Property is a gift of the government

[Хahar 🤔]

I live on a plot of land that my parents bought about a decade ago. The first house on this plot was built about fifty years ago; prior to that, it was an orchard. At some point between 1850 and 1950, the orchard was first developed, on land acquired from the government. Thus, this land, my parents' property, derives from the government. The story is similar for all property. This does not apply solely to land, as products which derive in some way from the land (i.e. all products) owe their existence to the land, and thus to the government.

There is no fundamental right to property that goes beyond the government.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Not that I altogether disagree with your premise, but isn't that ultimately only because the government had gotten there first? If they had hypothetically wandered into the land & developed the land without outside intervention, it would make little sense to claim that it had anything to do with any form of government.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I was expecting this thread to have been started by Opebo. I, frankly, must disagree. If I work my ass off at my job, and at the end, I have a house and a car, why is that the government's? Just because the government got there first doesn't mean that someone else can't have it. Government doesn't just let you have the property at their mercy, your right to property is what the government is bound to respect, and that was made clear by our Founding Fathers, who said somethign to the affect that "These rights are not created by government however, government must protect them, we believe they are handed down by God." Granted, I am paraphrasing, and I know that that is nowhere near the exact quote, but I know I heard something like that from the Constitution, the DoI, or the writings of one of the Foundign Fathers.

[Beet]

Isn't this sort of an existential question? I mean, according to the rules of property, the fact that the land was given by the government means the government no longer owns it, and therefore you have a fundamental right to it. Your assertion is that property itself is a gift of the government makes no sense because the word "gift" is defined in relation to the word "property", whereas here you are trying to define "property" in relation to "gift". What you end up with is a circular chain of logic.

This premise does sound opeboish.

[Mint]

You're not half as smart as you think you are for having thought of this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

    Not that I altogether disagree with your premise, but isn't that ultimately only because the government had gotten there first? If they had hypothetically wandered into the land & developed the land without outside intervention, it would make little sense to claim that it had anything to do with any form of government.

The government didn't get there first.  Native Americans likely got there first and laid claim to it... which was then forcibly taken by the U.S. government through a brutally racist expansionary policy.

It would have been no better had we allowed private settlers to lay claim to the land.. or somehow "purchase it" "fairly" from the natives.

But Xahar is right.  You are ultimately paying the government to have the privilege of certain rights on the property upon which you live.  The government has every right to take your property (though they must "fairly" compensate you for it).  And if you don't like it... well, there's probably some property on the moon or Mars that isn't owned yet.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

 And if you don't like it... well, there's probably some property on the moon or Mars that isn't owned yet.

Sooooo......When will this property be up for sale?

[Mint]

Nah, a desire to protect your established property claims is what leads TO the state not the other way around. Even without it people would still claim certain plots for themselves... Just nowhere near as peacefully or efficiently (IMO anyway, although I'd hate to test that out).

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nah, a desire to protect your established property claims is what leads TO the state not the other way around. Even without it people would still claim certain plots for themselves... Just nowhere near as peacefully or efficiently (IMO anyway, although I'd hate to test that out).

It's a necessary mutual relationship.  Without the state, enforcement of your property rights would come down to you, or some thug you could pay to protect it.  But the state is the entity in the U.S. that allowed individuals to own property.  This property was not staked out by individuals and then later enforced by a new state.  It was the state that secured the property and then sold it to individuals.

Obviously it's different in other places on earth, but that's how it worked in the U.S.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Not that I altogether disagree with your premise, but isn't that ultimately only because the government had gotten there first? If they had hypothetically wandered into the land & developed the land without outside intervention, it would make little sense to claim that it had anything to do with any form of government.

The government didn't get there first.  Native Americans likely got there first and laid claim to it... which was then forcibly taken by the U.S. government through a brutally racist expansionary policy.

It would have been no better had we allowed private settlers to lay claim to the land.. or somehow "purchase it" "fairly" from the natives.

But Xahar is right.  You are ultimately paying the government to have the privilege of certain rights on the property upon which you live.  The government has every right to take your property (though they must "fairly" compensate you for it).  And if you don't like it... well, there's probably some property on the moon or Mars that isn't owned yet.

     I meant first as in relation to its current owners. Obviously they were not actually the first people to possess that land. Sorry for being unclear there.

[dead0man]

Isn't this sort of an existential question? I mean, according to the rules of property, the fact that the land was given by the government means the government no longer owns it, and therefore you have a fundamental right to it. Your assertion is that property itself is a gift of the government makes no sense because the word "gift" is defined in relation to the word "property", whereas here you are trying to define "property" in relation to "gift". What you end up with is a circular chain of logic.

