3 ms·

>This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law. This rebuttal is getting recycled so often that I nearl

>This is true in the sense that property rights always depend on law and the government making the law. This rebuttal is getting recycled so often that I nearly addressed it before anyone said it. But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. This is on top of the ability of the state to simply take land and other forms of property, based on whatever the local legal system allows (eminent domain, asset forfeiture, etc). I'd add that this isn't necessarily an easy problem to solve, so I don't propose that anyone has a utopian answer to it all.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. In any social system in which “property” can be a meaningful context, there will be either an entity or an aggregate of entities which together exercise ultimate power in dispute resolution in the form of a monopoly on legitimate violence, and whatever entity or aggregate does so is called “government”, and “property” itself exists as an application by government of it's monopoly on violence to constrain behavior of individuals contrary to the property rights it defines. Yes, slavery is imposed by government through force—but only in the exact sense that all property relations are. > As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. Fee ownership (whether fee simple which is the dominant modern form or others that have fallen from favor like fee tail) has usually involved such payments. Allodial title has not, but allodial title has been typical of direct holding by the sovereign.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> But since you've said it, I'll say that it is true only to the extent that government holds a monopoly over dispute resolution in matters of property. In any social system in which “property” can be a meaningful context, there will be either an entity or an aggregate of entities which together exercise ultimate power in dispute resolution in the form of a monopoly on legitimate violence, and whatever entity or aggregate does so is called “government”, and “property” itself exists as an application by government of it's monopoly on violence to constrain behavior of individuals contrary to the property rights it defines. Yes, slavery is imposed by government through force—but only in the exact sense that all property relations are. > As it stands, indeed, any kind of ownership is dubious, considering that many are required to pay what amounts to rent (property tax), or lose their land. Fee ownership (whether fee simple which is the dominant modern form or others that have fallen from favor like fee tail) has usually involved such payments. Allodial title has not, but allodial title has been typical of direct holding by the sovereign.