NationStates

Infected Mushroom wrote:Greetings NSG,

I have just realised that in my view, the fact that the government forces you give them money on a regular basis (in the form of income tax) from income you rightfully and assiduously earn... is nothing more or less than an act of state-sanctioned theft.

In my view it can be described in no other way. The fact that we consider taxation a normal thing and a legitimate thing is simply a form of Might Makes Right. If a person wrote letters to you to try to compel you to give them a part of your property every Nth period (and if you don't they will do bad things to you like imprison you), you would rightfully and instinctively call such a person a robber. Likewise, If a band of robbers wrote a letter to you and threatened the same, you would rightfully and instinctively call such an organization an organization of robbers.

I've just made the revolutionary connection that the government is in that business too. I mean think about it. If you don't pay your taxes for long enough, the tax collectors will send their enforcers to grab you and throw you into a cell (isn't this similar to how a mafia operates?). Except they trick you into thinking its alright by making it a part of the Law. They also trick you into thinking that you've somehow legitimised this Theft because every 4 or so years you get to cast a statistically insignificant ballot that's supposedly a form of consent.

I can't believe it...

What do you think NSG? Is taxation nothing more than a form of theft by the powerful? Are we ruled by a society of elite and powerful bandits; is this what Western liberal society comes down to?

Taxes are used to fund public works and fulfill government responsibilities. I'm from the USA so I am using our examples. Sorry if some of my examples do not apply to you.
Example:
Bridges
Dams
Roads
Maintain the armed forces
Enforce laws
Pay government employees (Examples: Politicians, teachers, government appointed lawyers and various other government responsibilities)

Now you say you are being robbed but robbers don't take your money then build you a bridge to get to work then give you a court to make a case about why Mr.Fitzgerald should pay for your car repairs after his motorcycle damaged your windshield when it flipped onto your car after you gently nudged him with your car on said bridge.
With no taxes Mr. Fitzgerald can then go set your house on fire, with no consequences, which will then burn to the ground since no one is paying for the fire department or police or even laws in the first place. While you complain about the sorry situation of homelessness and non existent welfare in your country the next country over that does have taxes invades the crap out of yours because the small volunteer militia ran when they saw that the invaders news teams were better armed than they were. Your country will then be sad but quickly become very happy that they are protected by a government.
In a society without taxes, and in turn a functional government, responsibility for all of the above things either has never existed and is likely a small tribe or fell to a successful communist society where everyone helps without being asked or a business which suddenly has no one to watch them. There is nothing wrong with tribal societies, but a tribe can only be so big. As for communism, it has never completely been reached as communism has no government. The other extreme being a corporate run country is suddenly only concerned about the bottom line and they don't have to pay or give you any rights you suddenly (Slavery very possible). If you try to not work, well, they can most certainly field a police force not constrained by due process and can just as quickly legally execute dissidents on sight.
Taxes are not new, taxes have existed since the times of Mesopotamia, and like death, taxes are a constant certainty in life.

Sort of behind the curve, but decided to throw in my own two cents anyhow. Taxes aren't theft, they are a method by which you contribute to society by allowing the government (which is a institution created, staffed, and controlled by people) to use a portion of your income to provide public goods to everyone (even you) that no individuals can get for themselves. How well would society function if everyone was responsible for digging their own landfills, setting up their own freshwater reservoirs, their own missile defense system ect. It wouldn't be possible. Instead, we work together to do these things. And create an institution to manage these things. Government.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Chestaan wrote:
According to this US tax revenues for 2015 are estimated at 6 trillion dollars, while GDP is estimated at 17.419 trillion for 2014 https://www.google.ie/publicdata/explor ... l=en&dl=en

So let's round up and say that GDP for 2015 will be roughly 18 trillion. That means that the US government took 33.33% of the economy or one third of the economy in tax revenue. For your proposal to work you would need government enterprises to make up one third of the US economy. How is that even possible?

if its not possible, than I suggest the government cut back its spending or improve its own self-image (so that generous people may be more inclined to donate)

*Loss of respect intensifies*

BK117B2 wrote:

Maqo wrote:I get that you think the USA is different. I don't believe you are correct. If as you say, 'most' land is privately owned it should not be difficult for you to find a copy of someone's certificate of title (or whatever you call it over there) that indicates their allodial title. I think it is more likely that you are misinterpreting the colloquial 'privately owned' to mean the more political-science 'allodial title'.

