Taxes are a form of Theft

[BK117B2]

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.

Didn't purchase it from the government and accepted no such terms as part of the purchase.

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.

Incorrect. You obviously haven't looked at my documents from the purchase.

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.

Under your rationale (that a break in the chain makes the whole chain worthless), the government has no claim to my property. After all, the chain has been broken.


The reality is that a "right of conquest" and property rights are mutually exclusive. 'You have a right to your property, but other people have a right to attack you and take it' just doesn't pass rational muster

[Galloism]

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.

Didn't purchase it from the government and accepted no such terms as part of the purchase.

Yes. Yes you did. They were attached to the property. You have certain responsibilities attached to that property, not the least of which is real estate taxes. If you didn't want to accept a property with such conditions attached, you shouldn't have purchased a property that had such conditions attached.

You should have purchased in Somalia.

Incorrect. You obviously haven't looked at my documents from the purchase.

Doesn't matter. Those conditions were attached to that property, for all owners.

Under your rationale (that a break in the chain makes the whole chain worthless), the government has no claim to my property. After all, the chain has been broken.

Quite - but neither do you. You can't possibly establish it your ownership. That's why I'm pointing out that the right of conquest (not right TO conquest - that's very different) is an essential component of establishing the ownership chain of a property.

The reality is that a "right of conquest" and property rights are mutually exclusive. 'You have a right to your property, but other people have a right to attack you and take it' just doesn't pass rational muster

In that case, you can't own the property. Some unnamed person's descendants own it.

[BK117B2]

Didn't purchase it from the government and accepted no such terms as part of the purchase.

Yes. Yes you did. They were attached to the property. You have certain responsibilities attached to that property, not the least of which is real estate taxes. If you didn't want to accept a property with such conditions attached, you shouldn't have purchased a property that had such conditions attached.

You should have purchased in Somalia.

Incorrect. You obviously haven't looked at my documents from the purchase.

Doesn't matter. Those conditions were attached to that property, for all owners.

You make several mistakes. I did NOT make any such agreement. Those conditions didn't come up.

Under your rationale (that a break in the chain makes the whole chain worthless), the government has no claim to my property. After all, the chain has been broken.

Quite - but neither do you. You can't possibly establish it your ownership. That's why I'm pointing out that the right of conquest (not right TO conquest - that's very different) is an essential component of establishing the ownership chain of a property.

And I pointed out that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

The reality is that a "right of conquest" and property rights are mutually exclusive. 'You have a right to your property, but other people have a right to attack you and take it' just doesn't pass rational muster

In that case, you can't own the property. Some unnamed person's descendants own it.

No, ancestry doesn't equate to ownership. There is no way to know who would currently own something if thousands of years of history were different.

[Galloism]

Yes. Yes you did. They were attached to the property. You have certain responsibilities attached to that property, not the least of which is real estate taxes. If you didn't want to accept a property with such conditions attached, you shouldn't have purchased a property that had such conditions attached.

You should have purchased in Somalia.



Doesn't matter. Those conditions were attached to that property, for all owners.

You make several mistakes. I did NOT make any such agreement. Those conditions didn't come up.

It's attached to the property.

Kind of like if you purchase a property without properly clearing the title and there's a lien against it. That lien continues whether you agreed to it or not, because you did not properly clear the title. That lien is attached the land, and you can't clear it because you didn't agree to it. It's against the land.

The government's claim is also against the land, but there's no way to clear the title.

Quite - but neither do you. You can't possibly establish it your ownership. That's why I'm pointing out that the right of conquest (not right TO conquest - that's very different) is an essential component of establishing the ownership chain of a property.

And I pointed out that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

They really aren't. A recognition of history doesn't negate our current practices.

In that case, you can't own the property. Some unnamed person's descendants own it.

No, ancestry doesn't equate to ownership. There is no way to know who would currently own something if thousands of years of history were different.

True, but at the same time you would have to agree that ALL those sales are invalid, so inheritance laws would apply.

If someone steals my car, and I die, and then the police find my car, my heir will get my car back, even if it has changed hands 11 times between the time it was stolen and the time it was recovered.

Each person can also be charged with receipt of stolen property.

This is true even if years or decades pass. It's true i may not have owned the car decades later, but I never actually sold it or disposed of it, so it is still mine. Even if I die, it goes to my heirs.

That's how property ownership works.

[BK117B2]

You make several mistakes. I did NOT make any such agreement. Those conditions didn't come up.

It's attached to the property.

