Tell me WHY I should own land?

[VERN in IL]

Exactly, I have always been under the impression that owning land is Illegal, outside of the Castle Doctrine, you have no right to restrict who or what comes upon your land if as long as no destruction is being done.

I am also convinced that the majority of our land, is STOLEN, that it really belongs to the Natives and the enviroment that we robbed it from.

I believe strongly that your home is your castle, but outside of this I view the land as for the "common good". Let me expound upon this, lets say you own 1,000 acres, and on that thousand acres there are three houses, you just let them set, don't maintain them or burn them down, abandoned good places for meth labs, then it would be acceptable for members of the public to fix that house because you failed to demonstrate your willingness to maintain the land that the Government has allowed you to own.

Eminent Domain, now Lets say I buy a few acres, I would have to put considerable investment into raw land, and then be constantly threatened to loose that land to somthing that would bring in more revenue for the tax man.

Really can anyone here answer this question, why should we own land if:
1. It's stolen from it's rightful owners
2. Can be taken away and given to a company that increases $$$ revenue.
3. Some landowners are irresponsible, harm the enviroment and let the land
deteriorate, yet they go unpunished while others loose their investments
via demolitions to private corporations.

It would seem to me that If I were to purchase a piece of land, it is the equivilant as investing in a Oil company that does not exist.

[gone-a-milkin]

I guess noone really OWNS the land. We all die.

Cant take it with you.

[plowjockey]

Uh, it's better than not owning land.

There is no such thing as a perfect world. We need to thrive, as best as we can, in the one that we are in.

Maybe land is not for you.

[palani]

Originally Posted by VERN in IL

Tell me WHY I should own land?

Because to secure the right of private property governments are instituted among men.

Constitution of the State of Illinois
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
All men are by nature free and independent and have
certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights
and the protection of property, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.

[deaconjim]

If you believe the things you say you do, then most likely, you shouldn't own land, nor should you rent from others who you believe shouldn't own land. I'm not quite sure where you will live, but at least you'll be happy with yourself on the whole land ownership thingy.

As for me, I'll hang my hat on this part of your statement:

Originally Posted by VERN in IL

I am also convinced that the majority of our land, is STOLEN, that it really belongs to the Natives and the enviroment that we robbed it from.

If we consider the number of acres included in what we consider the United States, and divide that by the number of Native Americans living here when the first white men showed up, I'm guessing it totals up to more than the 10 acres I currently own. Since I am part Native American, according to your beliefs I am entitled to own some land, so I'll hang on to those 10 acres and I'll be happy to relieve you of any that you are currently burdened with to make up the shortfall.

[arabian knight]

Until the Government wants your land to build that Huge Wind Farm that will be put up because of this cap and trade carp~!

[plowjockey]

Originally Posted by arabian knight

Until the Government wants your land to build that Huge Wind Farm that will be put up because of this cap and trade carp~!

Not a problem.

Farmers are happy to have wind turbines plastered across their Indiana and Illinois farm land. all they have to do is farm around them and then take yet another fat check to the bank.

[tyusclan]

Originally Posted by VERN in IL

Really can anyone here answer this question, why should we own land if:
1. It's stolen from it's rightful owners
2. Can be taken away and given to a company that increases $$$ revenue.
3. Some landowners are irresponsible, harm the enviroment and let the land deteriorate, yet they go unpunished while others loose their investments via demolitions to private corporations.

1) Yes, the land was taken by conquest from the Native Americans. There were hundreds of different Native American Nations in what is now the United States. Their very lives were lives of warfare. All the different Nations had taken their land at some point from other Nations. How far back are you gonna try to go to find the "first" ones who owned the land and had it taken away by conquest?

2) Eminent Domain is only supposed to be used for certain projects designed to benefit everyone, such as a road, a school, or a post office. Many states (including mine) have passed laws prohibiting ED from being used to give the property to another private property owner. The "chance" that your land could be taken away by ED (which you are paid for btw) is actually very slim in most instances. It's certainly not a valid reason not to own land, IMO.

3) Most people have no problem with reasonable (I said reasonable) environmental regulations. The problem is that most regs have gotten to the point of being ridiculous. Many more people have effectively "lost" their land because of some reg that prevented them from using the land as they wanted than have ever lost it to eminent domain.

Who decides what "deteriorating" land actually means? A building can deteriorate, but land can't. Let's say someone buys that 1000 acres you mentioned. Maybe he wants a nice place to hunt with his kids and grandkids. So he lets it grow back in woods instead of "keeping" it cleared. Has he "deteriorated" the land? Not at all. He's simply allowed it go in a different direction than someone else had.

