5 ms·

Why should adverse possession apply? One use for it is to establish who the de facto owner is, but that is of course unnecessary here. Another is to provide mor

Why should adverse possession apply? One use for it is to establish who the de facto owner is, but that is of course unnecessary here. Another is to provide more security for property owners -- does the most powerful corporation in the history of the world need that from us? Third, since adverse possession is based on the doctrine of laches, if it applies here doesn't England have a stronger claim to ownership? Also, if we are applying common law principles, I contend that USG has in the past engaged in massive fraud by pretending it is not the actual owner, and continues to do so today. When we also consider the violent means it has used to acquire and maintain ownership, we have force and fraud -- enough to disqualify USG as a legitimate title holder. > If USG is not the legitimate title holder of middle-North America, who is? I admit, the answer is unclear, but it does seem clear that USG is not it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your reasoning is at least slightly different from MM's, then -- I don't think MM has much of an interest in this question or much of an answer to it, since he has criticized the "Rebellion" but now accepts USG's ownership.

bokonist 17y ago
Adverse Possession does not care how the property was acquired. All it cares is that the owner has managed to maintain uncontested possession of it. The states originally siezed the territory from the Brits. The Feds then seized it from the states. Neither usurpation is still contested to this day. No state government maintains that the New Deal is illegitimate. Adverse Possession is not about making moral claims. It is a way to prevent violence by settling who owns what. Groups would try and manufacture claims and rally groups to regain possession. You see this happen in the Balkans and Middle East with claims going back hundreds or thousands of years. Of course, in some ways the question of legitimacy of state ownership is silly. Law between sovereigns or between a sovereign and its residents is always jungle law. The strongest wins. By definition, there is no third party to enforce the law.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  I don't think I disputed anything in your first two paragraphs, but let me know if you think I did. As you say, the strongest wins, so why rely on something like adverse possession? If you're saying it ought to apply here solely for the purpose of preventing violence, then, as I said, it doesn't seem necessary. USG's military and propaganda arms are powerful enough today as to make this irrelevant. Of course, if most of the residents are very dissatisfied with their sovereign and are willing to take extreme measures, they have a chance of winning regardless of immediately available firepower. This is where the question of legitimacy matters, because a sovereign will have at least some trouble if its residents do not accept its legitimacy, even if it wins in the end.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    This is where the question of legitimacy matters, because a sovereign will have at least some trouble if its residents do not accept its legitimacy, even if it wins in the end. There are two things to consider in regards to USG's relationship with middle-North America: a) property ownership b) management structure I do not view the property ownership as illegitimate. I do not agree with the libertarians who view taxation as theft. I think such a view is neither justified nor constructive. USG's management structure is awful. It badly needs reform or a reboot. The goal of a management reboot is not so that us subjects will pay more taxes. It's so that resources will not be squandered. This would end up being good for us subjects, but it would also be in the interest of USG itself. Thus I view a management change as more likely to succeed and less likely to incite violence. If a management structure is bad enough, an outside group could be morally justified ( though not legally justified) in trying to seize the territory itself. But that would be worst case.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      > I do not view the property ownership as illegitimate. I do not agree with the libertarians who view taxation as theft. I think such a view is neither justified nor constructive. Yes, there are some libertarians who naively, and incorrectly, believe they are the de facto owners of property in the US. That is, they would not even agree that USG actually owns all US property. However, I'm afraid I still don't see why you view USG's ownership as legitimate, unless you are equating de facto ownership with legitimate ownership -- i.e., you don't believe there is any difference between the two. > USG's management structure is awful... Agreed, of course. > ...but it would also be in the interest of USG itself. Thus I view a management change as more likely to succeed and less likely to incite violence. I'm not so sure about this. Yes, USG could be run more profitably, but severe agency problems exist. Would the leaders of the Catholic Church want their subjects to be told there is no God, even if these leaders were paid large sums of money? Power and influence are worth something to them as well. > If a management structure is bad enough, an outside group could be morally justified ( though not legally justified) in trying to seize the territory itself. But that would be worst case. I assume a group of subjects would also count as an "outside group"? If we are using common legal principles, then for the reasons I mentioned earlier, I suggest they would be legally justified as well, even if this might not matter all that much in the real world.

bokonist 17y ago

Adverse Possession does not care how the property was acquired. All it cares is that the owner has managed to maintain uncontested possession of it. The states originally siezed the territory from the Brits. The Feds then seized it from the states. Neither usurpation is still contested to this day. No state government maintains that the New Deal is illegitimate. Adverse Possession is not about making moral claims. It is a way to prevent violence by settling who owns what. Groups would try and manufacture claims and rally groups to regain possession. You see this happen in the Balkans and Middle East with claims going back hundreds or thousands of years. Of course, in some ways the question of legitimacy of state ownership is silly. Law between sovereigns or between a sovereign and its residents is always jungle law. The strongest wins. By definition, there is no third party to enforce the law.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
I don't think I disputed anything in your first two paragraphs, but let me know if you think I did. As you say, the strongest wins, so why rely on something like adverse possession? If you're saying it ought to apply here solely for the purpose of preventing violence, then, as I said, it doesn't seem necessary. USG's military and propaganda arms are powerful enough today as to make this irrelevant. Of course, if most of the residents are very dissatisfied with their sovereign and are willing to take extreme measures, they have a chance of winning regardless of immediately available firepower. This is where the question of legitimacy matters, because a sovereign will have at least some trouble if its residents do not accept its legitimacy, even if it wins in the end.
- bokonist 17y ago
  This is where the question of legitimacy matters, because a sovereign will have at least some trouble if its residents do not accept its legitimacy, even if it wins in the end. There are two things to consider in regards to USG's relationship with middle-North America: a) property ownership b) management structure I do not view the property ownership as illegitimate. I do not agree with the libertarians who view taxation as theft. I think such a view is neither justified nor constructive. USG's management structure is awful. It badly needs reform or a reboot. The goal of a management reboot is not so that us subjects will pay more taxes. It's so that resources will not be squandered. This would end up being good for us subjects, but it would also be in the interest of USG itself. Thus I view a management change as more likely to succeed and less likely to incite violence. If a management structure is bad enough, an outside group could be morally justified ( though not legally justified) in trying to seize the territory itself. But that would be worst case.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    > I do not view the property ownership as illegitimate. I do not agree with the libertarians who view taxation as theft. I think such a view is neither justified nor constructive. Yes, there are some libertarians who naively, and incorrectly, believe they are the de facto owners of property in the US. That is, they would not even agree that USG actually owns all US property. However, I'm afraid I still don't see why you view USG's ownership as legitimate, unless you are equating de facto ownership with legitimate ownership -- i.e., you don't believe there is any difference between the two. > USG's management structure is awful... Agreed, of course. > ...but it would also be in the interest of USG itself. Thus I view a management change as more likely to succeed and less likely to incite violence. I'm not so sure about this. Yes, USG could be run more profitably, but severe agency problems exist. Would the leaders of the Catholic Church want their subjects to be told there is no God, even if these leaders were paid large sums of money? Power and influence are worth something to them as well. > If a management structure is bad enough, an outside group could be morally justified ( though not legally justified) in trying to seize the territory itself. But that would be worst case. I assume a group of subjects would also count as an "outside group"? If we are using common legal principles, then for the reasons I mentioned earlier, I suggest they would be legally justified as well, even if this might not matter all that much in the real world.