This premise does sound opeboish.

Agreed in full.

You're not half as smart as you think you are for having thought of this.

Obviously.

Yes, the govt has godlike control over all the land within it's borders.  If they need the land and can prove that need in a court of law (or if need be, at the end of a gun), they can do whatever the hell they want on private property.  Yours, mine or Ted Turner's.  Noting this is like noting the sky is blue.  Good job.  Next week can you explain to us that water is wet?

[patrick1]

Nah, a desire to protect your established property claims is what leads TO the state not the other way around. Even without it people would still claim certain plots for themselves... Just nowhere near as peacefully or efficiently (IMO anyway, although I'd hate to test that out).

It's a necessary mutual relationship.  Without the state, enforcement of your property rights would come down to you, or some thug you could pay to protect it.  But the state is the entity in the U.S. that allowed individuals to own property.  This property was not staked out by individuals and then later enforced by a new state.  It was the state that secured the property and then sold it to individuals.

Obviously it's different in other places on earth, but that's how it worked in the U.S.

Many of my ancestors were pioneers in Western North Carolina and Tennessee.  They settled land well before there was government in place.  Local governments were formed to protect those claims against natives or to adjudicate disputes over land claims. Further, in many parts of the American west individuals were claiming land well before there was a government in place.  Government often became involved only when these people were attacked. Even the mechanism to become a state is based on the number of people and by extension their property and a state government was formed when certain thresholds were met.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

If you want to believe that, go ahead, let the government do what it wants with its own property that you've been occupying.

Don't presume to speak for the rest of us though.

[opebo]

Precisely, Xahar, though I would go further and state that property is a privilege granted by the government - an actual power over other less privileged people.

[k-onmmunist]

Without government, your property is my property.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Without government, your property is my property.

Not if I bash your head in with an oak branch.

I love caveman politics.  It's exhilarating.

[WillK]

...   Government doesn't just let you have the property at their mercy ...

Who verifies the car is yours?  Government.
You have "title" to the car because the Government issued that title to you. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was said about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Property is not a right, its a legal construct.

[Lief 🗽]

Property isn't necessarily a gift of government, at least not in the way you're saying it is, but you're right that property (and especially the so-called "right to property") does not exist without the state.

[dead0man]

...   Government doesn't just let you have the property at their mercy ...

Who verifies the car is yours?  Government.
You have "title" to the car because the Government issued that title to you. 

True, but you can own an untitled car, you just can't drive it on govt maintained roads.  Just like you can drive a car without a license you just can't do it on govt maintained road.

[WillK]

...   Government doesn't just let you have the property at their mercy ...

Who verifies the car is yours?  Government.
You have "title" to the car because the Government issued that title to you. 

True, but you can own an untitled car....

The Government is still the judge of whether the car is owned by you or by someone else.  You only "own" it becuase the government supports your claim.

[dead0man]

True.

[Associate Justice PiT]

...   Government doesn't just let you have the property at their mercy ...

Who verifies the car is yours?  Government.
You have "title" to the car because the Government issued that title to you. 

True, but you can own an untitled car....

The Government is still the judge of whether the car is owned by you or by someone else.  You only "own" it becuase the government supports your claim.

     Indeed, because rights without an apparatus to enforce those rights are little more than an intellectual exercise. People often talk about the rights that one has when really they mean the rights that one ought to have. I might think that people should have the right to buy whatever they want (that the owner of that item is willing to sell to them) without paying an additional surcharge to the government, but as long as the policymakers disagree with me then clearly that right has no existence in the reality of my society.

[Gustaf]

That doesn't really make any sense at all in the context of property rights theory. (which is presumably what it would want to go against)

Besides, "all property derives from land"? That's at least disputable.

[minionofmidas]

A gift? Ah right, the Homestead Act.

[minionofmidas]

    Not that I altogether disagree with your premise, but isn't that ultimately only because the government had gotten there first? If they had hypothetically wandered into the land & developed the land without outside intervention, it would make little sense to claim that it had anything to do with any form of government.

The government didn't get there first.  Native Americans likely got there first and laid claim to it... which was then forcibly taken by the U.S. government through a brutally racist expansionary policy.

It's in California. The US government forcibly took it from the Mexican government, then paid a pittance for it afterwards. Of course, Mexico (or rather, New Spain) had previously laid claim to it without paying the Indians anything or even recognizing their rights... which means the US merely bought one of several competing claims to the property in 1848. (Would need to look up how and why these issues came to be officially considered settled in California's case, though I'm pretty sure they are. Unlike in southwestern SD. )