Taxes are a form of Theft

[Galloism]

Luckily, there is such thing as easy, legal emigration. This involves aeroplanes and trains, not rubber dingies and death marches across continents. There is a difference between being a refugee and being an immigrant/emigrant, of course.

As for the example of the car; you can't consent to an illegal situation. Shooting someone is illegal. So, giving consent to an agreement wherein you get shot is not legally possible. However, taxes are perfectly legal. So, you can consent perfectly well to taxes. Not that you need to, of course. There is no basis in legal sciences that says you must agree to everything you are put through. Far from it. Within bounds, a government can pretty much force you to do anything, for the greater good. The idea that a government somehow violates legal principles by forcing you to do anything is something that is pretty prevalent, and equally as wrong.

Easy, legal immigration? It sounds like you don't have much experience with the subject. I would guess that thousands of dollars, years of waiting, vague regulations, lost paperwork, etc aren't most people's idea of 'easy'

You are mistaken about the concept of consent. You seem to be confusing it with some sort of legal authority. Legal and consenting are two quite different things

Honestly, this varies a lot depending on country coming from and country going to.

A friend of mine who is a pilot immigrated from the United States to the United Kingdom, and he said it took him about 4 or 5 hours to do the paperwork, then he had to wait about a week to meet with someone at the embassy, and he was ready to go.

But trying to come from Mexico to the United States has roughly a 100 year waiting period.

[BK117B2]

Clearly you fail to grasp the concept of illegal coercion. Otherwise, you would not think that talking about something else magically indicates a lack of understanding about it.

Your analogy falls flat since in the topic at hand, no non-coercive option is given. I notice that you still avoid the question.

"Leave my property freely and never come back" is a non-coercive option. It's also one available in the context of taxation. Are you or are you not allowed to leave the country and give up your citizenship to avoid taxation in that country?

Leave your property or we're going to send people to throw you in a cell is definitely coercive.

So you still refuse to answer me, but you want me to repeat myself.

Given you've said that you should only be required to do 'whatever you've agreed to do', and you did not agree to the corporation suddenly charging rent for property it owns, then I'm going to take that as a 'no'. Given you refuse to answer the question directly, I can only infer your meaning from your statements.

If the corporation cannot charge you rent because you didn't agree to it, and cannot evict you because that's coercion, that's essentially saying corporations are stuck to whatever business arrangement they once had at any point for the duration of their existence and that of the other person.

That's very economically restrictive. Almost impossible, one might say.

It is also, in fact, a straw man. You sure like to spend a large portion of your posts responding to your own made-up arguments than actually addressing those of others.

So you don't understand the concept of rights. You seriously think there is a "right of conquest"?!?

Extorting payment from someone for remaining on their property is not the same thing as rent.

I must point out, with no "right of conquest", the United States still belongs to the American Indians, and no property you own can possibly be yours as no previous sale was ever valid.

Except, nominally, it's not really 'your' property in any meaningful sense. form follows function, or, more specifically, the truth of the transaction follows its actual nature.

The nature of property in the United States is that you are allowed to make use of the property as long as you follow the rules for that property ownership. This usually means you have to pay a monthly or annual fee to the state, much as you would to a landlord, and also generally means that there are certain minimum standards of maintenance and stewardship of the state's land, much as there is for renters to maintain their home. Your grass must be cut, and you can't park dilapidated vehicles, and certain other requirements. With historical land, this can be immensely restrictive, even not allowing you to change the facade of the building. If you fail to meet these requirements, you can be evicted, much as a landlord can, and your 'lease' be sold to someone else.

Residing within the United States also comes with certain requirements. You usually have to pay a fee to the United States, based on income, for the privilege of living here. This is very similar to many businesses which require you to pay a fee to enter the ice hockey rink, or the bar. You have to pay them just to be inside property they nominally 'own'. Some businesses even use sliding scale entrance fees (where practical). If you do not like it, you are free to leave or not enter the premises.

