The Government Shouldn't Have Authority Over Privately Owned Land

Question for all of the statists here. I want to hear the BEST arguments.

My premise: Government have no authority over private land owners because authority to enforce rules depends on your ownership of said land.


The idea of property ownership contains the right of exclusivity. If you own a car, you can do WHATEVER you want to that car as long as you do not violate other peoples' rights (such as drive on private property or run people over, etc.). Makes sense, right? This is basic and foundational to the concept of property rights.

The same concept applies to land. If it's truly YOUR land, then you can decide who gets to come on it, and you make the rules. For instance, I can't walk into your house and tell you that you can't drink liquor, because it's your property. However, I CAN prohibit you from drinking hard liquor in my house because it's my property.

The US government actually fully recognizes private property rights in the beginning times of America and even now. The government basically sold land to people and granted them "allodial land patents" which, in no uncertain legal terms, meant that the new owner owned the property INSIDE AND OUT. Definition of allodial:

From Black's law dictionary:
Allodial — Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.
Allodium — Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof.
SO, here's the interesting part.

IF YOU OWN YOUR LAND FULLY (not beholden to ANY higher authority), and land ownership means "your house, your rules", WHERE does government claim to get the authority to enforce laws which people never agreed with on private land? For instance, what authority does the government have to stop me from doing drugs or paying less than minumum wage or any other illegal activity on my own private property? It's my land and my rules. The government cannot claim to have overarching authority over my land because that would defy the definition of allodial.

Fire away! I want to hear the best and brightest arguments as to where government gets its rightful authority from.

Remember:

Authority does not come from majority opinion (democracy)
If you don't believe in property rights, you cannot claim that the government has authority to enforce laws as a result of owning land

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Fire away! I want to hear the best and brightest arguments as to where government gets its rightful authority from.

---

'cuz they'll arrest you and throw you in jail if you don't comply with their rules. Therefor their authority grows from your fear they will incarcerate you or by actually incarcerating you where you are not able to disobey their rules.

Based on the argument that you are attempting to make, you could also murder people on your property because its your own property. You could rape people on your property because its your own property. You could steal from people on your property because its your own property. You could dump raw sewage in a river or stream that runs through your property because its your own property. You could poison the water table because its your own property...etc.

You cannot pay people less than minimum wage because that impacts THEM. You cannot do anything on your private property that damages, or has the potential to damage other people or other people's property. Your rights are not superior to the rights of other people.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Question for all of the statists here. I want to hear the BEST arguments.

My premise: Government have no authority over private land owners because authority to enforce rules depends on your ownership of said land.

---

That reflects, perhaps, your view of what the law should be. It is not, however, a premise reflected in U.S. law. Property law grants to owners of property certain rights, but those rights are not absolute, contrary to your premise. And that has been the case since this nation was founded. The states are sovereign governments and have the power to do whatever they wish subject only to the constraints of the federal and state constitutions. The states may grant such powers as they deem fit to their local governments. The federal government, too, is sovereign but is a government of limited powers under the federal Constitution; that said, the federal government has broad powers to regulate property in interstate commerce under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

Thus, for example, state and local governments may impose a variety of laws that affect private property. As the U.S. Supreme Court said nearly 90 years ago: “There is no serious difference of opinion in respect of the validity of laws and regulations fixing the height of buildings within reasonable limits, the character of materials and methods of construction, and the adjoining area which must be left open, in order to minimize the danger of fire or collapse, the evils of over-crowding, and the like, and excluding from residential sections offensive trades, industries and structures likely to create nuisances.” Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. 272 U.S. 365 (1926). Zoning laws, too, are a valid exercise of government power. Id. All of these laws would violate your premise, but as you can see, the Supreme Court has said the government has the authority to enact and enforce them. That demonstrates your premise is unsound.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Question for all of the statists here. I want to hear the BEST arguments.

My premise: Government have no authority over private land owners because authority to enforce rules depends on your ownership of said land.

---

That's just plain idiotic.

Just because you own the land (no matter how great the grant was), it can still be taken away under the Constitution. All that is required is "due process."

