Property rights: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:51, 5 October 2016

Private property is what is properly possessed by an individual. Without private property in the hands of the individual, which is capitalism, all men are slaves to the bully whether he is an individual, group or society.

The primary means of production is a man's labor which is guided by his own mind and heart within the allotted time of his life. If these things are not exclusive to the individual then he is not free.

Man was given dominion over the planet^[1] and that which lives upon for the purposes of dressing and keeping it.^[2] That is as far as his divine license may reach. He has no right to rule over others or abuse the earth by not dressing and keeping it.

If man was not to rule over his fellowman then the natural state of man was an anarchy. But anarchy is only one small part of the relationship of man and his individual dominion. Anarchy in itself does not guarantee "proper justice" or freedom.

If man is commanded to "keep it" there must be a distinct possibility that he may loose it. Man's right to dominion is shared individually, held individually. For anyone to imagine that man as a collective hold dominion there can be no individual choice. Without choice there is no freedom and man is nothing but an instrument, a thing.

In order for there to be "choice" there must be private property.

Some actually believe that property is theft but in truth the refusal to accept the right to private property is both theft and enslavement. Any right of society in the form of a collective or the state to allocate property or the means of production is slavery and bondage of the mind and body of the individual.

If a seed falls from a tree in the wilderness and someone plants it, cultivates it, protects it until it bears fruit it is proper that he may take the fruit for his own use. Only he would have the power of allocation for without the expenditure of his toil and time there would be no fruit.

That is private property. If a community says it is not proper for him to have property rights to what he has produced then the community is ruling over his means of production, his labor, his toil and time, and that community is not an anarchist community.

Cain and Nimrod created anarchist communities.

Some think that anarchism entails anti-capitalism. Others believe that "If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are."^[3]

We might argue that they do not understand capitalism which is understandable since for most people there are no working examples of true capitalism in existence today and hasn't been since 1933 if not 1913. But the real problem is that Anarchism does not mean there is no State but that there are no "rulers".

There are examples of States where there were no rulers except within the individual family. Thee would be states or governments where the leaders are titular.

There are examples of such governments in history and their success is dependent upon the virtue of the people.

more to come

No State shall

Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts"

By that the government would have to treat all property purchased with anything other than gold and silver as not actually purchased and the courts would be cognizable of that fact. That would leave every citizen of the United States who thinks he has property rights with only a "legal title".

Anyone with only a legal title has no right to the "beneficial interest" or use of the property and therefore is not the true owner of the property. So when you think the government is violating your property rights they are actually not. They are protecting the rights of the "true owner" which is not the citizen of the United States holding "legal title".

In other words if you want to know why you think you have no actual property rights to the beneficial interest of your property it is because you don't.

The government is not usually violating your property rights when you think they are. They cannot give them back your property rights either because they can make no law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

The following chapter will explain the obligation of contracts that bars your access to rights you wish to enjoy. There are people on your side but you have to seek to know the whole truth and provide for it. There are other contracts that bind you but we should start with this concerning property rights.

Chapter 2. of the book The Covenants of the gods
Law vs Legal
Audio http://keysofthekingdom.info/COG-02.mp3
Text http://www.hisholychurch.org/study/gods/cog2lvl.php

The above stimulated a conversation on a Facebook group after it was posted to their web forum.

A Conversation with Mosheh has been recorded at http://www.preparingyou.com/wiki/Conversation_with_Mosheh in the hope of helping other people see the truth that will set them free if they seek it with all their heart in true love and faith.

Footnotes

↑ Genesis 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
↑ Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
↑ Anarcho-“Capitalism” is Impossible. [hCenter for a Stateless Society

[1] Genesis 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[2] Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

[3] Anarcho-“Capitalism” is Impossible. [hCenter for a Stateless Society

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 The primary means of production is a man's labor which is guided by his own mind and heart within the allotted time of his life. If these things are not exclusive to the individual then he is not free.
-Man was given dominion over the planet and that which lives upon for the purposes of dressing and keeping it. That is as far as his divine license may reach. He has no right to rule over others or abuse the earth by not dressing and keeping it.
+Man was given dominion over the planet<Ref>[[Genesis 1]]:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.</Ref> and that which lives upon for the purposes of ''dressing and keeping it''.<Ref>[[Genesis 2]]:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.</Ref> That is as far as his divine license may reach. He has no right to rule over others or abuse the earth by not dressing and keeping it.
 If man was not to rule over his fellowman then the natural state of man was an [[anarchy]]. But anarchy is only one small part of the relationship of man and his individual dominion. [[Anarchy]] in itself does not guarantee "proper justice" or freedom.
-If man is commanded to "keep it" there must be a distinct possibility that he may loose it. Man's right to dominion is shared individually, held individually. For anyone to imagine that man as a collective hold dominion there can be no individual choice. Without choice their is no freedom and man is nothing but an instrument, a thing.
+If man is commanded to "keep it" there must be a distinct possibility that he may loose it. Man's right to dominion is shared individually, held individually. For anyone to imagine that man as a collective hold dominion there can be no individual choice. Without choice there is no freedom and man is nothing but an instrument, a thing.
-In order for there to be "choice" their must be private property.
+In order for there to be "choice" there must be private property.
 Some actually believe that property is theft but in truth the refusal to accept the right to private property is both theft and enslavement. Any right of society in the form of a collective or the state to allocate property or the means of production is slavery and bondage of the mind and body of the individual.
-: If a seed falls from a tree in the wilderness and someone plants it, cultivates it, protects it until it bears fruit it is proper that he may take the fruit for his own use. Only he would have the power of allocation for without the expenditure of his toil and time their would be no fruit.
+: If a seed falls from a tree in the wilderness and someone plants it, cultivates it, protects it until it bears fruit it is proper that he may take the fruit for his own use. Only he would have the power of allocation for without the expenditure of his toil and time there would be no fruit.
 That is private property. If a community says it is not proper for him to have property rights to what he has produced then the community is ruling over his means of production, his labor, his toil and time, and that community is not an anarchist community.
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 [[Cain]] and [[Nimrod]] created anarchist communities.
+Some think that anarchism entails anti-capitalism. Others believe that "If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are."<Ref>Anarcho-“Capitalism” is Impossible. [h[https://c4ss.org/content/4043 Center for a Stateless Society]</Ref>
+We might argue that they do not understand [[capitalism]] which is understandable since for most people there are no working examples of true capitalism in existence today and hasn't been since 1933 if not 1913. But the real problem is that [[Anarchism]] does not mean there is no [[State]] but that there are no ''"rulers"''.
+There are examples of States where there were no rulers except within the individual family. Thee would be states or governments where the leaders are [[titular]].
+There are examples of such governments in history and their success is dependent upon the virtue of the people.
+----
+more to come
+----

Property rights: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:51, 5 October 2016

No State shall

Footnotes

Navigation menu

Search