There is no option of not entering the country for roughly 90% of people within the US. We entered the world here through no action of our own. You really make nonsensical statements about your wacky "right of conquest". You say that without such a right, "no property you own can possibly be yours"......how does the LACK of a right of conquest mean that natives cannot own property?

Of course, given your current refusal to answer, maybe asking you further questions is just a waste of time

[Dyakovo]

There is no option of not entering the country for roughly 90% of people within the US. We entered the world here through no action of our own. You really make nonsensical statements about your wacky "right of conquest". You say that without such a right, "no property you own can possibly be yours"......how does the LACK of a right of conquest mean that natives cannot own property?

Of course, given your current refusal to answer, maybe asking you further questions is just a waste of time

The only place homo sapiens are actually native to is the rift valley, so if a right to conquest doesn't exist, that's the only place where property ownership can occur.

[BK117B2]

There is no option of not entering the country for roughly 90% of people within the US. We entered the world here through no action of our own. You really make nonsensical statements about your wacky "right of conquest". You say that without such a right, "no property you own can possibly be yours"......how does the LACK of a right of conquest mean that natives cannot own property?

Of course, given your current refusal to answer, maybe asking you further questions is just a waste of time

The only place homo sapiens are actually native to is the rift valley, so if a right to conquest doesn't exist, that's the only place where property ownership can occur.

By that rationale, every species is native only to the very spot where the first one was born, sprouted, what-have-you.

Of course, there are various other ways to correctly use the word. Having been born in Indiana, I could accurately say that I'm a native Hoosier.

[Dyakovo]

The only place homo sapiens are actually native to is the rift valley, so if a right to conquest doesn't exist, that's the only place where property ownership can occur.

By that rationale, every species is native only to the very spot where the first one was born, sprouted, what-have-you.

Of course, there are various other ways to correctly use the word. Having been born in Indiana, I could accurately say that I'm a native Hoosier.

Nope. That presupposes that your parents had a right to be there. This requires an ancestor having exercised a right to conquest at some point.

[BK117B2]

By that rationale, every species is native only to the very spot where the first one was born, sprouted, what-have-you.

Of course, there are various other ways to correctly use the word. Having been born in Indiana, I could accurately say that I'm a native Hoosier.

Nope. That presupposes that your parents had a right to be there. This requires an ancestor having exercised a right to conquest at some point.

Interesting. I think you're the first person I've seen apply conquest to going someplace without any people and settling there.

[Senkaku]

Nope. That presupposes that your parents had a right to be there. This requires an ancestor having exercised a right to conquest at some point.

Interesting. I think you're the first person I've seen apply conquest to going someplace without any people and settling there.

Well, your ancestors didn't do that. They kicked out the Native Americans who did (unless, of course, you are pure-blooded Native American from a local tribe that had settled that land for thousands of years).

[BK117B2]

Well, your ancestors didn't do that. They kicked out the Native Americans who did

By all means, what people inhabited this continent before the people of the First Nations?

[Kvatchdom]

Nah.

[Galloism]

Well, your ancestors didn't do that. They kicked out the Native Americans who did

By all means, what people inhabited this continent before the people of the First Nations?

Keep in mind that, among the first nations, there were various wars and so forth where first nations took territory from other first nations.

Regularly.

I doubt you can reasonably ascertain WHAT land is yours without a right of conquest, even if you are native american, unless you are able to track all the way back to the very first person to claim the land. I think that's been lost to history.

[Galloism]

"Leave my property freely and never come back" is a non-coercive option. It's also one available in the context of taxation. Are you or are you not allowed to leave the country and give up your citizenship to avoid taxation in that country?

Leave your property or we're going to send people to throw you in a cell is definitely coercive.

But legal and reasonable, otherwise there would be no reasonable way to maintain any property for your use.

Essentially, I could camp out in your living room watching TV and there would be no way for you to force me to leave without a certain level of available coercion. Currently, you can force me out of your living room using such laws.