Kind of like if you purchase a property without properly clearing the title and there's a lien against it. That lien continues whether you agreed to it or not, because you did not properly clear the title. That lien is attached the land, and you can't clear it because you didn't agree to it. It's against the land.

The government's claim is also against the land, but there's no way to clear the title.

By all means, provide a copy of the agreement if it actually exists. We'll see that you cannot

And I pointed out that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

They really aren't. A recognition of history doesn't negate our current practices.

They really are. Something existing doesn't automatically make it a right or compatible with everything else.

No, ancestry doesn't equate to ownership. There is no way to know who would currently own something if thousands of years of history were different.

True, but at the same time you would have to agree that ALL those sales are invalid, so inheritance laws would apply.

If someone steals my car, and I die, and then the police find my car, my heir will get my car back, even if it has changed hands 11 times between the time it was stolen and the time it was recovered.

Each person can also be charged with receipt of stolen property.

This is true even if years or decades pass. It's true i may not have owned the car decades later, but I never actually sold it or disposed of it, so it is still mine. Even if I die, it goes to my heirs.

That's how property ownership works.

You made the assumption that one's heirs will be their descendants. That's often not the case.

[Galloism]

It's attached to the property.

Kind of like if you purchase a property without properly clearing the title and there's a lien against it. That lien continues whether you agreed to it or not, because you did not properly clear the title. That lien is attached the land, and you can't clear it because you didn't agree to it. It's against the land.

The government's claim is also against the land, but there's no way to clear the title.

By all means, provide a copy of the agreement if it actually exists. We'll see that you cannot

Here you go:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collect ... 2015&go=Go

If you need the state portion, you'll have to tell me what state you're in.

They really aren't. A recognition of history doesn't negate our current practices.

They really are. Something existing doesn't automatically make it a right or compatible with everything else.

"Right" in this sense refers to an ownership right. We recognize that the original conquerors secured their ownership rights through conquest, and therefore had a right to sell to new owners. If we do NOT recognize that, then we need to go back and historically study every property in existence until we find the original claimant, and then track who all the heirs of that person is. All land is stolen land.

True, but at the same time you would have to agree that ALL those sales are invalid, so inheritance laws would apply.

If someone steals my car, and I die, and then the police find my car, my heir will get my car back, even if it has changed hands 11 times between the time it was stolen and the time it was recovered.

Each person can also be charged with receipt of stolen property.

This is true even if years or decades pass. It's true i may not have owned the car decades later, but I never actually sold it or disposed of it, so it is still mine. Even if I die, it goes to my heirs.

That's how property ownership works.

You made the assumption that one's heirs will be their descendants. That's often not the case.

Fair point - we couldn't necessarily go by descendants, although that's the default in absence of will or trust changing the terms. We would have to secure wills for everyone who ever wrote one and pass the property to the rightful heirs.

That definitely adds a much more complex layer to not accepting the 'right of conquest'. Many wills are destroyed after a certain number of years pass after death when they are no longer useful.

I guess we could make a fixed assumption that there wasn't one if one can't be located.

[The New Sea Territory]

Taxation is theft, within the context of a capitalist system.

However, so is private property.

[BK117B2]

By all means, provide a copy of the agreement if it actually exists. We'll see that you cannot

Here you go:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collect ... 2015&go=Go

If you need the state portion, you'll have to tell me what state you're in.

You're displaying a misunderstanding of the basic concept of an agreement. I WILL offer you a hint: one party saying 'you better do this' is not an agreement

They really are. Something existing doesn't automatically make it a right or compatible with everything else.

"Right" in this sense refers to an ownership right. We recognize that the original conquerors secured their ownership rights through conquest, and therefore had a right to sell to new owners. If we do NOT recognize that, then we need to go back and historically study every property in existence until we find the original claimant, and then track who all the heirs of that person is. All land is stolen land.

You made the assumption that one's heirs will be their descendants. That's often not the case.

Fair point - we couldn't necessarily go by descendants, although that's the default in absence of will or trust changing the terms. We would have to secure wills for everyone who ever wrote one and pass the property to the rightful heirs.

That definitely adds a much more complex layer to not accepting the 'right of conquest'. Many wills are destroyed after a certain number of years pass after death when they are no longer useful.

I guess we could make a fixed assumption that there wasn't one if one can't be located.

Tracing ownership back isn't possible. Many societies didn't keep written records of such things. I'd doubt there are any locations where it be be tracked back those thousands of years.

Of course, this doesn't make there some sort of right of conquest as you seem to be assuming it does

[Galloism]

Here you go:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collect ... 2015&go=Go

If you need the state portion, you'll have to tell me what state you're in.

