person will do a better job of looking after his own stuff. If I pollute someone else's property, they'll take me to court.

The gov't, protector of the commons,is the biggest polluter in the country. Basically free from litigation, it can pollute at will.

5/27/2009 11:41:11 AM

Quote :

"The gov't, protector of the commons,is the biggest polluter in the country. Basically free from litigation, it can pollute at will."

i'm sorry but i don't buy that.

5/27/2009 11:55:15 AM

You mentioned "commons"--are you familiar with "The Tragedy of Commons," Willy Nilly?

5/27/2009 12:32:47 PM

Quote :

"I figured that was sarcasm"

Why? Do you disagree? Do you think hurricane evacuations should be halted to protect a flower? Because I don't. Are you sure you didn't misread the statement?

Quote :

"Libertarian principle generally pushes for private ownership over gov't ownership of land. The idea being that a private person will do a better job of looking after his own stuff. If I pollute someone else's property, they'll take me to court."

Right, and the privatization of the commons would regard land that isn't already owned as being privately co-owned by everyone. If you pollute someone else's property, they'll take you to court. If you pollute the commons (everyone's property) then anyone can take you to court. I agree that a private person will do a better job of looking after his own stuff, and every private person, together, but still acting individually, will do a better job of looking after everyone' stuff, the commons.

Quote :

"The gov't, protector of the commons,is the biggest polluter in the country. Basically free from litigation, it can pollute at will."

Sad, but true. Of course, with the privatization of the commons, anyone should be able to take polluters to court, even the seemingly untouchable government. The government should be of the people -- it shouldn't be it's own thing. The privatization of the commons doesn't mean that the government owns the commons -- that's more like what we have now.

Quote :

"You mentioned "commons"--are you familiar with "The Tragedy of Commons," Willy Nilly?"

Sure, that's basically like "diffusion of responsibility". So what?

"In Hardin's view, it is in each herder's interest to put as many cows as possible onto the land, even if the commons are damaged as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from the additional cows, while the damage to the commons is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational decision, however, the commons are destroyed and all herders suffer."

Commons are not the same as regular co-owned property, because it's not a small group co-owning a parcel of land and them doing stuff on it because it's theirs. Rather it's a very large group -- in fact, everyone -- co-owning all otherwise unowned land and nobody doing any stuff on it because it's everyone's. Saying that an individual co-owns a particular commons-land doesn't mean they can raise cattle on it -- commons is nature, and stays nature, until everyone "agrees" to sell it to a single owner, if ever.

If you only use your imagination/reasoning to poke holes in the idea of libertarian commons, you're overlooking the fact that others can use their imagination/reasoning to plug those holes, or prevent them in the first place. I don't claim to have all the answers -- I'm just some guy on the fucking internet....

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

5/27/2009 1:02:31 PM