“The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive the people of this, is in fact to deprive them of their liberty.”

The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land does not recognize a perfected ownership. Amerika's dogmas and canons only offer at best, titles and licenses (at worst - the list grows). The inalienable right to property ownership is a distant dream, gone the way of the de jure individual sovereign's constitutionally limiting - government of law - Republic.

Norwalk: What is "perfected ownership?" Is it a reality where the 'owner' finally enjoys total license to everything a non-owner produces with his/her labor? Is it a prized ideal where "law" compels a person to purchase "insurance", thus providing the profit, the very means of labor free existence for stockholder/owners? You've written "occupying statist theocracy infesting this land" uncountable times in this space, without ever defining what you mean, without ever expressing clearly the "theocracy" you endlessly refer to. Perhaps you simply enjoy the repetitive sound of your own words. Maybe you're just an agitator, a divisive junk dealer selling the same old reactionary failure of absolute dominance. In any event, I pray you express an opinion, just once, that's at least in an different key, even if it has to remain the same melody.

Mann, you made me say to myself, hmmm - amusing; I smiled at your socialist's off topic diversions. I am sure you haven't been interacting long enough with this blog to have read my numerous explanations concerning your inquiries. A perfected ownership is simply (without going into lengthy legalisms) a person's possession that can not be taken by another without the owners free will (no coercion, threat, etc.) gift or exchange. Income and property tax are examples that you do not own your own labors or the house you live in.

A theocracy (again, not going into lengthy legalisms) is a government based on religious authority, dogmas, and canons. FYI, a god may or may not be helpful in determining a religion (I have given dictionary, legal, and otherwise definitions of religion here ad nauseam) Religion is simply; an individual's morality, inspiring and causing said individual to act (a should do). I believe it is moral to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and empower the impoverished - by definition, that is part of my religion. Law, differentiating itself from religion is a description of absolutes (gravity, science, math, fiscal activities, etc.) A government of law, addresses law (life, liberty, ownership, theft). A theocracy addresses the should be of the in power's morals (a welfare state, a slave state, etc. - "A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." ) Mann, if you would like I can go into lengthy legalisms. I hope not to be an agitator but rather a peace maker. Your reference to my continual shedding light on despotism, tyranny, malignant theocracies, etc. as being a failure against such absolute dominance is not reactionary but rather, a teaching opportunity to explain freedom, liberty, law and justice.

Once the concept of ownership is all but forgotten, we all become slaves. If the government (which are just other people in positions of power) believes it has the right to decide how much of what I own I may keep, Liberty is just a concept subject to the whims of those with 'law enforcement' at their beck and call. When will we put our servant government back in their place?