NationStates

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:35 am**

North Yakistan wrote:You know I'm interested to hear YOUR answers, who says who oes what according to you?

I don't think anyone had the authority to seize these commonly owned resources as their own.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:50 am**

Death Metal wrote:
North Yakistan wrote:Well I have to work but ill be back in a few hours. Pick up then

Enjoy those federal reserve notes made possible by the US treasury!
And that clean air regulated by EPA emission standards!
And use of tools and equipment delivered to you by publicly maintained infrastructure!

And many of those tools developed by US govt-sponsored research.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:08 am**

If you own the land, it's yours.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:42 am**

Wind in the Willows wrote:If you own the land, it's yours.

Because the goverment recognises it as yours.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:45 am**

Cetacea wrote:Yes it is exploitive

On what basis do you claim greater right to the land than you're cousin has? Why should your cousin not have equal access and use of the land and its produce? You did not produce the land so why do you own it? and in the end if your cousin or anyone else did decide to chop down a tree, build a house and hunt a deer how would you stop him?

This is, of course, based upon the false premises that fairness (and perhaps, by extension, equality) is the same as justice, and that all people have fair claims to land.

I'm on an anti-Rawls kick right now.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:32 am**

North Yakistan wrote:Yesterday myself and Dejanic got in an arguement on the Che thread about private land ownership and decided to move it to avoid hijacking the thread. I will be arguing from a Right anarchist position based on the non-Agression principal and homesteading. I assume Dejanic will argue some form of Marxism.

Let me start with a statement and a question.

My family jointly owns 280 Acres of timber and farmland. It's used only for hunting and recreation except for an area rented to our cousin for farming. I'd this exceptable? Is our renting of land somehow exploitive?

i think its a good idea. consider for a moment the world of hurt we would be in in this political environment if the government owned all the land and rich people could spend whatever they like buying politicians.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:14 am**

It's not exploitative to own land. An argument could be made that that land was ultimately stolen from native Americans if it's in the western hemisphere, but the statute of limitations has expired on that.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:28 am**

Wind in the Willows wrote:If you own the land, it's yours.

argument; see circular.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:29 am**

What's wrong with having land for recreation?

If you legally own it then go right ahead.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:44 am**

Saiwania wrote:I'd say that technically speaking, the government of whichever sovereign nation you live in indirectly "owns" all of the land, even when it is privately owned, in which case it is merely leased. If you don't pay property taxes on it every year, it will get taken away.

property taxes are not federal taxes, they are state taxes and not every state has them.
the government does not own all land, it does not own land you own.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:31 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:
Saiwania wrote:I'd say that technically speaking, the government of whichever sovereign nation you live in indirectly "owns" all of the land, even when it is privately owned, in which case it is merely leased. If you don't pay property taxes on it every year, it will get taken away.

property taxes are not federal taxes, they are state taxes and not every state has them.
the government does not own all land, it does not own land you own.

Land is not owned only 'land titles' and all land title grants in fee simple are tenurial titles granted by the governments (state or federal). Other than Nevada alloidal title is not recognised in the US and Eminent domain puts a limitation on all land ownership as do government rights of taxation, enforcemnt and escheat

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:23 pm**

North Yakistan wrote:
Death Metal wrote:
Irrelevant. "If I didn't sign something, I didn't agree to anything" Is not how contracts work.

Do you think it's okay to order a hamburger at a restaurant, eat it, and then leave without paying?

I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay. If I never leave my land or call the cops how am I using government service?

You live within the borders of the area under the jurisdiction of the military. The military defends this territory from foreign invasion, you are using the services of the military.

Pay your taxes. Taxes are not theft, they are the price of civilized society.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:26 pm**

Joseph Raymond McCarthy wrote:
North Yakistan wrote:
I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay. If I never leave my land or call the cops how am I using government service?

You live within the borders of the area under the jurisdiction of the military. The military defends this territory from foreign invasion, you are using the services of the military.

Pay your taxes. Taxes are not theft, they are the price of civilized society.

Oops, wrong account. That post was mine.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:34 pm**

North Yakistan wrote:Yesterday myself and Dejanic got in an arguement on the Che thread about private land ownership and decided to move it to avoid hijacking the thread. I will be arguing from a Right anarchist position based on the non-Agression principal and homesteading. I assume Dejanic will argue some form of Marxism.

Let me start with a statement and a question.

My family jointly owns 280 Acres of timber and farmland. It's used only for hunting and recreation except for an area rented to our cousin for farming. I'd this exceptable? Is our renting of land somehow exploitive?

it is exploitative in a sense if there is a power imbalance between you and your cousin that forces your cousin to have little other choice but to accept, even though the benefits to you are overwhelmingly greater than the benefit to your cousin.

The less there is of the above, the less exploitative the scenario.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. If your cousin's desperate enough, he has no choice but to be exploited and being exploited may be the best thing to happen to him.

NationStates

Land ownership debate