Re:Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy
by yellowapple on Tuesday June 21, 2022 @04:34AM
(#31821682)
> So in that case would a drug cartel that excludes the government from enforcing its sovereignty over a piece of land be recognizable as a state?
It ain't a matter of recognizability. It's a matter of function and action - and in both of those senses, a drug cartel is a state.
> not all fiefdoms were states
All landed fiefdoms entailed a monopoly on violence over their geographic territories a.k.a. land, be it directly (by raising their own armies) or indirectly (by relying on a superior lord to whom they swore fealty). All such fiefdoms were either states outright or parts of larger states. You're literally the first person I've encountered who claims otherwise - and I've met a lot of people with very diverse perspectives on European medieval history.
> Well you dropped the due process provision I put in there.
Because it's irrelevant. That the State has constrained its own powers to revoke land deeds does not change the rather basic fact that private ownership of land is fundamentally derived from and dependent upon the state and its monopoly on violence.
You still haven't answered my question: in the absence of the state, who enforces your piece of paper claiming some portion of land to be yours? By what obligation do I have to respect it?
> there isn’t a step where the State steps in and says “I approve this transfer”.
There are actually many such steps. At the bare minimum, the local courthouse usually needs to sign and notarize the new deed. There's also typically a rather hefty stack of documents for (among other things) various state and local requirements.
> Maybe it was originally a State grant, but the State forfeited it’s rights with the transfer.
No, the State pinky-promised that it wouldn't revoke the privilege of land "ownership" except under certain conditions. Laws can and do change.
It ain't a matter of recognizability. It's a matter of function and action - and in both of those senses, a drug cartel is a state.
> not all fiefdoms were states
All landed fiefdoms entailed a monopoly on violence over their geographic territories a.k.a. land, be it directly (by raising their own armies) or indirectly (by relying on a superior lord to whom they swore fealty). All such fiefdoms were either states outright or parts of larger states. You're literally the first person I've encountered who claims otherwise - and I've met a lot of people with very diverse perspectives on European medieval history.
> Well you dropped the due process provision I put in there.
Because it's irrelevant. That the State has constrained its own powers to revoke land deeds does not change the rather basic fact that private ownership of land is fundamentally derived from and dependent upon the state and its monopoly on violence.
You still haven't answered my question: in the absence of the state, who enforces your piece of paper claiming some portion of land to be yours? By what obligation do I have to respect it?
> there isn’t a step where the State steps in and says “I approve this transfer”.
There are actually many such steps. At the bare minimum, the local courthouse usually needs to sign and notarize the new deed. There's also typically a rather hefty stack of documents for (among other things) various state and local requirements.
> Maybe it was originally a State grant, but the State forfeited it’s rights with the transfer.
No, the State pinky-promised that it wouldn't revoke the privilege of land "ownership" except under certain conditions. Laws can and do change.