View Full Version : Family property

02-05-14, 05:54 PM
Suppose a free man has a dog; the dog is the man's property. The man neglects the dog: never feeds it, leaves it out in the snow, chains it to a tree 24/7, beats it. Is there any recourse for the dog?

Suppose the free man's children were neglected: malnourished, no coat or protective shoes for the snow, no care for their health, forced isolation in their room after school and chores, no friends allowed, beats the kids. Any recourse for them?

Suppose the free man has an aquarium of tropical fish he has neglected to care for: filthy water, diseased fish gasping for air, etc. The man's visiting friend sees the fish suffering, brings it to the attention of the man, but the man doesn't care and does nothing. Do the fish have recourse?

See where I'm going? Your thoughts?

02-05-14, 06:17 PM
Do the fish have recourse?

Delusional is what I call it. People have been trained for so long on what they have been told to do and act according.

Example I went into a restaurant sat with the older crowd.

They were stating how their property taxes were getting out of hand.

I asked if anyone owned their property that does not have a mortgage.

Most said no mortgage, I own my property.

I asked if you owned your property why do you pay property tax then. Most of the replies were for the city services, schools etc.

I asked don't you pay for city services separate? They said we pay for water, sewer, trash pickup etc.

I asked if you don’t pay your property tax then what happens. The reply was the county will sell it.

I asked how can the county sell it if you own it and your paying these other bills. I was told that’s the way it is and always has been.

I asked what would happen if you didn't pay for water, sewer, trash pickup etc. One said the services would stop and we would be fined.

I asked don’t you have title to the property? Most of the replies were, Yes I do.

I asked then if you have title to the property and you’re the owner how can the county take it away from you? I don’t know but they can was the reply.

That’s the way it is, and always has been, I don’t know but they can is not an answer, and none could come up with an answer.

Then I said you must not be the only owner, sounds like you’re the tenant paying to live there because you just said if I don’t pay the property tax then the county will sell you the owner(s) property, services would stop and you would be fined.

Now they looked confused, some laughed.

I said one more question before I leave. The United States code do you know anything about it?

Out of the eight men and woman sitting there one person replied and said those are the laws written by congress.

Who are they written for? All of us he said. I replied Really!

02-05-14, 07:49 PM
Great story! :D I've had those kind of dinner convos, too! Usually doesn't end pretty though. lol

So: are you trying to say that, because the free man's dog/child/fish is under his stewardship, and the state doesn't own them, but God does, that no matter how much the possessions are suffering, it is still no one else's business?

02-06-14, 03:22 PM
"Recourse" was not meant in the legal context. At all. Maybe "help" is a better word? That's why I described the guy as a "free man." Perhaps "living soul" is a better word?

All I'm trying to ask about the given scenarios is, how would free people handle this among themselves? Would it be like this?

2 Samuel 12 1-6: And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

04-02-14, 10:56 AM
Moxie, the things you asked about in the original post, there can be recourse in each case. But these cases cannot be brought in law, they would be considered in equity. The reason is because there is a trust relationship in each situation. The man is the trustee or fiduciary, and the others (kids, dogs, fish) are the beneficiary. The man owes a duty to each and must provide care for each. That care must be adequate. In equity court the judge has full discretion and can create an order to remedy the situation. If that order is disobeyed, then it becomes an issue of law and you can go to jail over it.