Christainville wrote:Ashkera wrote:
That's a semantic argument. This entire thread is a lame semantic argument.
In practice, they own the land. That's why mineral rights can be sold separately, for instance. Ownership is about control and exclusion. They're the ones with the tanks and the helicopters. They are the ones that can kick you off at any time and prevent an outside power from just swooping in and taking it.
They control the land. They exclude people from the land. What you have is a license.
ehh actually no, we own the land. See, this is where the term "we the people" comes into effect. The land, depends upon us, the military that operate the machines, depends on us, the taxation to fund those operations, depends on us. Heck, every law they pass depends on us. For instance, what use would it be to make a tax code, if no on paid taxes. Or having a military if no one joined, even under conscription because they can run away, and if they killed them or jailed them they lose the army. With out the cooperation of the people none of this has value, and it doesn't matter how liberal or conservative you are, its by you , that the nation stays in tack. Lets be honest, even if he tried, Obama couldn't work a farm, drill for oil, run the bank, be a general, and be President. He is only President to administer the nation we live in. Same as the congress and courts. If they were the only ones here, they could only administer over the affairs of each other. If no one invests in a company, or no one starts a business, no one goes to college to become a educator or doctor, if no one uses the U.S. dollar; then everyone is government has nothing to administer. So, the system depends upon us. This is the idea that all nations are built on, we have a group of people who separate and a few either are elected, or take power over the rest to administer the day to day operations of where that group is and how it is funded. That's a modern day nation, and some, as I said, vote for people to be the administrators, hence a representative democracy. This is the difference between feudalism and modern day ownership. Yet, they both have one thing in common, both operate on people working the land for them, so they can charge fees, taxes, and make money of the labor. So, in all we do own the land the government just administrates it for us.
Case in point, who or what could the government tax if no one brought into land and worked the land. I do not see Boehner and Obama out plowing a field, and then taxing themselves for ownership of the field. With out us the system collapses on it self. So, the public sector, taxation code and national funding rely upon the people that live in it.
Whether Obama could operate a combine harvester if his life depended on it is irrelevant.
Governments like the US government are publicly-owned, (more or less, anyway,) but they still own the land.
This does not mean "and therefore The People don't matter" or "they could do anything they want", it means they own the land, and you're paying a fee to use it, and that's what taxes are.
That's why they can do eminent domain. That they have to compensate you is internal policy. If enough people wanted it, they could legally change that and do eminent domain without compensation.
Honestly half the reason I'm pointing this put is that much of the "taxes are theft" crowd wouldn't care if literally the same things were happening, but using private ownership as the base.
"Oh, you want to live in DisneyCountry, but you don't like the land usage fees? Well Disney owns it, it's their land and they can charge what they want. And if you don't like it, then leave. But also, it's their right to use force to recover the money you owe them. Besides, if you were born there, why would they be obligated to pay for you to leave? It's *their* land, so you have to do what they say there."
But if a government does it, suddenly it's bad then.
Well, a government is just a kind of joint organization with certain special properties that owns land. So if you'd be okay with a private property owner doing something, you have to be okay with a government doing the same thing.
All legal systems eventually boil down to force x moral claims anyway.