You're displaying a misunderstanding of the basic concept of an agreement. I WILL offer you a hint: one party saying 'you better do this' is not an agreement

There are explicit agreements and implicit agreements. An explicit agreement is usually a signed document saying "I will do X in exchange for Y". Then there are implicit agreements, such as when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal. You may not have ever explicitly said "I will pay you for this meal", but the agreement is implicit by your actions - namely, sitting down and asking for food in a business which sells such food.

By choosing to remain in an area subject to such laws, you are consenting to such laws, provided you are free to leave if you do not like the laws.

You can also lobby to change the laws in our system.

"Right" in this sense refers to an ownership right. We recognize that the original conquerors secured their ownership rights through conquest, and therefore had a right to sell to new owners. If we do NOT recognize that, then we need to go back and historically study every property in existence until we find the original claimant, and then track who all the heirs of that person is. All land is stolen land.


Fair point - we couldn't necessarily go by descendants, although that's the default in absence of will or trust changing the terms. We would have to secure wills for everyone who ever wrote one and pass the property to the rightful heirs.

That definitely adds a much more complex layer to not accepting the 'right of conquest'. Many wills are destroyed after a certain number of years pass after death when they are no longer useful.

I guess we could make a fixed assumption that there wasn't one if one can't be located.

Tracing ownership back isn't possible.

No shit.

Many societies didn't keep written records of such things. I'd doubt there are any locations where it be be tracked back those thousands of years.

Of course, this doesn't make there some sort of right of conquest as you seem to be assuming it does

Of course it does. Without the right of conquest, you have no right to the property you bought, as you purchased stolen property. You do not have the right to keep stolen property, even if you purchased it from the original thief (or some person who bought it from the original thief, or so removed).

In the United States, it probably belongs to some people of Native descent, but it'd be impossible to trace back to whom it belongs.

Go back to the car example. My car has been missing for 80 years before it's located. I'm dead. Hell, my sons are dead (hypothetically). All that's left is my grandchildren and great grandchildren. Who has the right to that car, my heirs or the person who bought the car from the car thief?

[BK117B2]

You're displaying a misunderstanding of the basic concept of an agreement. I WILL offer you a hint: one party saying 'you better do this' is not an agreement

There are explicit agreements and implicit agreements. An explicit agreement is usually a signed document saying "I will do X in exchange for Y". Then there are implicit agreements, such as when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal. You may not have ever explicitly said "I will pay you for this meal", but the agreement is implicit by your actions - namely, sitting down and asking for food in a business which sells such food.

By choosing to remain in an area subject to such laws, you are consenting to such laws, provided you are free to leave if you do not like the laws.

You can also lobby to change the laws in our system.

That is, in fact, wrong. Your belief that you decide consent for others instead of them deciding flies in the face of the very concept.

[Galloism]

There are explicit agreements and implicit agreements. An explicit agreement is usually a signed document saying "I will do X in exchange for Y". Then there are implicit agreements, such as when you sit down at a restaurant and order a meal. You may not have ever explicitly said "I will pay you for this meal", but the agreement is implicit by your actions - namely, sitting down and asking for food in a business which sells such food.

By choosing to remain in an area subject to such laws, you are consenting to such laws, provided you are free to leave if you do not like the laws.

You can also lobby to change the laws in our system.

That is, in fact, wrong. Your belief that you decide consent for others instead of them deciding flies in the face of the very concept.

So dining and dashing is perfectly acceptable provided you don't explicitly declare you will pay for said food?

Edit: By the way, I see you've conceded the 'right by conquest' portion of the conversation.

[BK117B2]

That is, in fact, wrong. Your belief that you decide consent for others instead of them deciding flies in the face of the very concept.

So dining and dashing is perfectly acceptable provided you don't explicitly declare you will pay for said food?

Nope. I will point out that it would fall more in line with your position that what one party decides somehow magically becomes an agreement.

Edit: By the way, I see you've conceded the 'right by conquest' portion of the conversation.

So you don't know the meaning of concede. I'll offer you another hint: it does NOT mean 'decided not to repeat myself every single time you make the same mistake'. Maybe you should stick to words with which you have greater familiarity

[Galloism]

So dining and dashing is perfectly acceptable provided you don't explicitly declare you will pay for said food?

Nope. I will point out that it would fall more in line with your position that what one party decides somehow magically becomes an agreement.

Who are you to decide consent for others if they don't explicitly say so?

Edit: By the way, I see you've conceded the 'right by conquest' portion of the conversation.

So you don't know the meaning of concede. I'll offer you another hint: it does NOT mean 'decided not to repeat myself every single time you make the same mistake'. Maybe you should stick to words with which you have greater familiarity

You haven't described how that's different than my stolen car. When does the theft become legitimate, but in such a way that it's only legitimate for YOU, but not the government?

[BK117B2]

Nope. I will point out that it would fall more in line with your position that what one party decides somehow magically becomes an agreement.

Who are you to decide consent for others if they don't explicitly say so?

So you don't know the meaning of concede. I'll offer you another hint: it does NOT mean 'decided not to repeat myself every single time you make the same mistake'. Maybe you should stick to words with which you have greater familiarity

You haven't described how that's different than my stolen car. When does the theft become legitimate, but in such a way that it's only legitimate for YOU, but not the government?

I'm not one to decide consent for others. That's your thing.

Theft never becomes legitimate. Maybe you should spend a little time reading all these posts before responding to them.

[Galloism]

Who are you to decide consent for others if they don't explicitly say so?



You haven't described how that's different than my stolen car. When does the theft become legitimate, but in such a way that it's only legitimate for YOU, but not the government?

I'm not one to decide consent for others. That's your thing.

So is it ok to dine and dash? Why or why not?

Theft never becomes legitimate. Maybe you should spend a little time reading all these posts before responding to them.

You're the one living in stolen property. No guilt?

[Allanea]

In the United States, it probably belongs to some people of Native descent, but it'd be impossible to trace back to whom it belongs.

A bad assumption. At least a few Native tribes didn't have a concept of private property.

There were also several incidents of the tribes selling vast quantities of land - for example, if you live in parts of Pennsylvania, your land was never "conquered" from the Natives, it was bought.

[Maqo]

Here you go:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collect ... 2015&go=Go

If you need the state portion, you'll have to tell me what state you're in.

You're displaying a misunderstanding of the basic concept of an agreement. I WILL offer you a hint: one party saying 'you better do this' is not an agreement

"Right" in this sense refers to an ownership right. We recognize that the original conquerors secured their ownership rights through conquest, and therefore had a right to sell to new owners. If we do NOT recognize that, then we need to go back and historically study every property in existence until we find the original claimant, and then track who all the heirs of that person is. All land is stolen land.


Fair point - we couldn't necessarily go by descendants, although that's the default in absence of will or trust changing the terms. We would have to secure wills for everyone who ever wrote one and pass the property to the rightful heirs.

That definitely adds a much more complex layer to not accepting the 'right of conquest'. Many wills are destroyed after a certain number of years pass after death when they are no longer useful.

I guess we could make a fixed assumption that there wasn't one if one can't be located.

Tracing ownership back isn't possible. Many societies didn't keep written records of such things. I'd doubt there are any locations where it be be tracked back those thousands of years.

Of course, this doesn't make there some sort of right of conquest as you seem to be assuming it does

The government believes the property is theirs. That's really all that matters in this.

Now, you can say 'I don't care what they believe, they're wrong, screw them I'll do what I want' and settle on the government's land, in exactly the same way that you could say that about any private citizens land, and the result is the same: one party believes their rights are being violated, and (under many moral systems) they are justified in stopping you from violating their rights.

And so you get in to a dispute with the government and you take them to court and say 'the land isn't yours'. And their reply is 'then whose is it?if its not mine then it certainly can't be yours!' Because if you the government's claim to land (via discovery, purchase, treaty or conquest) is invalid, then ALL claims to that land are necessarily invalid unless you can somehow find the person with the 'one true original claim' - which as you said, is essentially impossible. The government had the longest standing claim, and noone until you has disputed it, so it is theirs as much as any property belongs to anyone.

Furthermore, if you've legally bought property you have explicitly agreed to the government's laws. It will be there in the contracts that you signed saying that you are purchasing the title to X land for Y purpose, and this gives you the rights to do A B and C but not D E or F and thr government retains the rights to G and H. If it's not actually on the document, it will be referenced , or defined in another document, and your signing that contract binds you to those terms.

There may be anecdotal exceptions to this in real life. But consideringg that the atomic form of a state is a single person, and assuming you accept tge principle that a person can own land, then it is clear that there is nothing inherent to the definition of a state that prevents them from being the ultimate owner of land and this being 'morally justified' in any actions they take upon their own land - including charging you rent in the form of taxes if they wish.

[BK117B2]

I'm not one to decide consent for others. That's your thing.

