General Question

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

can someone please explain the meaning of allodial title?

Asked by SquirrelEStuff (9832points) August 21st, 2007 from iPhone
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

8 Answers

hossman's avatar

chris6137, I'm betting that this is one of those "constitutional" arguments loosely involved around Mr. Paul's campaign. First, I suppose I should warn you Mr. Paul himself disavows some of the support and issues that have attached themselves to his name, such as his support from the Klan, the White Aryan Resistance, the American Nazi Party, and various racist groups. He also seems to be keeping his distance from some of the "tax protesters" that are trying to jump on his bandwagon, which is probably where you heard the concept of allodial title.

True allodial title is the concept that certain lands were absolutely owned and were not subject to the rights of any entity, including not being subject to eminent domain or taxation. Allodial title does not exist today anywhere in the Western world, except for some properties where allodial title was conveyed by the royal authority of that country to ecclesiastic authorities, usually the Catholic Church.
A few western states, Nevada and I can't remember the others, had a variety of allodial title where you could pay in advance the present value of all future taxes that would come due on the property during the lifetime of the youngest owner of the property, calculated by actuarial tables. This was not true allodial title as the property was still subject to eminent domain, and really was just a contractual agreement for the advance payment of property taxes. I don't think those states still do that today, as it usually resulted in less taxes being paid in the long run.
Some "tax protesters" (meaning those who aren't protesting the amount of taxes, or the use the taxes are put to, but rather whether the government has the right to tax land or income) claim allodial title in its true sense exists in this country, thus the government can neither tax it nor take it by eminent domain. First, as a practicality, if these protesters did have their way, the only taxes the gov't could impose would be excise taxes, which would force those taxes to be so high, you could kiss the global economy goodbye and you wouldn't be buying a Sony or Hyundai anytime soon.
This claim is usually based upon the allegation the Treaty of Paris, in which England relinquished its claim to property in what was THEN the United States, conveyed allodial title to individual landowners from the original royal land grants. Most experts (which I am not) agree that is not true, that the Treaty of Paris conveyed allodial title to the United States, which then granted title in fee simple (meaning subject to claims derived from feudal law, including taxation and eminent domain) to individual landowners. Even if that were the case, it would only apply to England's holdings in U.S. territory at the time of the Treaty of Paris. It would not apply to those lands obtained by the U.S. government by purchase, such as the Lousiana and Gadsden Purchases and Alaska, obtained by the U.S. by other treaties, such as those "voluntarily conveyed" by Native Americans, those taken by conquest (involuntarily taken without treaty from Native Americans), those "given" to the U.S. by "voluntary referendum" like Hawaii, etc. The underlying title of that land, the majority of U.S. property, lies in the federal government, which was then conveyed to individual states or landowners in fee simple. Interestingly, none of these tax protesters would probably agree with the logical extension of their argument that allodial title exists and is absolute, which would not mean they were free from eminent domain and taxes, but rather they would be subject to those rights as exercised by the former Native American inhabitants. It seems they want to eliminate all feudal rights except the right of conquest.
Now, undoubtedly, chris6137, this gives you the opportunity to discuss Mr. Paul here, as you probably intended when you posted the question.

hossman's avatar

P.S. chris6137: it is probably evident that in fairness to you, I have now studied up on Mr. Paul. Actually, he is quite a bit like a former Congressman I worked for in the 80's. I agree with a number of his principal issues, but usually not for the same reason as Mr. Paul. Unfortunately, I can't get over the hypocrisy of one of his positions. Mr. Paul isn't mentioning it in his campaign, as it would probably hurt him with most American voters, but Mr. Paul is opposed to all mandatory vaccinations and immunizations, as he believes there are questions about their effectiveness and safety, and parents should have the right to an informed decision. I don't know why any American who is pro-abortion would have a problem with that, as certainly a logical extension of the principle a mother should be able to choose abortion for her "genetic material" would be that that mother should be able to choose or deny allegedly non-fatal medical treatment for the same "genetic material," but I digress. Mr. Paul has asserted he is against mandatory immunization, but his 2nd largest campaign contributor is the American Medical Association, the very organization that seeks to impose mandatory immunization. To me, that is hypocrisy, pure and simple. No candidate should accept contributions from an organization that supports a position the candidate publicly opposes.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

This was not a "Constitutional" argument, whatever that is supposed to mean, nor did it come from DR. Paul. I am not a "tax protester" either. I am simply a curious 24 yo, that has a very good job, but wonder why I have to get taxed out of my a**, for every single thing I do. It was actually in that Constitutional video, and I was curious as to other peoples understanding of it. I dont ask questions here to make people mad, I just want answers.

