Can government own land? Devil's advocate

[DSEngere]

Hi guys. I have a very annoying question that relates to the “taxation is theft” argument. I am about to make an exhaustive, comprehensive, 100% watertight argument that leaves no questions. I am almost there.

 

Of course, taxation is inconsistent with property rights. If I actually own my home/my land, the government has no right to impose laws on my land. It is “my land, my rules”- correct?The problem arises when we consider a totalitarian style state that doesn’t recognize property rights.

 

I was hoping someone could help point out what is probably an obvious problem in my thinking. I am getting hung up on what is probably a very shitty statist argument.

 

 

As Stefan has said before, a crime dies with the criminal.

 

That being said, Imagine a government steals a bunch of land by kicking people off of it or murdering them. After the owners and government agents are dead and the land has been passed down (like how many Americans own land that was previously owned by Native Americans), the crime is essentially water under the bridge at this point.

 

While this is of course theft and incredibly evil, pretend again that our imaginary government retains “ownership” of its stolen land and continues to pass it from generation to generation of government agents, so that the current owners bear no connection to the original crimes; They have inherited stolen land, but the rightful owners and the thieves are dead. Now imagine that the government has slowly done this with all of the land in the country, so now the government “owns” all of the land and treat all homes as the owners are simply renting from the government.

 

At this point, do they have moral legitimacy to enact things like taxation, etc. because it’s “their land, their rules”? Of course, there is the problem that people who are born onto this government “property” never consented to the rules. Do they have any right to impose any rules at all on people who are born onto the land? I think therein lies the important problem- you cannot impose rules on people who are born onto privately owned land. But I need someone to help me complete this thought.

 

I know that this situation does not apply to most countries, but it represents a potential theoretically morally legitimate existence of a state (even though it originated with crimes, the crimes have passed away). I don’t want to be caught with my pants down on this argument by some full communist. I need to have a 100% watertight argument that taxation is theft and the government is inherently immoral- PERIOD. Please remember that I am playing devil's advocate here to sharpen my argument. I personally would not make this argument because I know that such a scenario would result in a complete and utter disaster. But not everybody is convinced of that. I want to be able to convince these naive people on a theoretical basis instead of going down the "anarchism is practically better" rabbit hole. 

 

Any help or moral clarity would be greatly appreciated!

 

 

[Brentb]

Apollo owns all the water in the world. You have been rapaciously consuming his water since you've been in the womb. You owe Apollo all that you own, but he has generously decided that you only pay him 30% of everything that you have or ever will have. I am an agent of Apollo, so you can give Apollo what you owe him through me.

 

Concepts don't have property rights.

[DSEngere]

OK, replace "government" with "group of people" or "company". Surely a company or group of people can jointly own property?

[J-William]

What is government?

[Brentb]

OK, replace "government" with "group of people" or "company". Surely a company or group of people can jointly own property?

 

In the case of companies or groups of people, there is clear ownership that directly ties back to people. The "company" or "group" doesn't own anything as an independent entity - all of it's assets are ultimately owned by the people who have pooled resources and have shares in the company. There is no such tie of ownership back to people in the case of government.

[J-William]

OK, replace "government" with "group of people" or "company". Surely a company or group of people can jointly own property?

is "group of people" or "company" the same as government?  I did not know that was how government was defined.

In the case of companies or groups of people, there is clear ownership that directly ties back to people. The "company" or "group" doesn't own anything as an independent entity - all of it's assets are ultimately owned by the people who have pooled resources and have shares in the company. There is no such tie of ownership back to people in the case of government.

This man is clearly very wise! 

Do not try to educate him about the meanings of "words".

 

Let him share his deep wisdom with us!

[powder]

I am pretty new to these arguments myself but I think that a person has rights, and a 'group' is just a bunch of people.  looks like you need to be clear about your definition of government.  

[JamesP]

With what resources will the government acquire the land? If it uses tax money, that is stolen. I think a reasonable justice system would state that goods purchased with stolen money are subject to forfeit, so that's not a legitimate way to obtain property.

 

It could just stomp in and steal it directly, but then again, that's not ownership, that's theft.

 

I suppose that people could donate the land to the government, though again, the government doesn't have any money of its own, so it wouldn't even be able to protect the land without theft.

 

And then, I suppose that people could donate time and money to the government so it could take care of the land, or buy land, but then the government is no longer the government, but a kind of charity... unless it continues to steal elsewhere.

 

People might choose to donate time and money if they are consciously aware that the government is immoral, but it's going to be a very small segment of people.