Your entire premise is flawed as far as I can see.

[Old Vet]

If you believe that then it will be a sin to own land. Since I don't it is alright to own land in my book. Good of you to make that statement and see if you really believe it or just a bunch of bull excrement.

[diamondtim]

Originally Posted by VERN in IL

Exactly, I have always been under the impression that owning land is Illegal, outside of the Castle Doctrine, you have no right to restrict who or what comes upon your land if as long as no destruction is being done.

I am also convinced that the majority of our land, is STOLEN, that it really belongs to the Natives and the enviroment that we robbed it from.

I believe strongly that your home is your castle, but outside of this I view the land as for the "common good". Let me expound upon this, lets say you own 1,000 acres, and on that thousand acres there are three houses, you just let them set, don't maintain them or burn them down, abandoned good places for meth labs, then it would be acceptable for members of the public to fix that house because you failed to demonstrate your willingness to maintain the land that the Government has allowed you to own.

Eminent Domain, now Lets say I buy a few acres, I would have to put considerable investment into raw land, and then be constantly threatened to loose that land to somthing that would bring in more revenue for the tax man.

Really can anyone here answer this question, why should we own land if:
1. It's stolen from it's rightful owners
2. Can be taken away and given to a company that increases $$$ revenue.
3. Some landowners are irresponsible, harm the enviroment and let the land
deteriorate, yet they go unpunished while others loose their investments
via demolitions to private corporations.

It would seem to me that If I were to purchase a piece of land, it is the equivilant as investing in a Oil company that does not exist.

You shouldn't! Now you can go back to your commune living guilt-free while judging the motivations of others.

[hunter63]

And away we go, man, talking about baiting..........................
hunter63- over and out

[65284]

Originally Posted by hunter63

And away we go, man, talking about baiting..........................hunter63- over and out

Yep, ole Vern had a pretty successful fishing trip didn't he? They wuz bitin purty good today.

[crtreedude]

Here, if you work the land, you own it. Called squatter rights. Nobody was here pretty much when the Spaniards came. Probably the boas got em.

[Harry Chickpea]

"Exactly, I have always been under the impression that owning land is Illegal, outside of the Castle Doctrine, you have no right to restrict who or what comes upon your land if as long as no destruction is being done."

I'm afraid that your "impressions" are so far off that they make no sense. If you own land (which is a misnomer anyway) you have a perfect right to post that land and restrict access. If owning land is illegal, then you need to inform your state government and the Federal government. You see, THEY make the laws, not you. I'm sure they will be very interested in your trying to make your own laws without proper representation of the powers that be.

"I am also convinced that the majority of our land, is STOLEN, that it really belongs to the Natives and the enviroment that we robbed it from."

Although the "natives" didn't claim to own land, they fought bloody wars over which tribe had the right to live where. Since they didn't claim to "own" the land, how do you justify saying it was "stolen?" You've been influenced by too many goody-two-shoes teachers and books.

"I believe strongly that your home is your castle, but outside of this I view the land as for the "common good". Let me expound upon this, lets say you own 1,000 acres, and on that thousand acres there are three houses, you just let them set, don't maintain them or burn them down, abandoned good places for meth labs, then it would be acceptable for members of the public to fix that house because you failed to demonstrate your willingness to maintain the land that the Government has allowed you to own."

You can't believe the home is the castle, since the land was "stolen" by your reasoning. You have also obviously never read about the "commons" the the Brits tried.

"Eminent Domain, now Lets say I buy a few acres, I would have to put considerable investment into raw land, and then be constantly threatened to loose that land to somthing that would bring in more revenue for the tax man."

In eminent domain, you gat paid fair market value for land that is taken.

"Really can anyone here answer this question, why should we own land if:
1. It's stolen from it's rightful owners
2. Can be taken away and given to a company that increases $$$ revenue.
3. Some landowners are irresponsible, harm the enviroment and let the land
deteriorate, yet they go unpunished while others loose their investments
via demolitions to private corporations.

It would seem to me that If I were to purchase a piece of land, it is the equivilant as investing in a Oil company that does not exist."

That is not a question, but an ill-considered screed. Obviously, the rightful owner is Cluthu, Evil Lord of the Internet, who has more right to it than distant relations to people long dead, and to people who pose such questions.

The land taken away is PAID for in eminent domain.