Given you've said that you should only be required to do 'whatever you've agreed to do', and you did not agree to the corporation suddenly charging rent for property it owns, then I'm going to take that as a 'no'. Given you refuse to answer the question directly, I can only infer your meaning from your statements.

If the corporation cannot charge you rent because you didn't agree to it, and cannot evict you because that's coercion, that's essentially saying corporations are stuck to whatever business arrangement they once had at any point for the duration of their existence and that of the other person.

That's very economically restrictive. Almost impossible, one might say.

It is also, in fact, a straw man. You sure like to spend a large portion of your posts responding to your own made-up arguments than actually addressing those of others.

Then answer the question. Directly. Yes or no? Does the corporation have the right to suddenly charge rent on the property it owns without your consent or not? Yes or no? Affirmative or negative?

If you refuse to answer clearly, then it's only your own fault that the answers aren't meeting your satisfaction.

I must point out, with no "right of conquest", the United States still belongs to the American Indians, and no property you own can possibly be yours as no previous sale was ever valid.

Except, nominally, it's not really 'your' property in any meaningful sense. form follows function, or, more specifically, the truth of the transaction follows its actual nature.

The nature of property in the United States is that you are allowed to make use of the property as long as you follow the rules for that property ownership. This usually means you have to pay a monthly or annual fee to the state, much as you would to a landlord, and also generally means that there are certain minimum standards of maintenance and stewardship of the state's land, much as there is for renters to maintain their home. Your grass must be cut, and you can't park dilapidated vehicles, and certain other requirements. With historical land, this can be immensely restrictive, even not allowing you to change the facade of the building. If you fail to meet these requirements, you can be evicted, much as a landlord can, and your 'lease' be sold to someone else.

Residing within the United States also comes with certain requirements. You usually have to pay a fee to the United States, based on income, for the privilege of living here. This is very similar to many businesses which require you to pay a fee to enter the ice hockey rink, or the bar. You have to pay them just to be inside property they nominally 'own'. Some businesses even use sliding scale entrance fees (where practical). If you do not like it, you are free to leave or not enter the premises.

There is no option of not entering the country for roughly 90% of people within the US. We entered the world here through no action of our own.

And you're free to leave as soon as you are an adult and can make your own decisions. It was your guardian's decision to bring you into the world here, and they have control over you until you reach the age of majority.

You really make nonsensical statements about your wacky "right of conquest". You say that without such a right, "no property you own can possibly be yours"......how does the LACK of a right of conquest mean that natives cannot own property?

Because those natives engaged in a number of wars with each other, conquering and losing land repeatedly over a long period of time. there is no way to trace who the original settler was on any given parcel of land.

Without right of conquest, there's no way any of our claims can be valid - native, white, or otherwise. We simply can't trace them.

Of course, given your current refusal to answer, maybe asking you further questions is just a waste of time

Physician, heal thyself.

[BK117B2]

Leave your property or we're going to send people to throw you in a cell is definitely coercive.

But legal and reasonable, otherwise there would be no reasonable way to maintain any property for your use.

No, there is nothing reasonable about using threat of force to make someone leave their own property.

Essentially, I could camp out in your living room watching TV and there would be no way for you to force me to leave without a certain level of available coercion. Currently, you can force me out of your living room using such laws.

That's utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Forcing someone out of their own home is not the same thing as forcing them out of yours.

It is also, in fact, a straw man. You sure like to spend a large portion of your posts responding to your own made-up arguments than actually addressing those of others.

Then answer the question. Directly. Yes or no? Does the corporation have the right to suddenly charge rent on the property it owns without your consent or not? Yes or no? Affirmative or negative?

If you refuse to answer clearly, then it's only your own fault that the answers aren't meeting your satisfaction.

Your question has already been explicitly and unambiguously answered. What about it is confusing you? What point is still unclear for you?

There is no option of not entering the country for roughly 90% of people within the US. We entered the world here through no action of our own.

And you're free to leave as soon as you are an adult and can make your own decisions. It was your guardian's decision to bring you into the world here, and they have control over you until you reach the age of majority.

