Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Does the government own your land?

rated by 0 users
This post has 22 Replies | 6 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 3
Points 135
ReadRothbard Posted: Thu, May 2 2013 3:46 PM

I was arguing with my female friend (who is very attractive, by the way), whom says that taxation is not theft because we are living on government land, as they claimed the land we live on first. I've never heard this arguememt before, and she almost seems to have a point. What should I say?

  • | Post Points: 125
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

I'm confused. Is ReadRothbard a command or something you have done? Either way, reading Rothbard will answer your question.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 87
Points 1,215
Albert replied on Thu, May 2 2013 4:22 PM

 

Have her enlighten us..... just exactly when did the government claim the land.....

was that before the American indians settled, or before the pilgrims settled, or before the Revolutionary war with England, or before or after the Civil war?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3
Points 135

Lol I suppose it's more of a recommendation.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 3
Points 135

I'm not so sure; come to think of it, you are right. Her arguement did not make any sense. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 228
Points 3,640
Blargg replied on Thu, May 2 2013 4:40 PM

I was arguing with my female friend (who is very attractive, by the way)

Thanks for not leaving out that critical information. Are you really handsome as well?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, May 2 2013 5:36 PM

Well, I guess technically Canada and the United States are proeprty of Spain, then... after all, Columbus was the first* European to land on this continent (there was no Panama Canal at that time) and he planted a flag! Because - as everyone knows - planting a flag in the ground entitles the king whose coat-of-arms is emblazoned on that flag to all earth which is connected, however distantly, to that flag. By the same token, Spain also owns the Moon since the United States government (who we have already established is actually the property of Spain) planted its flag on the Moon!

Clayton -

*Just kidding!

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

The argument is dumb, I've debunked it on the LibertyHQ but the approach I'd take is to ask her what, in the concrete, did the government do to homestead the land via first-use, beyond merely claiming it? Where it -did- homestead property, whose resources did it use in so doing, and did it use force to prevent other homesteaders from homesteading the land? If property was transferred to it by contract, where is the contract, and why does it apply to people not party to it? Moreover, if it is a service contract, where are the terms of engagement, and why assume it will run in perpetuity?

So no, she hasn't got a point. An idiot is an idiot, no matter how attractive, sadly.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 228
Points 3,640
Blargg replied on Thu, May 2 2013 5:42 PM

Everyone knows that the government has power over us and owns everything. It doesn't need explaining.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

Allow me to channel the voice of Spooner:

 

That your whole claim of a right to any man's money for the support of your government, without his consent, is the merest farce and fraud, is proved by the fact that you have no such evidence of your right to take it, as would be required of you, by one of your own courts, to prove a debt of five dollars, that might be honestly due you. 
You and your lawmakers have no such evidence of your right of dominion over the people of this country, as would be required to prove your right to any material property, that you might have purchased. 
When a man parts with any considerable amount of such material property as he has a natural right to part with,  --- as, for example, houses, or lands, or food, or clothing, or anything else of much value,  --- he usually gives, and the purchaser usually demands, some written acknowledgment, receipt, bill of sale, or other evidence, that will prove that he voluntarily parted with it, and that the purchaser is now the real and true owner of it. But you hold that fifth millions of people have voluntarily parted, not only with their natural right of dominion over all their material property, but also with all their natural right of dominion over their own souls and bodies; when not one of them has ever given you a scrap of writing, or even "made his mark," to that effect. 
You have not so much as the honest signature of a single human being, granting to you or your lawmakers any right of dominion whatever over him or his property.

From http://www.lysanderspooner.org/LetterToGroverCleveland.htm

 

Another great part is:

It was once said, in this country, that taxation without consent was robbery. And a seven years' war was fought to maintain that principle. But if that principle were a true one in behalf of three millions of men, it is an equally true one in behalf of three men, or of one man.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

Jon Irenicus:

So no, she hasn't got a point. An idiot is an idiot, no matter how attractive, sadly.

Right, but an attractive idiot is still attractive, no matter how idiotic she is.

Wait, that's not true. Now I'm sad.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

gotlucky:

Jon Irenicus:

So no, she hasn't got a point. An idiot is an idiot, no matter how attractive, sadly.

Right, but an attractive idiot is still attractive, no matter how idiotic she is.

Wait, that's not true. Now I'm sad.

 

You just proved that attractiveness is subjective.

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 478
Points 10,295

Hasn't the government homesteaded those parts of the land it has transformed? (E.g., roads that were built directly by the government?)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 371
Points 5,590

 

You and her are wrong. 

A right always belong to the person with the strongest claim to that right. It might be you or the government branch who's bothering you, it depends on the circumstances.

It has nothing to do with who got where first.

brotip: If you're trying to lay this broad you should avoid deep logical conversations and go for a more retard approach (use alcohol for faster results).

"Blood alone moves the wheels of history" - Dwight Schrute
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Fri, May 3 2013 7:53 AM

By god, everything would be sooooo much easier if governments actually did own the land they claim. As things stand, the very concept of strict ownership, not only of land but of anything at all, is intolerable to our modern democratic ideology. At most, people are willing to settle for semi-private management, but never ownership.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

 

A right always belong to the person with the strongest claim to that right. It might be you or the government branch who's bothering you, it depends on the circumstances.

What determines its strength? Force of arms? In which case, how does what ordinarily passes for a fallacy, constitute a justification in this case?

It has nothing to do with who got where first.

Says who?

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Sun, May 5 2013 12:42 AM

FlyingAxe:

Hasn't the government homesteaded those parts of the land it has transformed? (E.g., roads that were built directly by the government?)

Even if we assume that agents of the government can homestead property on its behalf in accordance with libertarian property theory, this property is homesteaded with stolen capital. So in terms of libertarianism, the government has to right its wrongs and is indebted to all its victims, and the only way it can right its wrongs is to pay back or transfer ownership of this homesteaded property to its victims.

There is also the point that Rothbard raised, that there is no good reason to honor a thief's claims over his stolen property. It's not rightfully his, so if the rightful owner cannot be found, then anyone else other than the thief could be the new rightful owner.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Sun, May 5 2013 5:58 AM





Shall we do one for "ReadRothbard"?

I DON'T ALWAYS TALK UP MY ATTRACTIVE FEMALE FRIENDS

BUT WHEN I DO, IT'S TO ARGUE POLITICAL THEORY

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

And we can also add the fact that even if they did legitimately homestead some territories, there's the other 99% (an exaggeration) of the country which they didn't.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630

I think your friend has a point. You think you own your property? See what happens if you stop paying your property tax.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Sun, May 5 2013 9:14 AM

well texas has a form of what they consider alloidal title, but its not hereditary.

I have also heard that if you get your name on the actual land patent, lots of statutes dont legally apply.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5

Hi,

I found this topic useless but after researching on some basic facts of taxing and governments policies. I realized that we should stand up against this captilism system and take back our houses and lands.

I think I am a part of this revolution and i m going to help my friends.

Clearwater Real Estate Agent

Tampa Bay Real Estate

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Shut up and enjoy your ban.

I think your friend has a point. You think you own your property? See what happens if you stop paying your property tax.

"You think you own your body? See what happens when I grab hold of you" says the rapist to the victim.
 
 

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (23 items) | RSS