PS Dr. Paul is not pro-abortion. He was a ob/gym and has delivered over 4,000 babies, which probably explains his campaign contributions include the AMA. As far as mandatory vaccinations, he has first hand experience about effectiveness and safety since he is a doctor. If parents are informed and have nothing to worry about vaccinations, then why would they not get their child vaccinated. To force it upon children could lead to very very bad things. I also disagree that no candidate should accept any contributions from an organization that supports an opposite position. Im sure the AMA does many good things that Ron Paul would support. We cant all agree on everything ya know.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I just dont get how this is the land of the free, yet you can buy a house, pay it off completely(which can take up to 30 yrs), and still be forced to do something to generate income. This does not sound free to me. I think that after all of these years, we should not have to work so hard and so much for necessities(housing, food, health care), but work hard for all the things we want, not need. I think if necessities came easier, it would allow people to really get in touch with their creative side and actually want to contribute their part to society, rather than kinda be pushed out into the real world after high school, being somewhat forced into finding a job, career, or major. Life is a life long process and I feel that for way too many ppl, it almost ends after high school as far as skills go. With all the advances in technology over the years, we should be working less hours, making the same money, instead we work just as much, doing twice the work, and the ppl that benefit the most are the businesses.

hossman's avatar

I don't know chris, doesn't sound like there is anyone who could say anything to that to make you feel better. You didn't make me mad. I answered your question, didn't I. It was a "constitutional" argument, it was in your video on constitutional law. Sorry, if someone accepts money from an organization that opposes their viewpoint, and suddenly becomes very quiet about that issue when they're running for President, it's spelled hypocrite in my dictionary.

Yes, you do have to pay taxes. You still drive on roads, you still use government services, you still share in the protections of our military, you still have to pay taxes. Yes, if life was perfect and nobody had to work and nobody had to pay taxes, we could all sit around and handcraft lutes. I'm not sure what you mean by the people who benefit the most are the businesses. Do you mean the business owners, many of whom are middle to upper middle class people just like you? Many of whom are working long after all of their employees go home? Many of whom mortgaged their own homes to start the business? Many of whom pay themselves only if there is any money after they pay their employees, and pay their own taxes, AND pay matching contributions for their employee's taxes? Many of whom have to watch some of their employees do as little work as possible, while whining they are underpaid and businesses are evil? After all, if the business fails, the employees just have to get another job, while the owner has to get another job, pay all the debts or file bankruptcy, AND lose his invested assets and labor. Are those the businesses you're talking about? You are 24 years old, and you are complaining you are having to work too hard. Yes, it would be very nice if someone would just give you what you need and you could spend all your energy getting what you want. I am pleased that you have the ability to complain about that. Perhaps you should bend the ear of someone, say, who lived in the Depression and was worried about whether mom and dad could get a day or two of work and make enough to buy milk for the kids. Perhaps you should seek the sympathy of the kids in Bangladesh rooting through garbage dumps for meals. I know a college student who fled Somalia a few years back. He recalls hiding from a warlord's militia while they played soccer with severed heads. You live in a country that not only guarantees you the right to vote, but allowed you to NOT vote for the last 6 years (some would say your not voting might suggest you shouldn't be complaining about what happened during those years). You're 24, you have a good job, and you pay taxes to a government that evidently is so good in comparison to others that millions of people risk death and break the law to get here. Chris, you've got it good, buddy! I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it. You suffer from a lack of perspective, you're seeking closed doors and not the open ones. This is pretty much as good as anybody's been able to figure it out to date. There are so many options open to you, have fun. My God, we Americans, and I'm including me, are so good at seeing the 10% of the glass that isn't full. I can go to church, any church, mosque or temple of hundreds within a few miles, and I don't have to worry about reprisals. I don't have to pay more than half of my income in just income taxes. I can complain about whatever I want, and the police aren't going to lop my nose off. I don't have to watch my kids slowly die of any of a number of preventable diseases. You and I can argue over whether we should have the freedom to choose whether our children get practically free vaccinations. If I don't pay my taxes, the IRS will eventually settle for cents on the dollar, or at least probably give me years and years before they finally throw my butt in jail. A relatively safe jail, with food that actually meets your dietary requirements, and they'll give me a relatively fair trial first. Yes, it's not a perfect world, but here, now, we have a shot at working hard to get it pretty close.

glial's avatar

Quote of the day from hossman: "Yes, if life was perfect and nobody had to work and nobody had to pay taxes, we could all sit around and handcraft lutes"

No Doubt!

hossman's avatar

I must admit, I have spent most of this summer underemployed as I have closed my law practice and I am looking for work as a teacher. It certainly is nice to not work 80 hours a week and see my children while the sun is still out. To be able to take them to the pool. I can certainly see the lure of being unemployed. I actually am looking forward to being an employee again. To not being the last one paid. To knowing exactly when and how much my next paycheck will be. To having a vacation (this summer I took my first one in 4 years). You can understand how after 10 years of this sort of schedule, I tend to not have a lot of compassion for complaints about how that 40 hour retail work week is strenuous. And if you think your customers can be difficult, try being a divorce attorney for a while.

When people ask me what it's like being a small business owner, I always say: "The problem with being self-employed is that your boss is a jerk."

PeteTheNotSoGr8's avatar

I would just like to point out that the "practically free" immunizations you spoke of earlier pose a challenge for many thousands of families in the United States. Just look at news reports from Washingon DC every year around the start of school. They are always reports of thousands of students who can not attend school because of the immunizations. If these families can not find the money when the immunization is required, they probably cannot do it voluntarily - and others might chose school supplies over immunizations. I also have a friend who spent the summer lobbyin support for a bill that would help fund such vacinations, among other childhood medical expenses. There is also the public safety issue, in that disease won't spread in a resistant population.

I know this was a little off topic, just wanted to put some of this information out there for those who oppose mandatory innoculations.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther