Maybe no one owns the land then? Owning land by purchasing a title registered in the State's land registry can hardly be a stronger claim than being a nomad wandering through.
I think you're underestimating the degree to which "taking unclaimed land is acceptable" is a controversial statement. Talk to the nomads about what constitutes 'unclaimed' land - the entire possibility of shared-use is being overlooked. Property rights aren't theft because you used land no one else claimed, they're theft because you denied everyone else the right to use otherwise-shared territory.
The line is kinda blurry when the land houses people who have no representation in the sale. Sure, you don't own the people, but you now own their land.
>"He knows full well he has no moral right to the property
Throughout the Americas, the same logic that one can claim ownership of unused land underpins most land titles - e.g. the original entitlement of most of Texas was made on the basis that the land was underused. One need only look at the sovereign land grants which most title histories in the US begin with.
My argument is that even without property taxes the land ownership isn't real - someone can have a piece of paper and a government to back them up and say they "own" the land, but ultimately it's not the same as personal property and doesn't make sense to treat the same way. As far as I've seen it's impossible to establish a chain of custody for land ownership that doesn't involve theft and invalidate the current ownership claim
Further, the government is the only thing that grants the land ownership claim, if there is no government than anyone can come along and kick you off your land, revealing that you didn't really own it to start with - you're just living there right now
Because, it is not really their land. If they are paying property taxes to anyone, or other taxes based on it, or rent , it is not theirs. The hammer that I bought at Home Depot is mine. Nobody can come and take my hammer away after I paid money for it.
Nevada has tried allodial titles but they are largely a sham you basically pay your property taxes ahead, and yes, you can win if you start developing the land quickly, and then don't get into an accident and die somehow.
Basically, the land belongs to those who have the military power to defend it from others who might come and take it. Then that owner leases /doles/rents/sets-up-a-title-system+tax to whoever it wants. This is not different from the Medieval times. It is just wrapped in nice (or not so nice) laws and terms and so on, but at the bottom it is what it always was.
So in some state or countries, government can and will take your land away. Sometimes it will let other come and extract natural resources from it. In some places it will take it and give it to bigger companies to build malls or factories.
> to make this guy's job easier?
The road is not built for this guy to use, it is built for everyone else to use. One can turn that question on its head and say why can't all the citizens drive in a nice straight direct way saving time, gas, money because someone's farm is in the way? Talk about a sense of entitlement...
Whether or not it's BS. The reason why is more simple. The states never really have given people allodial titles to land. I think only Nevada has and it was still limited.
reply