The postmaster has no property rights over the post office. The forest ranger has no property rights over the forests. The traffic cop has no property rights to the roads. The president has no property rights over "Area 51"(nor do any of his military goons) . Nor do any government employees have any authority to administer the property rights of government, because those rights don't exist. Period. Government property is stolen property and does not belong to the thief or his gang, nor their descendants. It is No Man's Land.
That doesn't mean government enforcers won't murder or kidnap you if you violate those imaginary government property rights, or any terms thereof, but when they do, it is an unvarnished murder or kidnapping. It is exactly like if a crook broke into your house, claimed it as his own, and then killed you when you returned home. So be careful of government thugs enforcing their deadly delusions.
.
I agree on the legitimacy issue, I must ask though does Coca-Cola, Inc. have legitimate property rights do you think?
ReplyDeleteHow about if they buy the property from the government?
I really don't know.
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head I would say that since a corporation is a government-created fiction, then no. But a private business would. A business that has property rights wouldn't lose them just because they incorporated, and I don't think there are extra property rights that go along with incorporating. But I'm probably wrong about that. So, I guess I would change my initial knee-jerk reaction to a "yes".
Buying the property from the government is a whole other animal. The right thing to do in that case would be to find the individual who had the property stolen from them by government, and pay them the market value of the property. But, since government has stolen all the property in the world (as evidenced by property "taxes") it gets complicated. Even the corporation doesn't own the property since they will have it taken away if the property "taxes" aren't paid. At some point you have to just clean the slate and start over, refusing to do the wrong thing from this moment on.
How a corporation should work is a handy way of transferring property titles when CEOs change.
ReplyDeleteAll the titles will refer to the CEO or the shareholders in general, rather than specific individuals...but of course there is/are (a) specific individual(s) who is the CEO or are the shareholders, and those concrete individuals would be morally responsible for all the consequences of the contracts.
In other words, when Coke breaks the law, instead of trying (pretending) to take the mental construct 'Coke' to court, they'd take the concrete person, the CEO, to court.
Shockingly, giving someone lots of power and stripping them of accountability doesn't work out so hot.
There's a nice 90 acre spot in the Manistee National Forest I like to visit. Would it be moral to just squat on it and claim ownership based on occupancy and productive use? I don't see how I could buy from the USFS even if I wanted to in that their title is suspect.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure morality has anything to do with it, but you wouldn't be stealing from anyone. However, as I have pointed out in the past- it isn't always a good idea to do what you have a right to do. And you are right, the government doesn't have a legitimate title to the land so they can't ethically sell it.
ReplyDeleteI have known people who did almost the exact same thing as you describe- minus the laying claim part. They just lived there on "government land" and tried to not be discovered. Sometimes it works.
If you can just go live there without anybody noticing, they obviously don't care enough to stop you - even if there was a legitimate owner. In this case, it's just a matter of time until someone squats there, (if there's any good reason to,) might as well make that person yourself.
ReplyDelete