So is it ok to dine and dash? Why or why not?

It is stealing.

Theft never becomes legitimate. Maybe you should spend a little time reading all these posts before responding to them.

You're the one living in stolen property. No guilt?

By your rationale, we're pretty much all living on stolen land. Do you feel guilty about it? As one of the currently living people, I feel no guilt about utilizing a world which once belonged to others as they are dead and have thus moved beyond having any use for it.

[BK117B2]

You're displaying a misunderstanding of the basic concept of an agreement. I WILL offer you a hint: one party saying 'you better do this' is not an agreement




Tracing ownership back isn't possible. Many societies didn't keep written records of such things. I'd doubt there are any locations where it be be tracked back those thousands of years.

Of course, this doesn't make there some sort of right of conquest as you seem to be assuming it does

The government believes the property is theirs. That's really all that matters in this.

Now, you can say 'I don't care what they believe, they're wrong, screw them I'll do what I want' and settle on the government's land, in exactly the same way that you could say that about any private citizens land, and the result is the same: one party believes their rights are being violated, and (under many moral systems) they are justified in stopping you from violating their rights.

And so you get in to a dispute with the government and you take them to court and say 'the land isn't yours'. And their reply is 'then whose is it?if its not mine then it certainly can't be yours!' Because if you the government's claim to land (via discovery, purchase, treaty or conquest) is invalid, then ALL claims to that land are necessarily invalid unless you can somehow find the person with the 'one true original claim' - which as you said, is essentially impossible. The government had the longest standing claim, and noone until you has disputed it, so it is theirs as much as any property belongs to anyone.

Furthermore, if you've legally bought property you have explicitly agreed to the government's laws. It will be there in the contracts that you signed saying that you are purchasing the title to X land for Y purpose, and this gives you the rights to do A B and C but not D E or F and thr government retains the rights to G and H. If it's not actually on the document, it will be referenced , or defined in another document, and your signing that contract binds you to those terms.

There may be anecdotal exceptions to this in real life. But consideringg that the atomic form of a state is a single person, and assuming you accept tge principle that a person can own land, then it is clear that there is nothing inherent to the definition of a state that prevents them from being the ultimate owner of land and this being 'morally justified' in any actions they take upon their own land - including charging you rent in the form of taxes if they wish.

A government is just an organizational structure. If people cannot own land, then governments definitely cannot.

You saying that a government made a claim before any of us were alive, but that is just a proxy for PEOPLE making a claim....people who are lond dead and cease to have any claim. Most land in the US is currently privately owned rather than jointly.

[Yorkvale]

You can look it however you want. Regardless, certain tags are simple and practical solutions to a problem, being financing a countries expenses and infrastructure. Cut certain taxes, remove certain taxes, but we need taxes. Unless a different realistic solution can be advanced, I see no value to this debate.

[Maqo]

A government is just an organizational structure. If people cannot own land, then governments definitely cannot.

You saying that a government made a claim before any of us were alive, but that is just a proxy for PEOPLE making a claim....people who are lond dead and cease to have any claim. Most land in the US is currently privately owned rather than jointly.

I'm not at all saying that people can't own land.
I'm saying that the smallest form of a state is one landholder, and few would deny that insofar as we are basing everything around property rights, then a landholder has the right to require anything he desires (inclyding taxes) in exchange for letting others on his property. And all a state is at its heart is, as you say, an organizational structure of landowners

Most land is 'privately owned'* where the asterix is ,'but it really belongs to the government and they can take its from you or demand whatever they want from you'.

Tracing back the 'original owners' you'll find that land was either claimed by the state, conquered/settled by agents of the state, or purchased from private citizens or other states by the state. And before that, dead people. If you can find land that was never formally claimed or purchased by the state, you could dispute it: but that needs to be done one a case by case, acre by acre basis.

[BK117B2]

A government is just an organizational structure. If people cannot own land, then governments definitely cannot.

You saying that a government made a claim before any of us were alive, but that is just a proxy for PEOPLE making a claim....people who are lond dead and cease to have any claim. Most land in the US is currently privately owned rather than jointly.

I'm not at all saying that people can't own land.
I'm saying that the smallest form of a state is one landholder, and few would deny that insofar as we are basing everything around property rights, then a landholder has the right to require anything he desires (inclyding taxes) in exchange for letting others on his property. And all a state is at its heart is, as you say, an organizational structure of landowners

Which is not relevant when you aren't on their property.

Most land is 'privately owned'* where the asterix is ,'but it really belongs to the government and they can take its from you or demand whatever they want from you'.

