Quote:
|
Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham
It's ok if all "ownership" is in the state...because that refers to titles. Yes the King grants titles and so forth.
The crucial difference is between the have and use of the property. Maybe we should surrender all our "haves" and just secure the priority use.
|
Your statement is confusing in this regard. "Have" would indicate a mere 'possession' of something, as compared to 'ownership' would indicate not only 'legal' 'possession' but also 'sole' entitlement to 'legally possess' or 'have'.
So if we surrender the 'have' aspect of any property, then what we must do is surrender 'possession' of said property, and then we would be 'left out in the cold'.
What I have suggested is the surrender of 'ownership' and make the 'claimed' OWNER responsible for the upkeep of the property and the requisite taxation of the same.
Jerry Carlos