I think that one problem here is a misunderstanding of what allodial title and fee simple mean with regard to the US government. Again, if things are done a certain way in your country, I'm not challenging that as I don't know much at all about this issue there.

You keep saying that, but you're not giving any proof.

I did a quick search for 'allodial title in the USA' and found many results like this http://www.economicreason.com/canadahou ... -had-this/
Which back up my point of view. The literature on 'land patents' similarly says that the land is governed by the lolaw the congressional act which grants the land.
Again, if it is so common as you say, then it should be easy to find an example.

Now if is possible that the USA is indeed stupid and sells full rights to some of its property, in which case taxation of (or any laws apply to) people owning or inhabiting that land is unjustified and is theft.
In the general, political-science sense however that is not always the case, in theory nor in.practice.

Maqo wrote:Think about what it would mean if you literally privately owned the land and the state retained no rights over it. You could sell yout land to other countries! Can you find some evidence of some land in the US being literally wholly privately owned?

Ah, but see that's an area where you seem to be unfamiliar with the US. Just because you have a right to do something here does not mean that the government cares or will respect that right in any way. The government here regularly breaks its own laws regarding land use.

I am talking about rights, yours and the governments. The idea tgat propert is tgeft is based on property rights: I'm showing that using property rights as a basis gives the state control over everything in its borders.
If you believe your government is breaking its laws regarding land use, They have provided a mechanism by which you can take them to task about this - through the courts. If you think you own some land, try selling it to some other country and if the government tries to stop you, you can use them. If not, don't whinge about the government asserting its rights when you're not going to assert yours.

Maqo wrote:As for the state not having rights... Simply wrong. Everywhere in the world, The state is a separate legal entity. Call it a proxy if you like, it doesnt change the facts. There is no theory stopping the state from being literally a single person. They are similar in most ways to a company - an entity legally distinct from the people who comprise and run it- and the USA has repeatedly been on the side of companies having rights of their own.

You are quite incorrect. Sure, one person can be a state.....and the government of that state would simply be acting by proxy for that person. Governments have no source of authority or ownership OTHER than people. Where would you propose a state of one person gets any authority or right of ownership if not that one person? If that one person dies, then what?

Lets break it down this way.
We'll assume that a person can own land, and that all we're really interested in is property rights. (Some moral systems will deny one or the other, and can arrive at different conclusions eg taxation is justified because welfare is more important than property; or people can't own anything because ownership is enforced by coercive monopoly)

Bob is an explorer, and he discovers a tract of land that no-one else lays claim to. He goes around homesteading for a few years until everyone agrees that Bob is indeed the one true owner of the entire tract of land and answers to no higher ruler. He has what is called in law 'allodial title'.
Bob is now a State. The land is his property, he is the sole owner, and thus he has legitimate right to use of force on his property. Anyone on the property is either there with his permission, or is violating his property rights. He is also the government of his own state, as he is the sole decision making body.

Now Bob decides that the land could be put to use and he could make some money. He allows citizens of other states to immigrate to Bobistan, so long as they sign an agreement with him. Violation of the agreement is grounds for punishment (expulsion or death). Because Bob's property rights are absolute, he can write ANYTHING he wants in the agreement; and because there is 'freedom of contract', the agreement is legally binding no matter how outlandish his requirements are. He could say citizens must always wear red, they must cut off their left pinky, he could ask for prima nocta and it would be 'moral' because it is his property and they are free to not sign the contract.
Bob is reasonable and asks for 30% of their income as taxes; and he reserves the right to change the agreement whenever he wants. Some people agree to this (Bobistan is a really nice place), and immgrate to Bobistan.

This is all compatible with libertarian ideals of property rights. So long as Bobistan belongs to Bob, he is the morally legitimate justified absolute ruler. He can gift/sell his land to someone, and they will become the state. He can decide that being the sole dictator is too much work, and install a council of sorts to make decisions and they will be the government.

Now, some citizens want to build structures like houses or businesses in Bobistan. Currently they're not allowed to (the agreement with Bob only allows them on to his property, not the right to do anything there). So Bob devises a system whereby he divides his land up in to parcels, and sells limited rights to citizens.
The rights read 'This land belongs to Bob and Bobistan, but if you give Bob $50 you can do pretty much whatever you want on it except build buildings more than 9 stories tall, and subject to your original immigration agreement, and subject to the proviso that Bob can reclaim the land at any time against your wishes so long as he gives you $50 back'. And again, as absolute owner he is allowed to do this, and people who don't like the agreement can just not sign the contract.
Some of the citizens begin selling the parcels of land between themselves. But they can only sell the land under the agreement they have with Bob. They can't sell anyone an unencumbered land package where you are able to build structures more than 9 stories tall, because they don't have those rights to sell.

