[tpaine]

KrisKrinkle wrote:

I don't recall seeing a convincing argument that property rights truly always trump other rights.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Here's a fringer site that explains where some of the stuff we've been seeing posted comes from:



Your Rights
Address:http://www.teamlaw.org/AssertRights.htm

In this nation, people (sovereigns) obtain ownership to land by Land Patent. 
When a sovereign is on his own land, he is a king in his own country. 

Other than God, there is no ruler higher. 

The Land Patent brings king and country together with liberty.  Such ownership is called "Allodial", which means, 'beholding to none other' (that is to say the opposite of feudal). 

Government has no authority over a man on his Land Patent secured Land. 

In proof of this fact, read the documents that secure such rights to you; the verbiage is absolute. 
Also, remember the law of Trespass, which says, if anyone enters the land without the sovereign's permission that person is guilty of trespassing and is subject to summary execution on sight without any other cause or review. 

Other property rights are directly related to Land rights and the right to Land and and property are the very foundations of virtually all other rights.
A sovereign permitted to enter on some other sovereign's land is merely a tenant, subject to the sovereign over the land.  The tenant is bound to the law of the sovereign of the land.  The visiting sovereign limits his agency by a tenancy agreement (contract), which allows his entry upon and or use of the land that is not his.

  All other property rights stem from land rights.  People tend to forget about sovereignty when they bind themselves under contracts.

[KrisKrinkle]

Re the link you sent:

They say “In this nation, people (sovereigns) obtain ownership to land by Land Patent.”

Since they used Blacks, I will too. Blacks says a Land Patent Is an instrument conveying a grant of public land.

In the section on land patents, they say the land within the United States of America came from England, France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, Hawaii, and from the Native American Indians.

I’d always thought land existed before the existence of any of those.

In the section on land patents they say the US acquired the land by, well basically coercion and fraud when you dig below the surface.

Later on they write about a land patent sealed under the signature of the President and write:

“Once the land is placed in trust under the sole disposition of the United States government it stands there until someone makes a proper claim for it and because the Constitution forbids the United States from owning it, they must grant it to the person that proves their proper claim to it; that is when the land is granted to the proper claimant and that grant is made patent under the hand and seal of the President.”

Looks like they are saying that the people in general, with the government they established to act as their servant doing so, took some land by coercion and fraud, then used their servant the Government to distribute that land among themselves based on some sort of proved claim which I’m not clear on, and with that as a basis and some other stuff they claim property rights which trump other rights.

If I’ve got this right, at bottom, their view is limited to this nation and this society, it’s circular in that the people as sovereign acting through their agent the Government give themselves something and claim that makes ownership of what was given legitimate and a basis for other things.

They use a lot of shiny two-bit words which might blind people but they do nothing I can see to establish a philosophical basis (which I believe should not only be broader than our nation and society but should reach across time) for property rights truly always trumping other rights. They don’t go to first principles.