[DSEngere]

It could just stomp in and steal it directly, but then again, that's not ownership, that's theft.

 

 

Yes, but what about the "water under the bridge" argument, that the crime dissolves over time? 

[powder]

Yes, but what about the "water under the bridge" argument, that the crime dissolves over time? 

huh?, did you read the rest of his post?  

[dsayers]

Governments already pretend to own everything and every one. It's the only way legislation could even begin to be righteous. It's important to keep in mind that government ownership is an anthropomorphism. For that matter, I would argue against joint ownership altogether since it's unsustainable. For example, person X dies and leaves his car to his two children. One wants to keep it while the other wants to sell it. Sure it's possible they could work out a deal, but what if they couldn't? I don't see how responsibility could be traceable if joint ownership is valid.

[andkon]

That being said, Imagine a government steals a bunch of land by kicking people off of it or murdering them. After the owners and government agents are dead and the land has been passed down (like how many Americans own land that was previously owned by Native Americans), the crime is essentially water under the bridge at this point.

 

While this is of course theft and incredibly evil, pretend again that our imaginary government retains “ownership” of its stolen land and continues to pass it from generation to generation of government agents, so that the current owners bear no connection to the original crimes; They have inherited stolen land, but the rightful owners and the thieves are dead. Now imagine that the government has slowly done this with all of the land in the country, so now the government “owns” all of the land and treat all homes as the owners are simply renting from the government.

 

With institutional injustices like slavery or feudalism or monarchy, I think we can recognize that these institutions should not have happened in the first place. Once such a realization is made, the question is, what approximates best to what would have happened without the illegitimate practices? This is rather tricky, of course.

 

It's difficult with individual cases to go back and see who stole what, after time has passed. Individuals can "launder" their wealth through generations to the point where it either mixes with legitimately acquired wealth or so much time has passed no one really knows who the victims or aggressors were. With governments, it's not tricky since the government has stayed in one continuous piece.

[Mike Larson]

Another consideration is that according to the homesteading theory of property acquisition, just saying that you own a specific section of land is not a legitimate claim. So even if we granted that the government was an entity that could own land, it could only "legitimately" claim land that it had either homesteaded (or stolen from someone who had already homesteaded it)... in which case we would still have large tracts of land within the country that could not be considered to be owned by the government.

[JamesP]

Yes, but what about the "water under the bridge" argument, that the crime dissolves over time? 

 

Could you walk me through that argument? I know I've heard it before, but I don't know that I've seen it broken down.

 

I do acknowledge that there are statutes of limitations in current law. It may well be that this originates from common law.

 

Either way, the money that the government has *right now* is stolen. There is no money it has which has not been stolen, be it directly in the form of taxes, or indirectly in the form of debts (future taxes) or inflation (almost as insidious as debts). Their theft is constant, hence I think they fall well within any statutes of limitations.

[Edit] 

Oh hang on, I see, you're talking about land that the government currently *owns*, as in, land that was stolen by the government several hundred years ago. You still have the problem of how they're going to maintain it.

[labmath2]

Land ownership is always tricky. For me it boils down to two concerns. 1. If you own land, do you set the rules for anyone else entering or occupying the land or are you required to still follow common law? 2. Why should new born be exempted from the rules? If a landlord rents out land under certain conditions and a couple living on it have three children. The couple die and the rent stops coming, Can the landowner kick the occupants off the land despite the fact that they did not enter into a contract with him? If the children should choose to stay, are they obligated to follow the rules set by the landowner?

 

Depending on your answer to those 2 questions, government may or may not be a legitimate land owner.

[powder]

Land ownership is always tricky. For me it boils down to two concerns. 1. If you own land, do you set the rules for anyone else entering or occupying the land or are you required to still follow common law? 2. Why should new born be exempted from the rules? If a landlord rents out land under certain conditions and a couple living on it have three children. The couple die and the rent stops coming, Can the landowner kick the occupants off the land despite the fact that they did not enter into a contract with him? If the children should choose to stay, are they obligated to follow the rules set by the landowner?

 

Depending on your answer to those 2 questions, government may or may not be a legitimate land owner.

Depending on your answer to those 2 questions, Aphrodite may or may not be a legitimate land owner.

[MarkIX]

Apollo owns all the water in the world. You have been rapaciously consuming his water since you've been in the womb. You owe Apollo all that you own, but he has generously decided that you only pay him 30% of everything that you have or ever will have. I am an agent of Apollo, so you can give Apollo what you owe him through me.

 

Concepts don't have property rights.

So can you inherit land or any other thing?