All of this is allowable, because Bob is the sole owner of the property. And when Bob dies, he can will his property to his descendants, and all the agreements will stay in place, because they now own the rights.

In this situation, taxation is perfectly allowable. It is not theft; it is part of the freely accepted contract that people have with the state.


Now, given that we can construct a situation where taxation is perfectly justified, where the government is the sole owner of property, and where citizens only have limited rights to property they 'purchase' from the government; we can see that the blanket statement 'taxation is theft' is too strong (we have a counterexample)).

Most states operate pretty much as described above*. But they do exert a claim of absolute ownership, and they do sell only *limited* rights to citizens. Because the rights sold are limited, citizens cannot on-sell unlimited rights: so unless the state sells unlimited rights (which they don't), they never lose their claim to the land.

Maqo wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:
I think that one problem here is a misunderstanding of what allodial title and fee simple mean with regard to the US government. Again, if things are done a certain way in your country, I'm not challenging that as I don't know much at all about this issue there.

You keep saying that, but you're not giving any proof.

I did a quick search for 'allodial title in the USA' and found many results like this http://www.economicreason.com/canadahou ... -had-this/
Which back up my point of view. The literature on 'land patents' similarly says that the land is governed by the lolaw the congressional act which grants the land.
Again, if it is so common as you say, then it should be easy to find an example.

Now if is possible that the USA is indeed stupid and sells full rights to some of its property, in which case taxation of (or any laws apply to) people owning or inhabiting that land is unjustified and is theft.
In the general, political-science sense however that is not always the case, in theory nor in.practice.

Again, you're not seeming very familiar with the USA. In the US, we had allodial titles that were not. Our allodial titles will generally say fee simple. The government of the US never actually had title AT ALL of much of the land in the US.

Maqo wrote:

Ah, but see that's an area where you seem to be unfamiliar with the US. Just because you have a right to do something here does not mean that the government cares or will respect that right in any way. The government here regularly breaks its own laws regarding land use.

I am talking about rights, yours and the governments. The idea tgat propert is tgeft is based on property rights: I'm showing that using property rights as a basis gives the state control over everything in its borders.
If you believe your government is breaking its laws regarding land use, They have provided a mechanism by which you can take them to task about this - through the courts. If you think you own some land, try selling it to some other country and if the government tries to stop you, you can use them. If not, don't whinge about the government asserting its rights when you're not going to assert yours.

The government does not actually provide a mechanism by which you can take them to task. The government provides a mechanism by which you can ask it to behave, and it will often then tell you to buzz off.

Maqo wrote:

You are quite incorrect. Sure, one person can be a state.....and the government of that state would simply be acting by proxy for that person. Governments have no source of authority or ownership OTHER than people. Where would you propose a state of one person gets any authority or right of ownership if not that one person? If that one person dies, then what?

Lets break it down this way.
We'll assume that a person can own land, and that all we're really interested in is property rights. (Some moral systems will deny one or the other, and can arrive at different conclusions eg taxation is justified because welfare is more important than property; or people can't own anything because ownership is enforced by coercive monopoly)

Bob is an explorer, and he discovers a tract of land that no-one else lays claim to. He goes around homesteading for a few years until everyone agrees that Bob is indeed the one true owner of the entire tract of land and answers to no higher ruler. He has what is called in law 'allodial title'.
Bob is now a State. The land is his property, he is the sole owner, and thus he has legitimate right to use of force on his property. Anyone on the property is either there with his permission, or is violating his property rights. He is also the government of his own state, as he is the sole decision making body.

Now Bob decides that the land could be put to use and he could make some money. He allows citizens of other states to immigrate to Bobistan, so long as they sign an agreement with him. Violation of the agreement is grounds for punishment (expulsion or death). Because Bob's property rights are absolute, he can write ANYTHING he wants in the agreement; and because there is 'freedom of contract', the agreement is legally binding no matter how outlandish his requirements are. He could say citizens must always wear red, they must cut off their left pinky, he could ask for prima nocta and it would be 'moral' because it is his property and they are free to not sign the contract.
Bob is reasonable and asks for 30% of their income as taxes; and he reserves the right to change the agreement whenever he wants. Some people agree to this (Bobistan is a really nice place), and immgrate to Bobistan.

This is all compatible with libertarian ideals of property rights. So long as Bobistan belongs to Bob, he is the morally legitimate justified absolute ruler. He can gift/sell his land to someone, and they will become the state. He can decide that being the sole dictator is too much work, and install a council of sorts to make decisions and they will be the government.

Now, some citizens want to build structures like houses or businesses in Bobistan. Currently they're not allowed to (the agreement with Bob only allows them on to his property, not the right to do anything there). So Bob devises a system whereby he divides his land up in to parcels, and sells limited rights to citizens.
The rights read 'This land belongs to Bob and Bobistan, but if you give Bob $50 you can do pretty much whatever you want on it except build buildings more than 9 stories tall, and subject to your original immigration agreement, and subject to the proviso that Bob can reclaim the land at any time against your wishes so long as he gives you $50 back'. And again, as absolute owner he is allowed to do this, and people who don't like the agreement can just not sign the contract.
Some of the citizens begin selling the parcels of land between themselves. But they can only sell the land under the agreement they have with Bob. They can't sell anyone an unencumbered land package where you are able to build structures more than 9 stories tall, because they don't have those rights to sell.

All of this is allowable, because Bob is the sole owner of the property. And when Bob dies, he can will his property to his descendants, and all the agreements will stay in place, because they now own the rights.

In this situation, taxation is perfectly allowable. It is not theft; it is part of the freely accepted contract that people have with the state.


Now, given that we can construct a situation where taxation is perfectly justified, where the government is the sole owner of property, and where citizens only have limited rights to property they 'purchase' from the government; we can see that the blanket statement 'taxation is theft' is too strong (we have a counterexample)).

Of course, if you read my posts, then you already know that you're just agreeing with me there. Taxation is not theft. Taxation can be and occasionally actually is theft.

Maqo wrote:[Most states operate pretty much as described above*. But they do exert a claim of absolute ownership, and they do sell only *limited* rights to citizens. Because the rights sold are limited, citizens cannot on-sell unlimited rights: so unless the state sells unlimited rights (which they don't), they never lose their claim to the land.

Which may certainly apply in your country.

BK117B2 wrote:

Conscentia wrote:There is no other system. If you quit the wage labour system, unless you're a producer, you lose your source of income. No income, no trade. No trade, no food. No food, starvation. Starvation, death.

Well, you know, no systems other than the various other systems people have come up with over time, like subsistence, collectives, joint employee ownerships, etc.

Since it's still out there, though, I'd still like to find out how this is supposed to be connected to the issue of taxation as theft

An idea is not a reality. I already covered subsistence.
The other things you list continue to use wage labour.

Conscentia wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:Well, you know, no systems other than the various other systems people have come up with over time, like subsistence, collectives, joint employee ownerships, etc.

Since it's still out there, though, I'd still like to find out how this is supposed to be connected to the issue of taxation as theft

An idea is not a reality. I already covered subsistence.
The other things you list continue to use wage labour.

The fact is that you stated something blatantly incorrect. That relatively few people choose other systems does not magically make them not exist.

The other things I list can involve exactly zero exchange of a wage for labor.

BK117B2 wrote:

Conscentia wrote:An idea is not a reality. I already covered subsistence.
The other things you list continue to use wage labour.

The fact is that you stated something blatantly incorrect. That relatively few people choose other systems does not magically make them not exist.

Yes it does. If people don't practice these systems, then the systems don't exist - they're only imaginary.

BK117B2 wrote:The other things I list can involve exactly zero exchange of a wage for labor.

Well then I do not understand what you're referring to with those terms.

Conscentia wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:The fact is that you stated something blatantly incorrect. That relatively few people choose other systems does not magically make them not exist.

Yes it does. If people don't practice these systems, then the systems don't exist - they're only imaginary.

You are clearly wrong. Choosing one thing does not, in fact, mean that the alternatives cease to exist. It only means that you did not choose them.

BK117B2 wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Yes it does. If people don't practice these systems, then the systems don't exist - they're only imaginary.

You are clearly wrong. Choosing one thing does not, in fact, mean that the alternatives cease to exist. It only means that you did not choose them.

If no one chooses them, they do not exist.

A nation could govern itself according to laws voted on by individuals selected by lottery. No nation does so. Therefore such a system does not exist - it is only imaginary. Not all that has been imagined is real.

