Privilege or Right

[Aohtee]

On another post a member described home ownership as a privilege

a " special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked.In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. In a broader sense, privilege can refer to special powers of 'de facto' immunities held as a consequence of political power or wealth".

not as a right

an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or human beings from birth".


Do you think home ownership is a privilege or a right?

[brewswain]

According to what you wrote, it would have to be a priviledge since the government can take it away from you at any time

[Old Vet]

Originally Posted by brewswain

According to what you wrote, it would have to be a priviledge since the government can take it away from you at any time

Also the banks can take it away and you can loose it by court order like in a bankruptcy or you can sell it and buy something else.

[palani]

In law all privileges are private, as an agreement between one party and another.

privilege 1154 (recorded earlier in O.E., but as a Latin word), from O.Fr. privilege (12c.), from L. privilegium "law applying to one person," later "privilege," from privus "individual" + lex (gen. legis) "law."

If you consider home ownership to be a privilege then look for your signature on a document somewhere in which you agree to do something in exchange for your continued possession.

As an example consider that a close relative passes away and wills their house and land to you. At the moment the will is read you own the house and land free and clear, owing no taxes, because that is your right under the will.

Being prudent (and incompetent to protect your own property) you decide to let the state protect your newly acquired property for you so you rush to the recorders office and register your ownership in exchange for a fee (recording fees plus agreement to be entered upon the tax roles). From this point on you do not own the house and land by right but by private law (privilege). Fail to pay the taxes and ownership will be transferred to another on the steps of the courthouse. But this is what you agreed to so you have no complaint.

[texican]

It's a privelege and a right, at least in the traditional sense. It's the right of every American to strive towards home ownership. If they work extra hard, sometimes several extra jobs, don't blow all their excess cash on alchol, drugs, smokes, and partying, they can have the privelege of owning one.

No one has a right. The soft hearted liberals think everyone should have a home, regardless of their situation in life. Putting homeless people in their own homes... casting pearls before swine. One of the reasons the world economy is falling apart is because of some high minded but insane goal of putting everyone into a home. People without jobs, people with bad credit, people with mental problems, people with drug problems, etc., have no right to a home. If they can scratch up the cash, fine, but then, we're back to the privelege.

I saved cash for several years... I couldn't get a loan... built my own home. In two years, I moved in, mortgage free.

When people speak of rights, they expect something is owed them, an entitlement to a house (which means someone else pays for it... like Section 8 housing ). Liberals always forget about the second part of the equation, the Responsibility part. If you don't pay your mortgage, you should be kicked out. If you own the house, banks can't kick you out. A lot of people think they own things, when in reality, they're just leasing from the bank, till the notes paid off.

[BeWise]

This is interesting Palani. How would you recommend buying land without getting the state involved?

Originally Posted by palani

In law all privileges are private, as an agreement between one party and another.


If you consider home ownership to be a privilege then look for your signature on a document somewhere in which you agree to do something in exchange for your continued possession.

As an example consider that a close relative passes away and wills their house and land to you. At the moment the will is read you own the house and land free and clear, owing no taxes, because that is your right under the will.

Being prudent (and incompetent to protect your own property) you decide to let the state protect your newly acquired property for you so you rush to the recorders office and register your ownership in exchange for a fee (recording fees plus agreement to be entered upon the tax roles). From this point on you do not own the house and land by right but by private law (privilege). Fail to pay the taxes and ownership will be transferred to another on the steps of the courthouse. But this is what you agreed to so you have no complaint.

[palani]

Originally Posted by BeWise

This is interesting Palani. How would you recommend buying land without getting the state involved?

Send money and I will give you a quit claim deed to texican's land. I doubt if the state will be involved in the transaction unless you chose to involve them. Getting texican to give you a quit claim deed might be more expensive.

Hopefully you spot the humor in the statement above. Before you can do things in your own right you have to be less represented. This is another way of saying that if you are subject to the state everything you choose to own is also subject to the same state.

[Aohtee]

The definitions are from Wikipedia.

Texican,

You own your house, no mortgage. Do you consider that your right or a privilege granted by the state?

[Michgranny]

I own my home, but the taxes and insurance are over 200 a month. So do I really own it?

[postroad]

Sometimes I wonder if there are rights or privilages as opossed to curcumstances you try to maintain by whatever means at your disposal?

I am a little sleep deprived from working a few nights in a row. Does that statement make sense to anyone?

[TomK]

Originally Posted by palani

Send money and I will give you a quit claim deed to texican's land. I doubt if the state will be involved in the transaction unless you chose to involve them. Getting texican to give you a quit claim deed might be more expensive.