You really make nonsensical statements about your wacky "right of conquest". You say that without such a right, "no property you own can possibly be yours"......how does the LACK of a right of conquest mean that natives cannot own property?

Because those natives engaged in a number of wars with each other, conquering and losing land repeatedly over a long period of time. there is no way to trace who the original settler was on any given parcel of land.

Without right of conquest, there's no way any of our claims can be valid - native, white, or otherwise. We simply can't trace them.

That is not true. There is no need to create some notion of a "right of conquest" in order for property claims to exist. The claims on most property can be tracked back beyond the birth of anyone alive today. At some point in history, pretty much all lands have been conquered. But, most of those ownership claims are irrelevant anyway, since all the people involved are long since dead.

[Sociobiology]

But legal and reasonable, otherwise there would be no reasonable way to maintain any property for your use.

No, there is nothing reasonable about using threat of force to make someone leave their own property.

sure there is, if you buy a piece of land under a contract, then fail to meet the contract, then the land isn't yours anymore.
in most states one of the requirements is paying taxes on the land.
In the states that do not have property taxes you can still own the land, you just can't live on it, unless you pay the other taxes for living in the country.
its not a difficult concept.

at the point you can legally buy land, you can also decide to leave the country if you don't like the contract. In fact the Government has made it painfully easy for you to leave.

Because those natives engaged in a number of wars with each other, conquering and losing land repeatedly over a long period of time. there is no way to trace who the original settler was on any given parcel of land.

Without right of conquest, there's no way any of our claims can be valid - native, white, or otherwise. We simply can't trace them.

That is not true. There is no need to create some notion of a "right of conquest" in order for property claims to exist. The claims on most property can be tracked back beyond the birth of anyone alive today. At some point in history, pretty much all lands have been conquered. But, most of those ownership claims are irrelevant anyway, since all the people involved are long since dead.

as are the original owners of any land.
If I steal your car how many people have to buy and sell it before its not yours anymore?

[Galloism]

But legal and reasonable, otherwise there would be no reasonable way to maintain any property for your use.

No, there is nothing reasonable about using threat of force to make someone leave their own property.

But there IS something reasonable about using a threat of force to make someone leave YOUR property. That's the point.

Essentially, I could camp out in your living room watching TV and there would be no way for you to force me to leave without a certain level of available coercion. Currently, you can force me out of your living room using such laws.

That's utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Forcing someone out of their own home is not the same thing as forcing them out of yours.

Except all the territory is owned by the country. You're effectively leasing it at a cheap rate, and your lease has the right of transfer. Form follows function.

Then answer the question. Directly. Yes or no? Does the corporation have the right to suddenly charge rent on the property it owns without your consent or not? Yes or no? Affirmative or negative?

If you refuse to answer clearly, then it's only your own fault that the answers aren't meeting your satisfaction.

Your question has already been explicitly and unambiguously answered. What about it is confusing you? What point is still unclear for you?

Well, given I went with "yes" and you screamed strawman, then went with "no" and you screamed 'strawman', it is rather unclear.

And you're free to leave as soon as you are an adult and can make your own decisions. It was your guardian's decision to bring you into the world here, and they have control over you until you reach the age of majority.



Because those natives engaged in a number of wars with each other, conquering and losing land repeatedly over a long period of time. there is no way to trace who the original settler was on any given parcel of land.

Without right of conquest, there's no way any of our claims can be valid - native, white, or otherwise. We simply can't trace them.

That is not true. There is no need to create some notion of a "right of conquest" in order for property claims to exist. The claims on most property can be tracked back beyond the birth of anyone alive today. At some point in history, pretty much all lands have been conquered. But, most of those ownership claims are irrelevant anyway, since all the people involved are long since dead.

Yet, without recognizing a right of conquest, the person who conquered the land had no right to sell or pass it to his/her children. The person who was conquered still maintained that right to sell or pass to his/her children. Ergo, that sale or inheritance was never valid, nor the one after that or after that or after that or after that - none of them had the right to sell it. The rightful owner, descendant of the conquered person, is still out there, but they don't know they are the owner and could never prove it even if they did.

