Do you really own your land, or just the topsoil?

[Henry Rogue]

If ownership means that no one else is excluding you from using that tree, then you're right.

But I think ownership means more than that. It also means that you have a right to exclude others from it. Once you turn it into a chair, it is your right to do that. But until you begin doing that, if somebody else turns it into a chair, then it's their chair. You don't have a right to just point to the tree whose existence owes nothing to your labor and declare it yours until you eventually get around to doing something with it. Similarly, you don't have a right to draw a big square on the ground and declare that you own everything inside it, along with the right to exclude others from it and everything below and above it, without you laboring there while you simultaneously demand that others can't labor there either.

The big maple in my yard shades my house in the summer, keeping my house considerably cooler. It sits on the lot I payed for and I pay taxes on. Is it okay for others to cut it down and make a chair of it? Did RoyL get to you?

 

[Cabal]

No. Because you stipulated that the reason he owned the tree was because it was on land that he came to own by way of mixing his labor with it.

But your previous claim was that he could only mix his labor with that land if he already owned the land prior to any labor.

I see no reason anyone has a right to do that. If so, is there a limit to how much land he can claim? If so, what determines that limit?

The first part is addressed through the remainder of the previous post.

As for the second, those particulars may be debated, and this is generally where absenteeism, among other issues, tends to come into the conversation as well.

 

[MRK]

Texas is the only state where you can have allodial title.


People need to check out Agenda 21.

And Nevada (?). Although in both cases, you cannot get new contracts anymore.

 

[erowe1]

The big maple in my yard shades my house in the summer, keeping my house considerably cooler. It sits on the lot I payed for and I pay taxes on. Is it okay for others to cut it down and make a chair of it? Did RoyL get to you?

You paid for.

Who did you pay for it, and what gave them the right to sell it to you?

And if you're saying that the paying of taxes is what entitles you to that tree, then I'd say you're the one RoyL got to.

I think your point about the tree shading your house is valid. Of course the same point can't be made about other trees that you have no relationship with other than having built a fence that includes them within it.

 

[erowe1]

The first part is addressed through the remainder of the previous post.

As for the second, those particulars may be debated, and this is generally where absenteeism, among other issues, tends to come into the conversation as well.

The second part is the whole argument. You can't address the first part without the second part.

 

[kathy88]

it amazes how many folks do not read the documents they are signing, then cry foul later.

Our house in TX came without mineral rights, and i was fully aware of it because i read the freaking contracts. its not that hard.

I do title searches for a living. In all fairness sometimes the severance was 100 years ago, and title insurers only require a 60 year search, at least in PA... some states it's much shorter than that. I can't tell you how many friends I told to pay extra for the 150 year search and they were too cheap, only to find out that 75 years ago the minerals were sold off or reserved.

 

[cbc58]

builders retaining mineral rights is very common in NC. it didn't used to be but is now. prelude to fracking...