I was expecting better from a forum of legal wizards!

When there is LEGITIMATE wrongdoing, it's OK for the government to enter onto private property to address the issue, the same way it would be OK for a passerby to intervene if he sees a rape in progress. However, there are many laws that concern things which are NOT actually wrong, such as doing drugs, owning certain types of guns, etc. That's what this discussion is all about.

Anyways, thank you all for proving my point to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

I was expecting better from a forum of legal wizards!
.

---

when I speak with an educated person, I try to take myself to their level so the discourse can be appreciated. When I speak to a person that presents illogical arguments that have been proven, time and time again, to be incorrect, well, let's say I enjoy being able to feed the chimps at the zoo...well, actually teasing them. It's fun to watch them try to grab food through a window not understanding what glass is. Their puzzlement is humorous. Eventually it turns to frustration and they react much like you did.

the problem you have is you want to be the arbiter who determines what is a legitimate wrong and what isn't; WAKE UP CALL!!!! you aren't.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

I was expecting better from a forum of legal wizards!

When there is LEGITIMATE wrongdoing, it's OK for the government to enter onto private property to address the issue, the same way it would be OK for a passerby to intervene if he sees a rape in progress. However, there are many laws that concern things which are NOT actually wrong, such as doing drugs, owning certain types of guns, etc. That's what this discussion is all about.

Anyways, thank you all for proving my point to me.

---

No one proved your point. You have an opinion that certain laws are about things that are not "actually" wrong. Very few people are going to share that opinion.

I personally that that pot should be legalized, regulated and taxed. I think that doing so would put a lot of really dangerous people out of business. However you would never convince me, that private citizen's owning UZIs would be anything less than horrendously dangerous to the general public.

Both of those items are my personal opinion. What really will happen is based on the collective will of the American people, as decided via their elected representatives.

Bunch of state worshipping lawyers, I should have known that they would bow before each and every law! After all, it's their livelihood!

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Bunch of state worshipping lawyers, I should have known that they would bow before each and every law! After all, it's their livelihood!

---

that's is hilarious. Only one of the posters in this thread is a lawyer.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

When there is LEGITIMATE wrongdoing, it's OK for the government to enter onto private property to address the issue, the same way it would be OK for a passerby to intervene if he sees a rape in progress. However, there are many laws that concern things which are NOT actually wrong, such as doing drugs, owning certain types of guns, etc. That's what this discussion is all about.

---

None of those activities having anything to do with owning land and thus has nothing to do with your premise. The government may make possession of drugs illegal. It matters not that the drugs on on real property you own or in a car that you own for the reasons I’ve already stated: the government may regulate as it wishes except as prohibited by the federal and state constitutions. You’ve not presented any legal argument to the contrary. You’ve simply stated a premise that I’ve already proven wrong by citation to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion. That court determines what the law of the land is, not you. Try making your argument in court when you get busted for some illegal activity you are doing on your property. The judge will have a good chuckle while he/she tosses out your argument. It has absolutely no basis in the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

None of those activities having anything to do with owning land and thus has nothing to do with your premise. The government may make possession of drugs illegal. It matters not that the drugs on on real property you own or in a car that you own for the reasons I’ve already stated: the government may regulate as it wishes except as prohibited by the federal and state constitutions. You’ve not presented any legal argument to the contrary. You’ve simply stated a premise that I’ve already proven wrong by citation to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion. That court determines what the law of the land is, not you. Try making your argument in court when you get busted for some illegal activity you are doing on your property. The judge will have a good chuckle while he/she tosses out your argument. It has absolutely no basis in the law.

---

OK genius, where does the court get its authority? If someone told you to jump off of a cliff, would you do it based on their authority, or would you tell them to piss off? Why do you obey court decisions? Where do they get their legitimacy?

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

OK genius, where does the court get its authority? If someone told you to jump off of a cliff, would you do it based on their, or would you tell them to piss off? Why do you obey court decisions? Where do they get their legitimacy?

---

The Judicial branch of our government gets their authority from either the US Constitution or a State Constitution, depending on whether its a federal or state court. The courts administer the laws enacted by Congress or State legislators. Congress and state legislators are elected by the people. So, ultimately its the people who give the courts their authority.

That is basic civics 101 that you should have learned in high school.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

OK genius, where does the court get its authority?

---

Federal courts get their authority from Article III of the United States Constitution as well as the federal statutes that Congess has passed concerning the courts in Title 28 of the U.S. Code. The first sentence of Article III tells you this: “The judicial power Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

State courts derive their authority from their state constitutions and the acts of their legislatures. I won’t go through the law of each of the 50 states here to lay it out for you. You can do the research on that if you want to know how every state in the nation sets up its courts.

And where does the constitution get its authority? Why should I obey the constitution? If I write "I have the right to rob you", on a piece of paper, does that make my robbery legitimate? What if I get together with a bunch of people and vote that robbery is OK? Does that make it OK?

Since when does writing something on a piece of paper grant legitimacy?

Since when does majority opinion (mob rule) grant legitimacy?

Quote:

---

What if I get together with a bunch of people and vote that robbery is OK? Does that make it OK?

---

Go for it, Bubba.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

And where does the constitution get its authority? Why should I obey the constitution?

---

The U.S. Constitution gets its authority from the states; they ratified it after a Constitutional Convention. The states get their authority from the people of that state.

As for arguing that what is written on paper is not legitimate, you’ve really reached the bottom of the barrel there, haven’t you? How else do you expect laws to be recorded if not in written form? This is the silliest argument you’ve made so far. Of course, you writing something on piece of paper doesn’t make it law, unless you somehow become dictator of the United States. Laws under our federal and state constitutions are made by legislatures elected by the people or, in some states, by direct vote of the people in a referendum.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

What if I get together with a bunch of people and vote that robbery is OK? Does that make it OK?

---

In my opinion it wouldn’t be “ok.” But if you were in a state that allows for referendums and you convinced a majority of voters to enact a referendum to repeal the laws criminalizing robbery it would indeed make robbery legal. That’s how a democracy works. You call it “mob action” but it amounts to the same thing: the majority get to the decide the rules by which we live. How else should we do it? You favor a dictatorship or monarchy, perhaps?

I get that you don’t like some of the rules of our democracy. I don’t like all of our laws either. But our system is vastly better than most. At least here I have a say in the rules by which I live. If I lived in China, Saudia Arabia, or any of the other nations that are autocratic I’d have no voice in the laws at all. Consider carefully what you wish for; you might just get more than your bargained for.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

The U.S. Constitution gets its authority from the states; they ratified it after a Constitutional Convention. The states get their authority from the people of that state.

As for arguing that what is written on paper is not legitimate, you’ve really reached the bottom of the barrel there, haven’t you? How else do you expect laws to be recorded if not in written form? This is the silliest argument you’ve made so far. Of course, you writing something on piece of paper doesn’t make it law, unless you somehow become dictator of the United States. Laws under our federal and state constitutions are made by legislatures elected by the people or, in some states, by direct vote of the people in a referendum.



In my opinion it wouldn’t be “ok.” But if you were in a state that allows for referendums and you convinced a majority of voters to enact a referendum to repeal the laws criminalizing robbery it would indeed make robbery legal. That’s how a democracy works. You call it “mob action” but it amounts to the same thing: the majority get to the decide the rules by which we live. How else should we do it? You favor a dictatorship or monarchy, perhaps?

I get that you don’t like some of the rules of our democracy. I don’t like all of our laws either. But our system is vastly better than most. At least here I have a say in the rules by which I live. If I lived in China, Saudia Arabia, or any of the other nations that are autocratic I’d have no voice in the laws at all. Consider carefully what you wish for; you might just get more than your bargained for.

---

Finally, we've reached the logical conclusion of a bad idea (democracy).

You have conceded that you believe that authority comes from the majority of people voting.

If the majority of people vote that rape is moral and good, does that make it moral and good? Obviously, no. This is common sense. So, we can establish the principle that majority opinion does NOT change right or wrong. Just admit it. I don't want to hear how democracy is better than totalitarian rule, and you can't think of anything better, therefore it's OK. Just admit that majority opinion doesn't make wrong into right, and it does not turn illegitimate into legitimate.

Your error in thinking is that you believe that what is "right" and what is "law" are the same. They're not. Not everyone can agree on what makes something "right". That'll never realistically happen. But yes, majority opinion (more specifically, majority votes) can make something "wrong" into something permissible (such as allowing some level of pollution to be permissible before fines or criminal charges kick in), or, can make something that is many think is "right" into a criminal act (such as assisted suicide, for example).

Quote:

---

Just admit that majority opinion doesn't make wrong into right, and it does not turn illegitimate into legitimate.

---

That IS exactly how it functions, and can do so without having to change right/wrong or illegitimate/legitimate.

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

Your error in thinking is that you believe that what is "right" and what is "law" are the same. They're not. Not everyone can agree on what makes something "right". That'll never realistically happen. But yes, majority opinion (more specifically, majority votes) can make something "wrong" into something permissible (such as allowing some level of pollution to be permissible before fines or criminal charges kick in), or, can make something that is many think is "right" into a criminal act (such as assisted suicide, for example).



That IS exactly how it functions, and can do so without having to change right/wrong or illegitimate/legitimate.

---

Ah, so right and wrong is merely a function of majority opinion? Here's a novel thought: What if the majority of people are WRONG about something? There is an objective morality.

Anyways, with your logic, you would have no mercy or right to object as a jew in Nazi Germany because, hey, democracy (insert democratically elected despot here).

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Godwin's Law has joined the party!

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Ah, so right and wrong is merely a function of majority opinion? Here's a novel thought: What if the majority of people are WRONG about something? There is an objective morality.

---

No one has disagreed with that. Of course the majority can be wrong. ANY system can be wrong, no matter what you base it upon. That's the entire nature of being human. Whether it's a majority, an individual, one or more person's interpretation of a religion or code, or what have you.

Quote:

---

Anyways, with your logic, you would have no mercy or right to object as a jew in Nazi Germany because, hey, democracy (insert democratically elected despot here).

---

I never said it was logical. It's not. Again, no one has debated that.


Thank God I bought Alcoa at $8.20.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

There is an objective morality.

---

Proof, please.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Finally, we've reached the logical conclusion of a bad idea (democracy).
If the majority of people vote that rape is moral and good, does that make it moral and good? Obviously, no. This is common sense. So, we can establish the principle that majority opinion does NOT change right or wrong.

---

What is right or wrong is a subjective belief. You and I and most others in our society believe that rape is wrong, and this being a democracy that majority belief is reflected in the law that criminalizes rape. Certainly in my view the majority has got some of it wrong. There are a number of laws that we have that I believe are wrong. My belief that it is wrong does not change what the law is. A law is not invalid simply because you or I disagree with it or think it morally wrong.

You are trying to justify that democracy is bad because the majority might enact laws that are wrong. But so can any other system of government. At least with democracy the majority of people get to determine what the law is rather than letting that get decided by one person or a select few who may not care whatever what the people want. If you think you have a better system of government than democracy, let’s hear your proposal.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Ah, so right and wrong is merely a function of majority opinion? Here's a novel thought: What if the majority of people are WRONG about something? There is an objective morality.

Anyways, with your logic, you would have no mercy or right to object as a jew in Nazi Germany because, hey, democracy (insert democratically elected despot here).

Again, thanks for proving my point.

---

There was no democracy in Nazi Germany.

Would you prefer to live in North Korea where there is no democracy now?

You are certainly free to move to any country in the world that suits you better than the US (assuming that country will take you).

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

There was no democracy in Nazi Germany.