If your argument is that "all the original people are dead so who cares how I came to acquire this property", you are in essence accepting the right of conquest after some as yet undisclosed period of time.

[BK117B2]

No, there is nothing reasonable about using threat of force to make someone leave their own property.

sure there is, if you buy a piece of land under a contract, then fail to meet the contract, then the land isn't yours anymore.
in most states one of the requirements is paying taxes on the land.
In the states that do not have property taxes you can still own the land, you just can't live on it, unless you pay the other taxes for living in the country.
its not a difficult concept.

at the point you can legally buy land, you can also decide to leave the country if you don't like the contract. In fact the Government has made it painfully easy for you to leave.

Hmmm, I have a home and land....none of it involved me agreeing to pay taxes on it every year. I do so, since I approve of the services provided in exchange.

That is not true. There is no need to create some notion of a "right of conquest" in order for property claims to exist. The claims on most property can be tracked back beyond the birth of anyone alive today. At some point in history, pretty much all lands have been conquered. But, most of those ownership claims are irrelevant anyway, since all the people involved are long since dead.

as are the original owners of any land.
If I steal your car how many people have to buy and sell it before its not yours anymore?

Once I'm long dead and gone, it is definitely not mine anymore

[Glorious KASSRD]

Taxes are not theft. Taxes are what keeps our countries from collapsing due bankruptcy.

[Galloism]

sure there is, if you buy a piece of land under a contract, then fail to meet the contract, then the land isn't yours anymore.
in most states one of the requirements is paying taxes on the land.
In the states that do not have property taxes you can still own the land, you just can't live on it, unless you pay the other taxes for living in the country.
its not a difficult concept.

at the point you can legally buy land, you can also decide to leave the country if you don't like the contract. In fact the Government has made it painfully easy for you to leave.

Hmmm, I have a home and land....none of it involved me agreeing to pay taxes on it every year. I do so, since I approve of the services provided in exchange.

as are the original owners of any land.
If I steal your car how many people have to buy and sell it before its not yours anymore?

Once I'm long dead and gone, it is definitely not mine anymore

Nope. It belongs to your children. And their children. And their children. As it goes.

[Kvatchdom]

For one, taxes are the reason Finland isn't a part of Russia. Thank God for taxation, hallelujah.

[BK117B2]

No, there is nothing reasonable about using threat of force to make someone leave their own property.

But there IS something reasonable about using a threat of force to make someone leave YOUR property. That's the point.

Then your point has no relevance to what I posted. That's your fault.

That's utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Forcing someone out of their own home is not the same thing as forcing them out of yours.

Except all the territory is owned by the country. You're effectively leasing it at a cheap rate, and your lease has the right of transfer. Form follows function.

I disagree.

Your question has already been explicitly and unambiguously answered. What about it is confusing you? What point is still unclear for you?

Well, given I went with "yes" and you screamed strawman, then went with "no" and you screamed 'strawman', it is rather unclear.

No, you went quite far away from yes or no into creating blatantly false straw men. I'm not responsible for your decision to create straw men or any confusion you created for yourself by means of it. I ask again: which part of my answer is confusing you? Which part do you find unclear?

That is not true. There is no need to create some notion of a "right of conquest" in order for property claims to exist. The claims on most property can be tracked back beyond the birth of anyone alive today. At some point in history, pretty much all lands have been conquered. But, most of those ownership claims are irrelevant anyway, since all the people involved are long since dead.

Yet, without recognizing a right of conquest, the person who conquered the land had no right to sell or pass it to his/her children. The person who was conquered still maintained that right to sell or pass to his/her children. Ergo, that sale or inheritance was never valid, nor the one after that or after that or after that or after that - none of them had the right to sell it. The rightful owner, descendant of the conquered person, is still out there, but they don't know they are the owner and could never prove it even if they did.

If your argument is that "all the original people are dead so who cares how I came to acquire this property", you are in essence accepting the right of conquest after some as yet undisclosed period of time.

