Rights? (again)

[MtnBiker]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?

[Joe Steel]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?


Certainly. It happens all the time.

For instance, a piece of real property may have an easement. That's a right for someone to cross the property without the owner's consent. The owner can't impede the easement and that may create an expense for him.

[Dilloduck]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?

The definition of "expense to another person" has so convoluted I couldn't even begin to answer that.

[diuretic]

Joe answered it. Question dealt with.

[Dilloduck]

Joe answered it. Question dealt with.

Somehow I think MtnBiker was hoping for more than a yes or no answer.

[diuretic]

Somehow I think MtnBiker was hoping for more than a yes or no answer.

Why?
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
:lol:

[Dilloduck]

Why?
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
:lol:

Possibly he is actually interested in reading an actual debate----debatepolicy--Get it ?

[diuretic]

Possibly he is actually interested in reading an actual debate----debatepolicy--Get it ?

Okay. I was being nice Socrates.

Debating isn't intellectual voyeurism.

[LiberalNation]

Sure. You have the right to do what ever you feel is in your best interests and can get away with. They're really are no "rights". Just people and society and government and they decide what "rights" you have.

[diuretic]

Sure. You have the right to do what ever you feel is in your best interests and can get away with. They're really are no "rights". Just people and society and government and they decide what "rights" you have.

Sorry too many internal contradictions there.

[Dilloduck]

Okay. I was being nice Socrates.

Debating isn't intellectual voyeurism.

If you didn't pronounce the question as "answered" more people may contribute instead of subjecting themselves to your mockery.

[LiberalNation]

Sorry too many internal contradictions there.

Point them out, please. Can't adress what i can't see.

[diuretic]

If you didn't pronounce the question as "answered" more people may contribute instead of subjecting themselves to your mockery.

My mockery has a purpose.

[diuretic]

Point them out, please. Can't adress what i can't see.

Finally a response that makes sense.

Let me say I don't know.

Now, to support my other responses:


Sure. You have the right to do what ever you feel is in your best interests and can get away with. They're really are no "rights". Just people and society and government and they decide what "rights" you have.

You have the right to do what ever you feel is in your best interests and can get away with. That isn't a right, that's just a behaviour.



They're really are no "rights". Nothing is a right. It has to be defined and then recognised and accepted by the social grouping to be a right. A right can be asserted, claimed and enforced. I agreed with you but I just needed - arrogant bastard that I am - to delineate them.


Just people and society and government and they decide what "rights" you have.

Nope. I'm not a big natural law fan but I have rights just by being me, I don't need permission from anyone else.

[LiberalNation]

You have the right to do what ever you feel is in your best interests and can get away with. That isn't a right, that's just a behaviour.
True it's a behavior but if no one stopped you or punished you for it, you apparently had the "right" to do it. Some behaviors you can’t do unopposed because society will stop or punish you for it. Those behaviors you apparently don’t have the “right” to do.


Nothing is a right. It has to be defined and then recognised and accepted by the social grouping to be a right. A right can be asserted, claimed and enforced. I agreed with you but I just needed - arrogant bastard that I am - to delineate them.
Cool we agree in that part. Even if ya did do more of the delineating.

[Mr. P]

Certainly. It happens all the time.

For instance, a piece of real property may have an easement. That's a right for someone to cross the property without the owner's consent. The owner can't impede the easement and that may create an expense for him.

You don't know much about easements, do you?

The only easement an owner may suffer from is for government or public services. If an individual whats an easement they must compensate the property owner buy buying the easement.

[loosecannon]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?


well that has been the paradox at the center of "rights" since day one.

The answer is whatever anybody decides to believe, but balancing the rights of the one against violating the rights of others is what the SC has always spent half it's time trying to resolve.

Free speech ends when you yell "FIRE!" in a movie theatre.

[loosecannon]

the question about whether rights exist unless there is a law that defines them and protects them is sorta tangential.

Natural rights in our system are both external to AND legitimized by our founding documents.

Those arguments are viscious circles. I do know of a board that has debated that question for 8 years without a concensus.

[diuretic]

You don't know much about easements, do you?

The only easement an owner may suffer from is for government or public services. If an individual whats an easement they must compensate the property owner buy buying the easement.

Not so. Heard of a "right of way"?