---

That’s true, if you define Nazi Germany as the period after which the Nazi party assumed total control of Germany (esssentially after March of 1933). But sadly, the Nazi Party rise to power was initially by democratic election to the Reichstag (Germany’s parliament) and after the November 1932 elections the Nazi Party was the largest single party in the Reichstag, though it did not hold a majority of votes. Two events then were key to bringing Hitler to power. First, the Communists and Socialists, which were the next two largest parties, failed to agree to a coalition that would have given them the ability to block the Nazis, and the Nazi Party formed a coalition with yet another party allowing it to overcome any objections from other parties. As a result, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. All of that was done via a democratic government system, though the government prior to 1933, known as the Weimer Republic, was very weak and fractured, which is what gave Hitler and the Nazis their opening. It was just a few months later that the Reichstag passed the “Enabling Act,” which gave very strong powers to Hilter and with that democracy ended and the Nazis assumed total control over Germany. (Interestingly the political background of the collapse of the Republic into the Empire in the Star Wars prequels shares a lot of similiarities to the Nazi rise to power.)

The Nazi example is a clear warning to all democracies of just how easily a democractic system can collapse to dictatorship if the public does not stand up against the government’s attempts to strip away fundamental democratic guarantees. It’s also an example of some of the weaknesses of a Parlimentary system versus the congressional system the U.S. has.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Bunch of state worshipping lawyers, I should have known that they would bow before each and every law! After all, it's their livelihood!

---

You aren't here to debate, you came here to provoke an argument.

You use libertarian language..."statist" is libertarian speak.

I was listening to a radio show hosted by libertarians. They want to fling open the borders wide and let everyone in, in order to compete with Americans and knock down wages as low as possible.

Madness.

"You can always move" is NOT an argument
"Democracy is the best system there is" is NOT an argument

This thread has done EXACTLY what I had hoped: Prove that IF property rights are valid and IF there is such a thing as right and wrong that is independent of mere opinion, that government has no legitimate authority over private land owners. I brought the argument here to have holes shot in it. Instead, I found that it is bulletproof (because it's common sense and derived from first principles).

So again, THANK YOU, legal nerds, for helping me prove this point.

If you really believe that this thread has proved that the government has no authority over private land owners, you're even more ignorant of the law that it first appeared.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

If you really believe that this thread has proved that the government has no authority over private land owners, you're even more ignorant of the law that it first appeared.

---

Not an argument

Prove it or don't waste your time posting

It's your argument. You prove it.

You haven't done so yet.

This is a very simple logical progression:

1: Entity A owns land, therefore they have allodial rights and control over it (as long as they do not use it to violate others' rights)
2: Entity A grants allodial land title, in explicit and clear language, to entity B.
3: Entity B now has 100% rights, Entity A has 0.

Entity A is government.
Entity B is private individual(s).

Assumptions:

1: Property is a legitimate concept
2: Property can be voluntarily sold
3: Morality is objective and universal (Google universally preferable behavior) and is not subject to mere majority opinion (otherwise we could make rape good and moral by voting on it, this is impossible).

If morality can simply be changed by a vote, then there is no point to debate which is the better morality (for instance - consent is better than force, trade is better than theft, consensual sex is better than rape, etc.). If one has the idea that morality is mere opinion, then they have no reason to express any moral outrage, ever. The very act of arguing that one morality is better than another is an implicit acceptance of the idea of the concept of universally preferable behavior.

Bad counter arguments:

"But muh mob opinion!" - Opinion doesn't change objective morality, sorry
"But statism is the best system!" - Not an argument
"But muh consitution!" - Irrelevant, your rights disappear when you transfer them to someone else

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

This is a very simple logical progression:

1: Entity A owns land, therefore they have allodial rights and control over it (as long as they do not use it to violate others' rights)
2: Entity A grants allodial land title, in explicit and clear language, to entity B.
3: Entity B now has 100% rights, Entity A has 0.

Entity A is government.
Entity B is private individual(s).

Assumptions:

1: Property is a legitimate concept
2: Property can be voluntarily sold
3: Morality is objective and universal (Google universally preferable behavior) and is not subject to mere majority opinion (otherwise we could make rape good and moral by voting on it, this is impossible).

If morality can simply be changed by a vote, then there is no point to debate which is the better morality (for instance - consent is better than force, trade is better than theft, consensual sex is better than rape, etc.). If one has the idea that morality is mere opinion, then they have no reason to express any moral outrage, ever. The very act of arguing that one morality is better than another is an implicit acceptance of the idea of the concept of universally preferable behavior.

