It’s not about ability to tax, it’s about ability to sieze. If the government didn’t own your land, then taking it without your permission would be theft. Since it isn’t theft if they take your land without your permission, it stands to reason that they own it. You don’t own the property, you own a piece of paper saying you’re allowed to live and build there.
If I own something I can put it to any lawful use without restriction or compensation. Neither taxation nor seizure for failure to pay taxes are anything like ownership.
Your mental picture fails to encompass the nuance which indeed isn’t particularly subtle.
“If I own something I can put it to any lawful use without restriction or compensation.”
This also applies to my rental property, because it would be unlawful for me to use it in a way that violates my lease. If someone else gets to tell you what you can and can’t do with your property, is it really your property? Whether that’s because you signed a contract saying “I won’t grow pot here,” or you live in a region where local authorities can simply declare that you aren’t allowed to grow pot there, I don’t see the meaningful distinction. Of course, the concept of ownership is an ill-defined social construct to begin with, so this kind of disagreement is irreconcilable. We simply have different ideas of what defines “ownership.”
As such, whether a vampire cop can enter your property using a warrant depends on whether the vampire understands it to be permission. QED
No, the “entire planet” has decided that states ultimately own your property–and you, since you don’t have absolute, individual bodily autonomy–and we use an incorrect shorthand in the way we verbally talk about property rights.
It’s not about ability to tax, it’s about ability to sieze. If the government didn’t own your land, then taking it without your permission would be theft. Since it isn’t theft if they take your land without your permission, it stands to reason that they own it. You don’t own the property, you own a piece of paper saying you’re allowed to live and build there.
If I own something I can put it to any lawful use without restriction or compensation. Neither taxation nor seizure for failure to pay taxes are anything like ownership.
Your mental picture fails to encompass the nuance which indeed isn’t particularly subtle.
“If I own something I can put it to any lawful use without restriction or compensation.”
This also applies to my rental property, because it would be unlawful for me to use it in a way that violates my lease. If someone else gets to tell you what you can and can’t do with your property, is it really your property? Whether that’s because you signed a contract saying “I won’t grow pot here,” or you live in a region where local authorities can simply declare that you aren’t allowed to grow pot there, I don’t see the meaningful distinction. Of course, the concept of ownership is an ill-defined social construct to begin with, so this kind of disagreement is irreconcilable. We simply have different ideas of what defines “ownership.”
As such, whether a vampire cop can enter your property using a warrant depends on whether the vampire understands it to be permission. QED
The entire planet understands what ownership means you are basically alone in misunderstanding
No, the “entire planet” has decided that states ultimately own your property–and you, since you don’t have absolute, individual bodily autonomy–and we use an incorrect shorthand in the way we verbally talk about property rights.