Conscentia wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:You are clearly wrong. Choosing one thing does not, in fact, mean that the alternatives cease to exist. It only means that you did not choose them.

If no one chooses them, they do not exist.

A nation could govern itself according to laws voted on by individuals selected by lottery. No nation does so. Therefore such a system does not exist - it is only imaginary. Not all that has been imagined is real.

I will again state the simple and unavoidable fact: choosing one option does not mean that the other options do not exist. If you asked people for their favorite color, and they all chose blue, green, or red, this does not magically mean that orange is not a selectable option.

BK117B2 wrote:

Conscentia wrote:If no one chooses them, they do not exist.
A nation could govern itself according to laws voted on by individuals selected by lottery. No nation does so. Therefore such a system does not exist - it is only imaginary. Not all that has been imagined is real.

I will again state the simple and unavoidable fact: choosing one option does not mean that the other options do not exist. If you asked people for their favorite color, and they all chose blue, green, or red, this does not magically mean that orange is not a selectable option.

So you're saying a nation that governs itself according to laws voted on by individuals selected by lottery exists, even though literally no one is participating in such a nation?

Socio-economic systems are emergent sociological phenomena. They are not at all like colour or colour preference, which depend only on individual perception or judgement respectively.

Conscentia wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:I will again state the simple and unavoidable fact: choosing one option does not mean that the other options do not exist. If you asked people for their favorite color, and they all chose blue, green, or red, this does not magically mean that orange is not a selectable option.

So you're saying a nation that governs itself according to laws voted on by individuals selected by lottery exists, even though literally no one is participating in such a nation?

Socio-economic systems are emergent sociological phenomena. They are not at all like colour or colour preference, which depend only on individual perception or judgement respectively.

No, there is not currently such a nation to my knowledge. The option does, in fact, exist.



You STILL seem to be confusing an option being unpopular with it not being an option.

BK117B2 wrote:

Conscentia wrote:So you're saying a nation that governs itself according to laws voted on by individuals selected by lottery exists, even though literally no one is participating in such a nation?

Socio-economic systems are emergent sociological phenomena. They are not at all like colour or colour preference, which depend only on individual perception or judgement respectively.

No, there is not currently such a nation to my knowledge. The option does, in fact, exist.

You STILL seem to be confusing an option being unpopular with it not being an option.

I was never talking about possible options.

Conscentia wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:No, there is not currently such a nation to my knowledge. The option does, in fact, exist.

You STILL seem to be confusing an option being unpopular with it not being an option.

I was never talking about possible options.

The options are other systems, and you said there were no other systems. I pointed out the fact that you are wrong. You then pretended that few people utilizing it means that somehow (magic?) it doesn't exist.

BK117B2 wrote:

Conscentia wrote:I was never talking about possible options.

The options are other systems, and you said there were no other systems. I pointed out the fact that you are wrong. You then pretended that few people utilizing it means that somehow (magic?) it doesn't exist.

I said "the vast majority do not have access to another model", and that for these people there is no alternative.
I never said that "few". I said "no one".

Conscentia wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:The options are other systems, and you said there were no other systems. I pointed out the fact that you are wrong. You then pretended that few people utilizing it means that somehow (magic?) it doesn't exist.

I said "the vast majority do not have access to another model", and that for these people there is no alternative.
I never said that "few". I said "no one".

That doesn't seem very honest.

Conscentia wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:That relatively few people choose other systems does not magically make them not exist.

Yes it does.

You also stated that

Conscentia wrote:There is no other system.

Which is obviously wrong. There are, in fact, other systems. Few people currently use them, but that is not relevant to that fact

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:
sure you can, every application of rights involves limiting the rights or perceived rights of others.

rights by their very nature are always in conflict.


yeah you can, it happens all the time, serious go learn something about real contracts before making such an absurd argument.

parents can sign their children up for military schools, sign off on medical procedures, transport them across national borders and renounce your citizenship , ect.

First of all, the transporting people across national borders thing and the renouncing of citizenship etc are NOT recognised under the law as contracts

of course not they are the termination of a contract.

and they really aren't because the child has no effective say.

and that matters how? A child can't consent one way or the other that why we have the parents make the decision for them.

Signing people up for military schools or signing people off on medical procedures doesn't adversely affect the child's (as a non-party to the contract) legal liabilities and rights under the law and that is what matters here.

a medical procedure could result in the child never being capable of consent or even death the ultimate removal of rights.
Nearly any contract an adult can sign a parent can sign on behalf the child.