Bad counter arguments:

"But muh mob opinion!" - Opinion doesn't change objective morality, sorry
"But statism is the best system!" - Not an argument
"But muh consitution!" - Irrelevant, your rights disappear when you transfer them to someone else

---

You will continue to believe what you want to believe no matter how many times things are explained to you, therefore why should we bother to continue to waste our time with you? You do not sincerely want to learn. You simply want to browbeat someone into validating your opinion, which is not going to happen.

Give me a good argument and I'll be happy to change my mind

Quote:

---

Quoting geek

---

You aren't here to debate, you came here to provoke an argument.

You use libertarian language..."statist" is libertarian speak.

I was listening to a radio show hosted by libertarians. They want to fling open the borders wide and let everyone in, in order to compete with Americans and knock down wages as low as possible.

Madness.

---

Actually, neither of your generalizations about libertarians is true, but do, carry on.

Yawn. No good arguments (as usual). Alright, it's been fun!

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

This is a very simple logical progression:

1: Entity A owns land, therefore they have allodial rights and control over it (as long as they do not use it to violate others' rights)
2: Entity A grants allodial land title, in explicit and clear language, to entity B.
3: Entity B now has 100% rights, Entity A has 0.

Entity A is government.
Entity B is private individual(s).

---

The flaw here is that you are assuming that property rights include a whole lot more than they do. There is a distinct bundle of rights that a property owner has. But those rights do not include a shield against government regulations that apply to what you do on or with your property. The government still has the power to adopt and enforce laws that you cannot possess illegal items, even on your own property. Thus, if you possess illegal drugs on your property, the government may prosecute you for that. The government has the power to say what you can do with your property, i.e. zoning regulations. Thus, for example, the government may prohibit you from running a commercial enterprise on your property by zoning it for residential use only. Property rights do not, and never have, shielded you from all government regulation as you contend. I already explained to you before that your premise on this is invalid, and cited a Supreme Court case that supports it. You’ve not come up with any law that supports your premise, which is not surprising because your premise is wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

3: Morality is objective and universal (Google universally preferable behavior) and is not subject to mere majority opinion (otherwise we could make rape good and moral by voting on it, this is impossible).

---

That assumption is wrong. For it to be objective that would mean that morality is determined from something outside ourselves that everyone can point to as the source of moral authority that everyone must follow. If you believe morality is objective, what is the source of those objective morality rules? If you say religion, then you’ve proven my point, since there are many different religions around the world and their rules of morality vary considerably. They are hardly objective since one’s belief in those morality rules depends on one’s belief in the religion itself, and all religion is based on faith, not fact. That is why they vary as much as they do: they are based on belief.

For it to be truly universal, everyone must agree upon it. That is certainly not the case. There are a few rules of morality that are nearly universal, things that most people do agree upon: murder, rape, assault/battery, theft, and lying are wrong. But outside of a few core things like that, humans disagree widely over what is moral. Some believe it immoral to drink even a drop of alcohol. Others do not. Some believe homosexuality is immoral, others do not. Some believe sex outside of marriage is immoral, others do not. You can come up with a nearly endless list of things that humans disagree about concerning morality. Most morality is anything but universal.

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

"You can always move" is NOT an argument
"Democracy is the best system there is" is NOT an argument

This thread has done EXACTLY what I had hoped: Prove that IF property rights are valid and IF there is such a thing as right and wrong that is independent of mere opinion, that government has no legitimate authority over private land owners. I brought the argument here to have holes shot in it. Instead, I found that it is bulletproof (because it's common sense and derived from first principles).

So again, THANK YOU, legal nerds, for helping me prove this point.

---

I blinked and missed it...

Where did you make an argument?


Oops, I did miss it. It's the old allodial title dodge!

Quote:

---

Quoting dsengere

---

Give me a good argument and I'll be happy to change my mind

---

of course you are the arbiter who determines what is a good argument

and of course you are the arbiter who determines if it is valid



Given your load of crap here, I hope every argument I could present would be discounted by you. In the real world, that means I'm on the right track.