|
Real0ne -> RE: America land of the feudal, even I didnt "really" believe it! (11/18/2010 3:29:14 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella
Yeah like this thread topic...all it boils down to is that all land within US borders is considered US soil, subject to US law (with exceptions made for reservations) and there's really nothing nefarious about that.
I for one never said there was anything nefarious about "that"
The absolute ownership RO is talking about is like the medieval idea of independent dukedoms, only on a micro-scale.
Its the way it was assumed and intended! You do not need ot be an employee of microsoft to do business with microsoft and neither do you need ot be a citizen (employee) of the government to do business with the government! (well unless you need to be led around by the nose)
He's talking about voluntary association with the US government
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
(what would that even be, if there's no such thing as US soil outside of national parks?) although I don't think he'd like needing his passport stamped to pull out of his driveway in Realonia onto an American road.
well that is secured in the right to ingress and egress
The alternative simply is not viable. It would be chaotic for landowners and oppressive for non-landowners.
How there are limitations to how much land one can own in the US (or there was anyway)
It's not a 'feudal state' in any historic sense, you might as well call it a commune because everyone contributes to the general upkeep.
feudalism is communistic in its nature.
LAND, Allodial vs Feudal.—An error in the nature of our land holdings crept in at a very early period of our settlement The introduction of the Feudal tenures into the Kingdom of England, though ancient, is well enough understood to set this matter in a proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement, Feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown, and very few, if any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman Conquest. Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superior, answering nearly to the nature of those possessions which the Feudalists term Allodial.
(That means its a feudal "label" put on a "non-feudal" manner of property possession.) William, the Norman, first introduced that system generally. The land which had belonged to those who fell in the Battle of Hastings, and in the subsequent insurrections of his reign, formed a considerable proportion of the lands of the whole Kingdom. These he granted out. subject to Feudal duties, as did he also those of a great number of his new subjects, who, by persuasions or threats, were induced to surrender them for that purpose. But still, much was left in the hands of his Saxon subjects, held of no superior, and not subject to Feudal conditions. These, therefore, by express laws, enacted to render uniform the system of military defence, were made liable to the same military duties as if they had been Feuds; and the Norman lawyers soon found means to saddle them, also, with all the other Feudal burthens.
But still they had not been surrendered to the King, they were not derived from his grant, and therefore they were not holden of him. A general principle indeed, was introduced, that "all lands in England were held either mediately or immediately of the Crown" ; but this was borrowed from those holdings which were truly Feudal, and only applied to others for the purposes of illustration. Feudal holdings were therefore but exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. These, therefore, still form the basis, or groundwork, of the Common law, to prevail wheresoever the exceptions have not taken place. America was not conquered by William, the Norman, nor were its lands surrendered to him or any of his successors. Possessions there are, undoubtedly, of the Allodial nature. Our ancestors, however, who emigrated hither, were laborers, not lawyers. The fictitious principle, that all lands belong originally to the King, they were early persuaded to believe real; and accordingly took grants of their own lands from the Crown. And while the Crown continued to grant for small sums, and on reasonable rents, there was no inducement to arrest the error, and lay it open to the public view. But his Majesty has lately taken on him to advance the terms of purchase, and of holding to the double of what they were, by which means the acquisition of lands being rendered difficult, the population of our country is likely to be checked. It is time, therefore to lay this matter before his Majesty, and to declare, that he has no right to grant lands of himself.— Rights Of British America, i, 138. Ford Ed., i. 443- (1774.) Jefferson letters <- BIG for ron
4383. . The opinion that our lands were Allodial possessions is one which I have very long held, and had in my eye during a pretty considerable part of my law reading which, I found, always strengthened it. * * * This opinion I have thought and still think to prove if ever I should have time to look into books again. But this is only meant with respect to the English law as transplanted here. How far our acts of Assembly, or acceptance of grants, may have converted lands which were Allodial into Feuds, I have never considered. This matter is now become a mere speculative point; and we have it in our power to make it what it ought to be for the public good.—To . Ford Ed., ii, 78. (Pa., 1776.)
4384. . [The question of the public lands] may be considered in the two points of view, 1st, as bringing a revenue into the public treasury. 2d, as a tenure. * * * First, is it consistent with good policy or free government to establish a perpetual revenue? Is it not against the practice of our wise British ancestors? Have not the instances in which we have departed from this, in Virginia, been constantly condemned by the universal voice of our country? Is it safe to make the governing power, when once seated in office, independent of its revenue? Should we not have in contemplation and prepare for an event (however deprecated) which may happen in the possibility of things; I mean a reacknowledgment of the British tyrant as our King, and previously strip him of every prejudicial possession ? Remember how universally the people ran into the idea of recalling Charles II., alter living many years under a republican government. As to the second, was not the separation of the property from the perpetual use of lands a mere fiction ? Is not its history well known, and the purposes for which it was introduced, to wit, the establishment of a military system of defence? Was it not afterwards made an engine of immense oppression ? Is it wanting with us for the purpose of military defence? May not its other legal effects (such of them at least as are valuable)' be performed in other more simple ways ? Has it not been the practice of all other nations to hold their lands as their personal estate in absolute dominion ? Are we not the better for what we have hitherto abolished of the Feudal system ? Has not every restitution of the ancient Saxon laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the 8th century?—To . Ford Ed., ii, 79. Jefferson letters <- BIG for ron
|
|
|
|