[diuretic]

the question about whether rights exist unless there is a law that defines them and protects them is sorta tangential.

Natural rights in our system are both external to AND legitimized by our founding documents.

Those arguments are viscious circles. I do know of a board that has debated that question for 8 years without a concensus.

Mainly because they don't know what they're on about I would say. It's both settled and continuing law.

[Joe Steel]

You don't know much about easements, do you?

The only easement an owner may suffer from is for government or public services. If an individual whats an easement they must compensate the property owner buy buying the easement.

So?

[Mr. P]

Not so. Heard of a "right of way"?

Covered that..Govmint.

[Mr. P]

So?

So, the owner is compensated. They don't suffer.

[Dilloduck]

Nothing is a right. It has to be defined and then recognised and accepted by the social grouping to be a right. A right can be asserted, claimed and enforced. I agreed with you but I just needed - arrogant bastard that I am - to delineate them.

Everything is a right until you can stop me.

[diuretic]

Covered that..Govmint.

Nope. Common law.

[diuretic]

Everything is a right until you can stop me.

Yes, exactly. And it's the record of legitimate stopping that gives us our law.

Insightful, particulary when you throw custom into the mix.

[diuretic]

So, the owner is compensated. They don't suffer.

Nope. It's an acknowledgement. I had one on a property I bought.

[loosecannon]

Nope. Common law.

yup. Have you studied common law formally Diuretic?

A whole lot of our law in the US is common law and spanish laws that were kinda cursoraly adopted without defining what that entailed.

[diuretic]

yup. Have you studied common law formally Diuretic?

A whole lot of our law in the US is common law and spanish laws that were kinda cursoraly adopted without defining what that entailed.

No LC I haven't studied it formally. Interesting about Spanish law - southwest? California/NM/Arizona/Texas ?

[Mr. P]

Nope. Common law.

Not here.

[loosecannon]

Not here.

The US legal system uses common law as one of it's bases. Most states adopted it before or after they joined the federation.

[loosecannon]

No LC I haven't studied it formally. Interesting about Spanish law - southwest? California/NM/Arizona/Texas ?

yup, they say we have more property rights under spanish law than british. Altho there are clauses about forfeiture just like the ones in Costa Rica.

[diuretic]

yup, they say we have more property rights under spanish law than british. Altho there are clauses about forfeiture just like the ones in Costa Rica.

English property law is a crock. My province (before it became a state) amended it. Ever heard of the Torrens title?

[Joe Steel]

So, the owner is compensated. They don't suffer.

Read it again.

They suffer by being prohibited from doing anything to impede the easement.

If Smith has an easement, Jones, the property owner, can do nothing to impede Smith's access. This can create significant cost for Jones.

[manu1959]

Read it again.

They suffer by being prohibited from doing anything to impede the easement.

If Smith has an easement, Jones, the property owner, can do nothing to impede Smith's access. This can create significant cost for Jones.

please give an example of the type of easment and the purpose which would create significant costs.....

[Joe Steel]

the question about whether rights exist unless there is a law that defines them and protects them is sorta tangential.

Natural rights in our system are both external to AND legitimized by our founding documents.

Those arguments are viscious circles. I do know of a board that has debated that question for 8 years without a concensus.

Simply put, natural rights don't exist except in the imaginations of the hopelessly foolish. As Jeremy Bentham said, natural rights are nonsense on stilts.

[manu1959]

Simply put, natural rights don't exist except in the imaginations of the hopelessly foolish. As Jeremy Bentham said, natural rights are nonsense on stilts.

natural rights exist...living is one

[Joe Steel]

please give an example of the type of easment and the purpose which would create significant costs.....

Jones owns a spit of land extending into a body of water. Smith wishes to build a luxurious vacation home on the extreme tip of the land. To have access to the home, he insists on an easement for his private road. Jones grants the easement and sells the land. A bit later Jones wish to build a tennis court but has no suitable land except where Smith has built his road. Jones can't impede Smith's access so he must bear the expense of grading an otherwise unsuitable part of his land.

[manu1959]

Jones owns a spit of land extending into a body of water. Smith wishes to build a luxurious vacation home on the extreme tip of the land. To have access to the home, he insists on an easement for his private road. Jones grants the easement and sells the land. A bit later Jones wish to build a tennis court but has no suitable land except where Smith has built his road. Jones can't impede Smith's access so he must bear the expense of grading an otherwise unsuitable part of his land.