Wrong. It does not belong to the government. That someone else CAN do something does not magically mean that you have agreed to it. I CAN sexually assault you...that definitely doesn't mean you have consented. You CAN burn down my house...I definitely am not consenting to that. I CAN break into your residence and take things...and I'm heavily doubting you would approve.

Tracing back the 'original owners' you'll find that land was either claimed by the state, conquered/settled by agents of the state, or purchased from private citizens or other states by the state. And before that, dead people. If you can find land that was never formally claimed or purchased by the state, you could dispute it: but that needs to be done one a case by case, acre by acre basis.

And, of course, bears no relevance to the point. Past ownership is not the same as current ownership.

[Trotskylvania]

Taxation is theft, within the context of a capitalist system.

However, so is private property.

This is true. Sadly so few libertarians take their logic to its conclusion; coercive power and monopoly privilege inherent in the institution of private property is a cancer in any free society.

Either democracy, freedom and socialism will prevail or we degenerate into pure bourgeois despotism.

[Maqo]

. And all a state is at its heart is, as you say, an organizational structure of landowners

Which is not relevant when you aren't on their property.

If you can find some land that a state doesnt lay claim to, then you're right. But while you're on land that a state claims, you either need to prove their claim false (very difficult to do considering the age of most states) or accept their claim as landholders.

Most land is 'privately owned'* where the asterix is ,'but it really belongs to the government and they can take its from you or demand whatever they want from you'.

Wrong. It does not belong to the government.

are you claiming that no state anywhere on earth or yheoretically possible can ever own land? Thats pretty easy to disprove. Why do you say that land can't belong to a government?

That someone else CAN do something does not magically mean that you have agreed to it.

You agreed when you signed the contract to purchase your property. The contract is between you and the state.

I CAN sexually assault you...that definitely doesn't mean you have consented. You CAN burn down my house...I definitely am not consenting to that. I CAN break into your residence and take things...and I'm heavily doubting you would approve.

More rather: I CAN evict you from my property when you don't pay rent you agreed to, whether you like it or not, because that was the terms of our contract.
'CAN' meaning 'have a legal and morally supported basis for doing so: you are violating our agreement and thus my property rights'. Basically a high stakes version of 'my house, my rules'.

Tracing back the 'original owners' you'll find that land was either claimed by the state, conquered/settled by agents of the state, or purchased from private citizens or other states by the state. And before that, dead people. If you can find land that was never formally claimed or purchased by the state, you could dispute it: but that needs to be done one a case by case, acre by acre basis.

And, of course, bears no relevance to the point. Past ownership is not the same as current ownership.

The state rarely/never 'sells' property in its entirety. They sell titles for the use of property: for most intents and purposes you can consider that you 'own' it, but they do reserve some rights from you. Very much like renting: you purchase some rights to a house, you can consider it 'your home' and you have the right to refuse most people on to the property and if you're good you can live there indefinitely , but you don't have the right to paint the walls and if the landlord wants to increase the rent they can, and if the landlord wants to redevelop you have to leave. The state-level version of the is 'eminent domain'.

[BK117B2]

are you claiming that no state anywhere on earth or yheoretically possible can ever own land? Thats pretty easy to disprove. Why do you say that land can't belong to a government?

To the first question: No. A state (really just a proxy for people) can and does. To the second: that's called a complex question fallacy with no more validity than asking you why you're a serial killer.

You agreed when you signed the contract to purchase your property. The contract is between you and the state.

Wrong. The state is not one of the signatories to my contract.

More rather: I CAN evict you from my property when you don't pay rent you agreed to, whether you like it or not, because that was the terms of our contract.
'CAN' meaning 'have a legal and morally supported basis for doing so: you are violating our agreement and thus my property rights'. Basically a high stakes version of 'my house, my rules'.

'CAN' meaning "be able to" Basically your stance boils down to 'the state has sufficient force to suppress any disagreement from you'

The state rarely/never 'sells' property in its entirety. They sell titles for the use of property: for most intents and purposes you can consider that you 'own' it, but they do reserve some rights from you. Very much like renting: you purchase some rights to a house, you can consider it 'your home' and you have the right to refuse most people on to the property and if you're good you can live there indefinitely , but you don't have the right to paint the walls and if the landlord wants to increase the rent they can, and if the landlord wants to redevelop you have to leave. The state-level version of the is 'eminent domain'.

Ah yes, eminent domain...fitting that you should bring that up in a discussion of theft given that it often involves theft.