Facts you have. But the conclusions you draw from them are non sequitur
and your comprehension of them is sorely lacking. Find a teacher to
explain to you what you have read. You're not getting it on your own.

Hawke

Care to specify which conclusion is incorrect?

Almost all of them. So many in fact that it would take way too long to
explain it all.



Perhaps we can recap private property.

Okay.


Private property is defined as land, houses and chattels owned absolutely.
Ownership can be (a) absolute, or (b) qualified.
Estate is held with an interest (less than title).
Can one conclude that estate is held with qualified ownership?

The fifth amendment says PRIVATE property shall not be taken for public
use
without just compensation. There's no mention that ESTATE shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation.

Absolute ownership is a right, not subject to taxation.
Qualified ownership is a privilege, granted by government and subject to
taxation.

?There is no Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed.?
- - - Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, 8 A, p. 265, Sec. 132

See, here is your problem. You have a supposed fact here. There is no
Georgia statute compelling the recording of a deed. But look at the reality.
Are deeds recorded in Georgia? Yes they are, but according to your citation
there is no statute compelling this. So what? Whether there is a statute or
not is irrelevant. By custom, tradition, or whatever you want to call it all
transfers of real property in the state of Georgia are recorded. If you try
to sell real estate without recording it you will fail. Because the
interconnection of laws and customs is so well set that there is a defacto
compulsion to record deeds. So you see, your fact is meaningless.




If you check your own state's laws, you should find that there is no law
compelling the recording of a deed.

I just explained why that is unnecessary although I doubt you are correct.


Can one conclude that recording one's land purchase at the "REAL ESTATE"
registry is counter productive?

This question is simply gibberish, it means nothing


Another interesting fact - check the typical "title deed" that a lawyer
writes up for the "real estate" transaction.
You may find that the deed states : "For $1 in hand..." or "For $5 in
hand..." But rarely will it state the actual transaction price.

According to the 7th amendment, the rules of the common law are preserved
IF
the value in controversy exceeds 20 dollars.

[Of course, no lawyer will make the faux pas of confusing repudiated notes
with real money. In fact, I asked a judge if he'd rule that Federal
Reserve
notes were dollars. He declined.]

Oddly enough, if you bought the property with financing, the bank will
place
a lien denominated in the FULL AMOUNT borrowed.

Perhaps the lawyer (and the banker) does not want you to establish any
fact
that the rules of the common law are preserved.

What does that have to do with socialism?

Common law is the law of the land, based on justice, reason and common
sense. Common law is the prerogative of sovereigns. Sovereigns absolutely
own their property (sounds like private property!).

IF socialism, by definition, abolishes "private property", then all
socialists cannot own private property.
And that means everyone can only have an interest in estate, subject to
taxation and confiscation and condemnation by the collective State.
And that also means that the usurer can steal your property without fear.

Slaves who do not know they are enslaved, will never attempt to free
themselves.
1805 - no license needed to live, work, travel, marry, etc.
1905 - no license needed to live, work, travel, marry, etc.
2005 - need a license (or pay a tax) to work, to have a dog, marry, travel
(drive), build a house, engage in business, etc, etc.

You have no argument. None of your statements make sense and they are in no
way connected with each other. And Socialism is not the system used in the
United States. Where you get that idea is unclear but it is certainly wrong.
The US is a republican form of democracy. Despite the fact that some
institutions have a collective basis in no way does that make the US a
socialist system. You need to colate and organize your facts into some kind
of coherent argument. As it is your ideas and statements are incoherent and
nonsensical. Reems of facts that don't apply can work as a blanket approach
to make an argument but if you have no rational premise and conclusion
you're just wasting time and effort. Put another way, you really need to get
your **** together, intellectually. Right now you're just out of it.