“[E]very Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”

This a quotation from Locke's Second Treatise. There are two problems here: 1) The text is not an exact reproduction of the original (see below) 2) It misses out the crucial caveat in the last phrase which is a loophole for Statists. “Though the Earth and all inferior Creatures be common to all men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by the labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men. For this Labour being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man but he can have a right to what is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others.”

We are now the opposite of this quote. We have no right to the fruits of our own labor, no right to property, and are considered to be inventory by the IRS.

Jack, the problems you speak of are, in fact, problems for the statists. The state of Nature provides a common place for all to exist (earth). Once the farmer has mixed his personal labors to that of the common (earth), placing seed in the ground and then harvesting it, it is his personal property. The Constitution is a document that was / is not law but rather, a limiting outline that gave authority (a realm at law - to a defined set of representatives) to a set certain realm of acts. The individual sovereign, united with other sovereigns was /were excluded specifically, as was in harmony with Locke's above quote and the law of nature and of Nature's God. When ever a representative would offer an amendment to said Constitution that would address the individual sovereign (by way of example: the 16th Amendment), he did so contrary to the laws of nature and by violating his oath; making any such amendment void ab initio. Only by the ignorance and apathy of ignorant helots, serfs, and slaves and the power of a foreign statist theocracy could such a heinous violation occur.

The IRS, the gestapo collection goons of the Treasury Department.

Jack, thank you for providing the complete quote - Mike you are a little misguided on what is called community property; if you sow a seed it belongs to the community - the Indians knew this, that is why they didn't own land, it belonged to nature and its inhabitants. God has nothing to do with the rights and nature of man and his labors - and this is where you and I differ greatly with our thinking and personal opinions.

RBESRQ...If I sow a seed, the fruit of it belongs to me and I am thankful to God, not the community and not the government, for providing the soil, the knowledge, and the strength necessary for the seed to be sown. You say that God has nothing to do with the rights and nature of man. If these rights do not come from the Almighty, where do they come from? Are they an invention of mankind? Do we receive our rights from a piece of paper written by dead men? Who is to decide what is right and wrong if it is not the Great Governor Himself? Is nature anything more than the craftmanship of the Carpenter? You see, RBESRQ, God has everything to do with everything. Anything that is contrary to His Law is not a right, its a crime.

As long as man continues to keep his head where the sun does not shine, he will continue to lose (all of) his Rights. Unless man awakens and realizes that security is a poor substitute for liberty and freedom, he will sink into the depths of subjugation and experience years, if not more, of submission to (his) government! Great to have some one with a good eye and mind as Jack has exhibited above.

Right on, J Carlton.

Robert, I am not quite sure what Indians you are speaking of. I have a sibling that married an Indian who's parent was the head of their particular nation (they always owned property). If your reference is to nomadic life styles, I guess there may have been communal gardens but to those few exceptions, I would think they owned their own food. Property is: "The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others." (Bouvier's Law Dictionary) If "A man" can't have perfected allodium of a thing (land, or a specific designated area thereof) it is not "property", it is something else. Community property is an oxymoron at natural law and a reference to holding title (not perfected allodium - a title is a designation of stewardship by the owner) at legal positivism. The de jure States united (USA) was to be a natural / common law representative republic. I believe your reference is to tenancy, tenants in common specifically. Tenants in common (as differs from joint tenancy and other tenancies) does not reference ownership (perfected allodium) but rather how title is held.

In my opinion, the 'ownership' of land still remains to be at odds with Natural Law. In most of the world, other than America, land is owned by the Crown or State in perpetuity. A certificate of title is issued to land 'owners' -- they don't actually own the land, but the State has granted a title to it (and it can take it away) with certain terms attached, the payment of taxes is usually one of them. In America, for the first time in recent history, the People could 'own' land free of any liens or encumbrances -- it could not be taxed by any government -- ever.

Obviously something has changed since not paying taxes on your property can result in its confiscation. Unfortunately, Americans have become ignorant of their rights to land and have succumbed to the old form of feudalism.

Now while the Native Americans did not recognize 'ownership' of the land, they certainly competed and fought over 'territory' just like ALL animals do. Whether hunting and gathering or planting crops, they did not consider any of their food 'theirs' but rather they thanked the Great Spirit for the gifts. And you can't generalize about whether the 'garden' was communal or not -- there were 500 indigenous nations in America before the Europeans arrived, and there were certainly vast differences between them.

But in America, what happens when all the land is 'claimed' and the newly born have no opportunity to get it? Look at Ted Turner who owns half of Montana -- it is certainly feasible for the super-rich to own all the land again -- then what? Western civilization still has to work out this inevitable scenario, because today, we are all serfs on our own land, in debt perpetually, and ever the taxes and property confiscations continue.

Archer, well said, thanks. The land or property pertaining to ownership is a more abstract concept to grasp (it has no physical result like gravity or murder - its results are more intangible long term). Using the law dictionary's definition of property above for describing ownership is a very shallow facade at best but, at least it is a starting point. As a state of nature, history has shown repeatedly that when something is owned (possessed inviolate) the individual works harder, and takes better care of the property more than if it is communal. Corporeal characteristics and innate qualities of the being man that advance the greatest advancement of the specie (a cause and effect if you will) are defined at law. It is that law that falls within the confines of ownership. Ownership of property also defines the sovereign as a king and a queen with ability to feed oneself. Inherent in a sovereign, living on property he owns he is able to his freedom at liberty. Ownership, is the mechanism to manifest law, justice, inalienable rights, and all else that is inalienable to a sovereign freeman. All in all, a natural law domain. I know I only scratched the surface here but it is a beginning point to clarify from.

The perfection of governmental organization is engendered by and realized in:

" Thou shalt Love thy neighbor ..."

and

" Thou shalt not covet ..."

Continually before the throne in heaven, the jailer seeks his due.
Yet the innocent blood of Abel, cries justice for the likes of me and you. To whom have I been sold, and what is the price of my redemption ? Unknowingly, for the transgression of another's past, I find my person, bound with chains of servitude and death. No work, never I found, to relieve me of such debt. Till a messenger from heaven told me, the jailer Lost the key. A bloody fight it was to relieve me of my debt, My Creator has the key, granting access to his Tree. My person now secured, the tyrannical jailer still seeks his due. Those who have such Right, would dare do well, in maintaining it. The manifestation comes quickly, and the jailers food will be cut off. Tyrannies head always lust, for that it cannot possess, having lost the key to life and death. The projected power of Sovereignty upon those At Liberty from oppression. To work in the day and Rest at night, till the shadows once again, flee away. Hence it is the night we are mindful of, when no man works for his liberty. 
"And after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins." Kipling.