That is obviously incorrect. Pointing out the reality that most land has been conquered and that we don't know who owned it before the first conquest in no way implies that there is any right to conquest.

[Imperial Valaran]

Probably the most rewarding form of theft I've come across then.

[BK117B2]

Hmmm, I have a home and land....none of it involved me agreeing to pay taxes on it every year. I do so, since I approve of the services provided in exchange.




Once I'm long dead and gone, it is definitely not mine anymore

Nope. It belongs to your children. And their children. And their children. As it goes.

Or someone else entirely, even someone with no relation to me.

And if a time comes that nobody has any clue who owned it originally or if/when it was ever stolen, do you think that means no one should then keep or use it?

Do you think that possessing it then instead of throwing it away means condoning theft? That is analogous to what you are saying about land

[Galloism]

But there IS something reasonable about using a threat of force to make someone leave YOUR property. That's the point.

Then your point has no relevance to what I posted. That's your fault.

Then clearly you aren't following the train of logic.

Except all the territory is owned by the country. You're effectively leasing it at a cheap rate, and your lease has the right of transfer. Form follows function.

I disagree.

Disagree all you want. If you have the right to use a property, but certain conditions are attached, including a monthly or annual fee, and maintenance requirements, etc, what is the functional state of that property?

Let's say I 'sell' you a property where you pay $1,000 up front, but have to pay me $3,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) forever, and have to meet my maintenance requirements. You can sell that property to another person only if they ALSO agree to continue the same terms, namely to pay me $1,000 per year (adjusted for inflation) and meet my maintenance requirements. If ever the fee is not paid, the property reverts to me, and you can be evicted. That also applies to subsequent 'owners'.

Can you be truly said to own that property, or is it a really cheap lease?

What's the actual function?

Well, given I went with "yes" and you screamed strawman, then went with "no" and you screamed 'strawman', it is rather unclear.

No, you went quite far away from yes or no into creating blatantly false straw men. I'm not responsible for your decision to create straw men or any confusion you created for yourself by means of it. I ask again: which part of my answer is confusing you? Which part do you find unclear?

Whether or not a corporation has a right to change its mind on charging rent on property it owns.

Since the government owns all the property and exercises authority over it, it is the corporation for the purposes of my example.

Yet, without recognizing a right of conquest, the person who conquered the land had no right to sell or pass it to his/her children. The person who was conquered still maintained that right to sell or pass to his/her children. Ergo, that sale or inheritance was never valid, nor the one after that or after that or after that or after that - none of them had the right to sell it. The rightful owner, descendant of the conquered person, is still out there, but they don't know they are the owner and could never prove it even if they did.

If your argument is that "all the original people are dead so who cares how I came to acquire this property", you are in essence accepting the right of conquest after some as yet undisclosed period of time.

That is obviously incorrect. Pointing out the reality that most land has been conquered and that we don't know who owned it before the first conquest in no way implies that there is any right to conquest.

Then there would be no right to ownership.

[Galloism]

Nope. It belongs to your children. And their children. And their children. As it goes.

Or someone else entirely, even someone with no relation to me.

And if a time comes that nobody has any clue who owned it originally or if/when it was ever stolen, do you think that means no one should then keep or use it?

Do you think that possessing it then instead of throwing it away means condoning theft? That is analogous to what you are saying about land

I'm saying a right of conquest is pretty much the only logical way that we can make property ownership work. Otherwise, all such sales are illegitimate and selling stolen property.

Incidentally, if someone claiming the right to something after the original owners are dead is legitimate ownership, the US Government has more claim to the property than anyone. It's been claiming the property since before anyone who's currently alive was alive.

[BK117B2]

Then your point has no relevance to what I posted. That's your fault.

Then clearly you aren't following the train of logic.

Your train of thought derailing does not oblige me to follow it off the tracks

I disagree.

Disagree all you want. If you have the right to use a property, but certain conditions are attached, including a monthly or annual fee, and maintenance requirements, etc, what is the functional state of that property?