Jones is an idiot.....he deserves what he gets he made a bad business decision .....

[Mr. P]

The US legal system uses common law as one of it's bases. Most states adopted it before or after they joined the federation.

Bases, yes.

[Mr. P]

Read it again.

They suffer by being prohibited from doing anything to impede the easement.

If Smith has an easement, Jones, the property owner, can do nothing to impede Smith's access. This can create significant cost for Jones.
Jones was paid..get over it, you don't have a case.

[Mr. P]

Jones is an idiot.....he deserves what he gets he made a bad business decision .....

Exactly.

[loosecannon]

English property law is a crock. My province (before it became a state) amended it. Ever heard of the Torrens title?

I have now:laugh2: :laugh2:

[Hobbit]

Read it again.

They suffer by being prohibited from doing anything to impede the easement.

If Smith has an easement, Jones, the property owner, can do nothing to impede Smith's access. This can create significant cost for Jones.

http://www.sheridanmedia.com/site/bill_handel.jpg

You have NO case!

[Yurt]

Finally a response that makes sense.

Let me say I don't know.

Now, to support my other responses:



You have the right to do what ever you feel is in your best interests and can get away with. That isn't a right, that's just a behaviour.


Nothing is a right. It has to be defined and then recognised and accepted by the social grouping to be a right. A right can be asserted, claimed and enforced. I agreed with you but I just needed - arrogant bastard that I am - to delineate them.



Nope. I'm not a big natural law fan but I have rights just by being me, I don't need permission from anyone else.


Speaking of contradictions...

[Yurt]

You don't know much about easements, do you?

The only easement an owner may suffer from is for government or public services. If an individual whats an easement they must compensate the property owner buy buying the easement.

Not necessarily. Prescription, adverse possession, necessity...

[Yurt]

Nope. Common law.

Wrong. Many property laws have been codified.

[Yurt]

the question about whether rights exist unless there is a law that defines them and protects them is sorta tangential.

Natural rights in our system are both external to AND legitimized by our founding documents.

Those arguments are viscious circles. I do know of a board that has debated that question for 8 years without a concensus.

And in a free soceity, this is essentially the gist. Are the rights inherent, fundamental, common, codified, etc... I think I heard someone say once, that my right exists all the way down the barrel of this gun....

This of course is not a right, nor a reason, but a force of action that seeks to cause the other person to abide by your "rights."

IMHO, if we look at the ten commandments, and then Jesus's summation of the commandments, Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and love thy neighbor as thyself, then we have a great summation of "rights." For those that do not embody this, ultimately seek to destroy the right to it. And that is not right...

[Yurt]

yup. Have you studied common law formally Diuretic?

A whole lot of our law in the US is common law and spanish laws that were kinda cursoraly adopted without defining what that entailed.

The american judicial system owes heavily to english common law. Blackstone ring a bell? Where do you get this spanish law from? For if you really knew about the common law, you would know that ours stems heavily from english common law, that has been around since around 1200.

[Dilloduck]

And in a free soceity, this is essentially the gist. Are the rights inherent, fundamental, common, codified, etc... I think I heard someone say once, that my right exists all the way down the barrel of this gun....

This of course is not a right, nor a reason, but a force of action that seeks to cause the other person to abide by your "rights."

IMHO, if we look at the ten commandments, and then Jesus's summation of the commandments, Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and love thy neighbor as thyself, then we have a great summation of "rights." For those that do not embody this, ultimately seek to destroy the right to it. And that is not right...

:clap:

[loosecannon]

The american judicial system owes heavily to english common law. Blackstone ring a bell? Where do you get this spanish law from? For if you really knew about the common law, you would know that ours stems heavily from english common law, that has been around since around 1200.

I understand that our legal system includes the framework of common law.

But land title laws in my region were adopted from the Spanish sytem not from the english system.

All the state laws depend on the legal systems adopted by the states.

I have yet no idea how common law finds a foothold into our federal system. I can't find any info on that.

It isn't in the consti.

[Yurt]

I understand that our legal system includes the framework of common law.

But land title laws in my region were adopted from the Spanish sytem not from the english system.

All the state laws depend on the legal systems adopted by the states.

I have yet no idea how common law finds a foothold into our federal system. I can't find any info on that.