In a thousand years, the offspring of people alive today may find that the use of toothpaste is what actually does the greatest harm to the environment. You are suckered into the great inflation of all environmentalists, who think that they alone know what is best for the environment and for other people, based on extremely limited and biased knowledge. If you are really that concerned about what people do to the environment, please have yourself spayed or neutered, and attempt to leave the planet as quickly as possible. After all, by your standards, that is the only moral thing to do.

[Pat]

Vern,

First, I agree with Old Vet… he put it succinctly.

And again totally agree with gone-a-milkin … we only “RENT’ the land we live on. As she says, v I guess no one really OWNS the land. We all die.

I was taught as a boy to make the world better than I found it. Renting land (we own ours) gives me that ability.

I’ve lived where no one knows what it’s like to own property. (Only the Aristocrats owned the land… then they went to communal farms…5% of the country were Dacha ((“summer places” – up to a hectare of land)) yet it produced 20 percent of the produce and a significant amount of the meat. (Because they were owned privately!) My Mother-in-law had a dacha that had a well to supply water for her orchard / berry patches and garden. Every Sunday night when she headed back to her apartment, the pump went with her. Even before that, I had thought about “buying” 10 – 15 hectares but, because there is no concept of private small farms it was just a “pipe dream”. (In case anyone wants to know, it’s the Russian Federation)

I know with out a shadow of doubt, when I pass, someone is going to have a fantastic PLACE. We’ve put in 2 more ponds, crossed fenced for 3 separate pastures (so 1 can lay fallow), planted about 80 fruit trees, 10 nut trees (that take 8 – 10 years to start harvesting on) a couple of berry patches (raspberry and blackberry that without any human intervention will survive and produce fruit)

If you live in the city (or worse an apartment in the city)…how are you going to make it a better place?

I’m like deaconjim… part Indian… but explain me where they made the land better… they were mostly hunter gatherers… and never stay in one place to make it better.

Pat

[geo in mi]

I'd respond but I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, and besides, I've got raspberries to pick tomorrow.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by VERN in IL

Really can anyone here answer this question, why should we own land if:
1. It's stolen from it's rightful owners
2. Can be taken away and given to a company that increases $$$ revenue.
3. Some landowners are irresponsible, harm the enviroment and let the land
deteriorate, yet they go unpunished while others loose their investments
via demolitions to private corporations.

It would seem to me that If I were to purchase a piece of land, it is the equivilant as investing in a Oil company that does not exist.

IF your "if" was correct, then it wouldn't be owning land so it would be fruitless to attempt to own it. BUT... since I believe your "if's" are not correct, it makes perfect sense to me to own land.

1. My land was legally purchased from the Indian who owned it and sold it of his own free will so it's not stolen from it's rightful owners.
2. If you have a land patent, then it can't be taken by imminent domain or any other way. Land patents have been tested and proven to hold true in court.
3. Nobody said life was fair. There are laws in place that were designed to prevent destruction of the land and water. About the only people who can get away with doing it are the ones with deep pockets who buy enough political influence to do what they want with no repercussions. If we the people had enough sense to toss out the paid off politicians and replace them with patriots, we might overcome that problem.

[Pat]

There is a lot to be said to sit down to breakfast of bacon, eggs, fresh bread and salsa to put on the eggs (all from you), then at supper to have shashlik (marinated lamb ka-bobs) with a fresh salad and fried potatoes (again all from you).

Find that without owning land

[Narshalla]

Not gong to bite. Nope, not gonna'.

Oh darn, I just did, didn't I?

[rambler]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

Not a problem.

Farmers are happy to have wind turbines plastered across their Indiana and Illinois farm land. all they have to do is farm around them and then take yet another fat check to the bank.

Lot of wind farms in western Minnesota, and down along the southern border. I think we are the 3rd biggest windmill state in the USA.

However, my local town wants to put up about 5 windmills (part of the govt plan to need to be green, since they produce some power they need to add some green power...) Anyhow, the landowners who signed the papers, as well as several neighbors, are in lawsuits & total opposition to putting those windmills up in that location - too populated, too animal/ smaller farming, just not a good windmill area, not enough wind compared to a western edge of the county, etc.

So, not all farmers are pro windmills on their land.

--->Paul

PS: As to the original question, I am reading the original post as cynical & tounge in cheek. The world won't always treat us right, but we have to work out our life the best we can. A lot of things mentioned are real problems, I agree. But not owning land you have none at all. Owning it, you have something for a while anyhow.