Let's say I 'sell' you a property where you pay $1,000 up front, but have to pay me $3,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) forever, and have to meet my maintenance requirements. You can sell that property to another person only if they ALSO agree to continue the same terms, namely to pay me $1,000 per year (adjusted for inflation) and meet my maintenance requirements. If ever the fee is not paid, the property reverts to me, and you can be evicted. That also applies to subsequent 'owners'.

Can you be truly said to own that property, or is it a really cheap lease?

What's the actual function?

Not analogous to the issue at hand. Someone coming along afterwards to say 'I just came to let you know that in addition to whatever agreements you made with someone else, I'm going to offer you a great protection fee: you get to keep living your life, and I won't imprison you....all you have to do is give me _________' is just classic extortion

No, you went quite far away from yes or no into creating blatantly false straw men. I'm not responsible for your decision to create straw men or any confusion you created for yourself by means of it. I ask again: which part of my answer is confusing you? Which part do you find unclear?

Whether or not a corporation has a right to change its mind on charging rent on property it owns.

Since the government owns all the property and exercises authority over it, it is the corporation for the purposes of my example.

That's a false assumption. The government does NOT own all property. You still haven't answered my questions: which part of my answer is confusing to you? Which part do you find unclear? I know you understand how the quote function works, just quote the part which you need clarified.

That is obviously incorrect. Pointing out the reality that most land has been conquered and that we don't know who owned it before the first conquest in no way implies that there is any right to conquest.

Then there would be no right to ownership.

False. Right to ownership is not tied to some 'right to conquest'. Hell, the two are mutually exclusive.

[Galloism]

Disagree all you want. If you have the right to use a property, but certain conditions are attached, including a monthly or annual fee, and maintenance requirements, etc, what is the functional state of that property?

Let's say I 'sell' you a property where you pay $1,000 up front, but have to pay me $3,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) forever, and have to meet my maintenance requirements. You can sell that property to another person only if they ALSO agree to continue the same terms, namely to pay me $1,000 per year (adjusted for inflation) and meet my maintenance requirements. If ever the fee is not paid, the property reverts to me, and you can be evicted. That also applies to subsequent 'owners'.

Can you be truly said to own that property, or is it a really cheap lease?

What's the actual function?

Not analogous to the issue at hand. Someone coming along afterwards to say 'I just came to let you know that in addition to whatever agreements you made with someone else, I'm going to offer you a great protection fee: you get to keep living your life, and I won't imprison you....all you have to do is give me _________' is just classic extortion

Really? You've owned your property since before the government acquired it? How old are you? I think the last time the United States acquired territory was in 1903 if memory serves, after an arbitration involving Alaska.

I mean, even if you were granted the property at birth, you'd have to be at least 112 years old to have a prior claim before the United States government did. Otherwise, the government had a previous claim and you accepted the terms of that claim by purchasing the property.

That's a false assumption. The government does NOT own all property. You still haven't answered my questions: which part of my answer is confusing to you? Which part do you find unclear? I know you understand how the quote function works, just quote the part which you need clarified.

The government owns certain rights to the property, and has owned them for a very long time - most likely before you were born unless you are very very old. It's not significantly dissimilar to mineral rights claims.

You accepted those rights by purchasing the property.

False. Right to ownership is not tied to some 'right to conquest'. Hell, the two are mutually exclusive.

No, because the person who sold you your property had no right to sell it. They didn't own it. They didn't own it because the person who sold it to them didn't own it. The person who sold it to them didn't own it.

Breaking one link in the chain makes the whole chain worthless.

If your position is "well, the people with the original claim are long since dead, so my claim passes muster", then the same would apply to the government. And it has held those claims longer than you've even been alive. It held those claims to that property before you purchased it. It held those claims before the person who sold it to you purchased it. The person who might have the original claim to you above complaint (that is, third party coming along later) is long since dead. Therefore, the government's claim is valid because the original claimant is long since dead - and it has held the claim longer than anyone.