Military school or no military school, the child still enjoys the same rights under the law and the same liabilities under the law.

nice goalpost moving BTW
Someone already answered you about liability in terms of payment accounts.

By contrast, if parents were allowed to sign up the children so that they can be subject to the right of the government to make laws that fundamentally alter their rights, that is unacceptable. There is absolutely no comparison.

that would be a description of changing citizenship or transport across national borders.

You should also stop questioning my understanding of contract law because if you consider transporting your children to another jurisdiction to be an act of contract law

no merely comparable, the existence of contract law itself is part of the larger contract you have with the state.
Your the one claiming "No contract that does X or Y exists" when several examples of such do exist.

BK117B2 wrote:

Conscentia wrote:I said "the vast majority do not have access to another model", and that for these people there is no alternative.
I never said that "few". I said "no one".

That doesn't seem very honest.

Conscentia wrote:Yes it does.

I did not mean to contradict myself. I misspoke when I said "Yes it does". I was not talking terms of "few" as made clear by the part that follows:

Conscentia wrote:If people don't practice these systems,

I also later said:

Conscentia wrote:If no one chooses them,

In posts prior to these, I was more clear about who was excluded from my statements.

Conscentia wrote:, unless you're a producer,

I apologise for my failure to communicate clearly.

BK117B2 wrote:

Sociobiology wrote:and fail to cancel their contract of citizenship.

Not actually a contract, since contract requires agreement. Citizenship does not require agreement, it is just a status bestowed

you agree by remaining in the state, your parents also agreed for you by doing the same.

Sociobiology wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:
Not actually a contract, since contract requires agreement. Citizenship does not require agreement, it is just a status bestowed

you agree by remaining in the state, your parents also agreed for you by doing the same.

No, you do not. States draw lines on their own with no regard for any such thing.

Parents are irrelevant once you become an adult.

Actual agreement is necessary to have a contract. If someone does not agree, contracts are not possible

What's with you and having really silly opinions on things...


Taxes are not theft, as someone earlier pointed out they're like paying rent; the state provides you with a plethora of services and in exchange you pay a fee

Padnak wrote:What's with you and having really silly opinions on things...


Taxes are not theft, as someone earlier pointed out they're like paying rent; the state provides you with a plethora of services and in exchange you pay a fee

But is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow? You need to join infected mushroom in the glorious wonderland that is unmitigated free market capitalism and its pernicious effects on the general welfare of society. Never mind any of the lessons to great compression of the 50s taught us about high taxation on the wealthy and creating a healthy middle class.

BK117B2 wrote:

Maqo wrote:You keep saying that, but you're not giving any proof.

I did a quick search for 'allodial title in the USA' and found many results like this http://www.economicreason.com/canadahou ... -had-this/
Which back up my point of view. The literature on 'land patents' similarly says that the land is governed by the lolaw the congressional act which grants the land.
Again, if it is so common as you say, then it should be easy to find an example.

Now if is possible that the USA is indeed stupid and sells full rights to some of its property, in which case taxation of (or any laws apply to) people owning or inhabiting that land is unjustified and is theft.
In the general, political-science sense however that is not always the case, in theory nor in.practice.

Again, you're not seeming very familiar with the USA. In the US, we had allodial titles that were not. Our allodial titles will generally say fee simple. The government of the US never actually had title AT ALL of much of the land in the US.

Just one reference. One example. I'm not asking for much here.
Someone pointed out earlier all the states that surrendered/sold their territory to the US government. Entire states were purchased from other governments. The USA holds title to all of those (large, numerous) areas. So just one reference for something you say is so common.

Maqo wrote:

BK117B2 wrote:
Again, you're not seeming very familiar with the USA. In the US, we had allodial titles that were not. Our allodial titles will generally say fee simple. The government of the US never actually had title AT ALL of much of the land in the US.

Just one reference. One example. I'm not asking for much here.
Someone pointed out earlier all the states that surrendered/sold their territory to the US government. Entire states were purchased from other governments. The USA holds title to all of those (large, numerous) areas. So just one reference for something you say is so common.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=572

Oh look at that, the US government purchased title to the public (Russian) lands in Alaska.....which amounted to minute pieces of land around two, small villages and a few outposts.

Can you find US purchase of title to the rest of it?

Padnak wrote:What's with you and having really silly opinions on things...

It's kind of his thing.