It isn't in the consti.

And to think you accused me of being drunk..........

What region? The states use the english common law system too. I would be very interested if you can back this up. Besides, I am more than sure that the "spanish" system stemmed from the same system that english law came from.


All the state laws depend on the legal systems adopted by the states

Need I say more...........

Federal common law is pretty much all there is. There are regs, some codes, but it is mostly federal common law.

Btw, the constitution is not simply federal law, it is the law of the LAND. Including the states.

[Dilloduck]

Does a US citizen have the right to something if it is at the expense to another person?

Yes and other people have the right to try to stop him from doing so. Let's be real.

[loosecannon]

And to think you accused me of being drunk..........

What region? The states use the english common law system too.

No some states use the english common law system it has to be specifically adopted in the state constitution or laws in order to be adopted.

Diuretic listed a land title system (torrens title)

Torrens title is a system of land title where a register of land holdings maintained by the state guarantees indefeasible title to those included in the register. The system was formulated to combat the problems of uncertainty, complexity and cost associated with old system title, which depends on proof of an unbroken chain of title back to a good root of title.

The Torrens title system was introduced in South Australia in 1858, formulated by then colonial Premier of South Australia Sir Robert Torrens. Since then, it has become pervasive around the Commonwealth of Nations and very common around the globe.

In the United States, only Iowa has a complete Torrens system; other states with a limited implementation include Minnesota, Massachusetts, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Washington.



So that means that including the spanish system and the english system and some torrens title states there are at least 4 different land title systems adopted on a state by state basis.


Federal common law is pretty much all there is. There are regs, some codes, but it is mostly federal common law.

Btw, the constitution is not simply federal law, it is the law of the LAND. Including the states.

FAR too many errors there to address.

[Yurt]

No some states use the english common law system it has to be specifically adopted in the state constitution or laws in order to be adopted.

Diuretic listed a land title system (torrens title)


So that means that including the spanish system and the english system and some torrens title states there are at least 4 different land title systems adopted on a state by state basis.



FAR too many errors there to address.


Address one, chicken. If you can't debate, then just admit it. Trust me, I won't hold it against you.


Torrens is only held by Iowa. And it is still heavily influenced by english common law. You are making an irrelevent point. Nothing you have said has disputed anything I have said. Which is normal. Don't debate the obvious, you aren't worth it.............

[diuretic]

I have now:laugh2: :laugh2:

:lol:

[diuretic]

Wrong. Many property laws have been codified.

I think all of them have but the point I was making did refer to common law rights which haven't been extinguished by statute.

[loosecannon]

Address one, chicken. If you can't debate, then just admit it. Trust me, I won't hold it against you.

Your errors aren't worth dwelling on. If you insist I will be glad to crucify your points even when I don't really care about the material, your call.



Torrens is only held by Iowa. And it is still heavily influenced by english common law. You are making an irrelevent point. Nothing you have said has disputed anything I have said. Which is normal. Don't debate the obvious, you aren't worth it.............

There is the strict Torrens system in Iowa, the not so strict torrens title systems in a handful of other US states, plus the other 40 states or so who use a different land title system derived from English common law, plus the spanish system which is used in at least one, maybe 4-5 other states.

That refutes at least two claims that you made:

>That the US has a single land title system

>that there is no spanish land title system in use in the US

>You can argue minutia but you always lose the argument, so why do you take the masochistic route?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=68

it is far too long to link, but it describes in detail the adoption of the spanish system in one US state.

[Yurt]

Your errors aren't worth dwelling on. If you insist I will be glad to crucify your points even when I don't really care about the material, your call.




There is the strict Torrens system in Iowa, the not so strict torrens title systems in a handful of other US states, plus the other 40 states or so who use a different land title system derived from English common law, plus the spanish system which is used in at least one, maybe 4-5 other states.

That refutes at least two claims that you made:

>That the US has a single land title system

>that there is no spanish land title system in use in the US

>You can argue minutia but you always lose the argument, so why do you take the masochistic route?

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/mexican_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=68

it is far too long to link, but it describes in detail the adoption of the spanish system in one US state.


I never made those claims. Go back and reread what I said. Besides, you have not addressed that fact that the "spanish" law is gleaned heavily from the english common law. Stop twisting what people say and putting words in their mouth.