Hopefully you spot the humor in the statement above. Before you can do things in your own right you have to be less represented. This is another way of saying that if you are subject to the state everything you choose to own is also subject to the same state.

We will never be less represented in today's world...more everyday we wake up. In order to do what you say - you would have to work under the system, and the mass majority of people would not do it...

[Common Tator]

It isn't a right until you have earned it. Once you have bought the home, it is a right.

You can't claim you have a right to a home and expect someone, or the governmnet to give it to you.

[TomK]

No one owns their land/home, period... the state grants you a privilege to transfer occupants in a home by way of selling your occupancy agreement to some one else... At any time, if the occupants fall behind and default on state property fees, then the state voids your occupancy agreement and evicts you.... As long as occupants pay the required state fees the state allows them to occupy any such said dwelling or land...

[MariaAZ]

I find the idea of not recording the property transfer interesting as well. Let's say I buy a plot of land from a guy who quit claims it to me but I don't want to pay taxes so I don't record the transaction. Now, the guy decides to sell the land to someone else a couple weeks later, and he quit claims it to them. They have the transaction recorded and are thus, as I understand, considered the legal owner of record.

One day some stranger comes up to my new house and tells me I'm trespassing on his land and to get the heck off it. We get in an argument about who owns the land. Of course we BOTH have a problem with the seller, but which one of us will end up with possession?

[copperkid3]

Originally Posted by MariaAZ

I find the idea of not recording the property transfer interesting as well. Let's say I buy a plot of land from a guy who quit claims it to me but I don't want to pay taxes so I don't record the transaction. Now, the guy decides to sell the land to someone else a couple weeks later, and he quit claims it to them. They have the transaction recorded and are thus, as I understand, considered the legal owner of record.

One day some stranger comes up to my new house and tells me I'm trespassing on his land and to get the heck off it. We get in an argument about who owns the land. Of course we BOTH have a problem with the seller, but which one of us will end up with possession?

**************************************

Oh...... for the wisdom of Solomon. Perhaps we could just divide the house in half and both parties would have to be satisfied?
Legally, he will probably get the land and has the "right" to tell you to leave and is probably in his his rights to do so, however, he may not be entitled to the house that you built therein. Of course, you can either sell him the house or move it off of his land.

[palani]

As in any case of property ownership the owner is the one paying the taxes on the property.

The state is not without a sense of irony. You owe nothing if you are not an owner. Back in Roman times the owner of a property was required to serve 10 years in the Legions. Owning something results in being owned.

[BeWise]

Alright, the Lord is the true "owner" of the heavens and the earth. Period. Man doesn't own the land.

Let's try it this way: How is a freeman able to peacefully "be" on a particular area of God's land to steward that land and to sleep on that land at any time?

Originally Posted by palani

As in any case of property ownership the owner is the one paying the taxes on the property.

The state is not without a sense of irony. You owe nothing if you are not an owner. Back in Roman times the owner of a property was required to serve 10 years in the Legions. Owning something results in being owned.

[palani]

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5178

No guarantees but this might be an approach

In order to find a piece of land upon which you can stand, the first step is to go to the County Tax Assessor's Office or Recorder of Deeds, i.e., where land records are kept within each county (sometimes located at the courthouse). Therein, locate the alphabetical list of land owners. Do a search for "Unknown owner," "Unclaimed land," or other similar words. This will list pieces of land that have never been registered with the county, i.e., they have never entered commerce. Each piece of land will have a corresponding ten digit "Assessor's ID Number." Use this Assessor ID Number to get the section number of the Plat Map that this land is located on. The section number will look similar to the following— "POR. SEC.14 T.4.N. R.17W." Once you look at this Plat Map (also called a "Licensed Surveyor's Map," or a "Parcel Map"), then you will know the location of this land within the county. There will be names of roads and possibly an address, etc.

Once you find the location of the parcels of unclaimed land, the next step is to physically go to each location and see if it is being used. If there are any signs of it being currently possessed (enclosures, structures, or cultivation), you cannot stand on that land. If, however, this land appears to have never been used, or it appears that it was once used (by having old enclosures and structures on it) but is now abandoned, you may proceed to Stand upon the Land.

A maxim of law is:
Possession is, as it were, the position of the foot.

[highlands]

Right to try.
Privilege to possess.
Takes moxie to go from one to the other.

[Jim Bunton]

Home ownership is a right and like all rights it comes with responsibilities. America is about rights not privileges. I can't think of any thing that is a privilege and not a right.

Jim