Nobody in the US, and indeed most of the world, "owns" their property. Try not paying your property taxes, and see where that gets you. You lease the right to usus, mostly fructus, and to some extent abusus from the state.

False, much of Alaska has no property tax.

Fair enough. I have looked into this before and that exception has not come up before. Let's say roughly 99.7%+ of people, then.

Where does title revert if you die intestate and with no next of kin?

It goes to probate like any other property.

I feel that this is a misleading. Property taxes are not leases on property but simply a disincentive to hoarding unused land.

Maybe in theory, but functionally it is the same. You don't pay your property taxes, you get a lien, and can eventually, in extreme circumstances, be foreclosed on.

I do not understand your point, really. Obviously, from a legal standpoint, ownership exists. But you say, no, no, no, that's not _reaaaal_ ownership, since I have to pay property taxes.

When most people talk about ownership, when the law talks about ownership, it exists, and I think that is enough for it to exist.

That's okay, it requires some knowledge of rather niche economic philosophies. I'd suggest reading into some philosophy of property, labor, and ownership. Specifically in the right-libertarian and left-anarchist traditions. Start with John Locke and Adam Smith, then move into thinkers such as Marx, Proudhon, George (Henry, of Georgism fame), Nozick, Rothbard, and writers on similar topics.

LVT is a disincentive to hoarding land. Property taxes are incentive to tear buildings on used land down.

This is a great example of how framing makes a big difference.

If I used the same framing, I would say LVT are an incentive to tear down the land (introduce toxic waste, endangered species that can't legally be disturbed, etc).

Or I could say Property taxes are a disincentive to hoarding buildings.

Even if you consider property tax that is legally false.

I'm not sure if you even understood what you're replying to, since this is pointlessly contrarian.

"legally" is an acknowledgement that the ownership is conditional on someone else who has authority about the ownership (ie the practical owner).

This is a reasonable point of view, in theory.

Even then that would mean that the state would have a voice, not the neighbors.

No, you don't own the property. Under what coherent system of thought could you possibly own something that was there before humans existed and will be there after humans are gone, and which you did nothing to create or maintain? Property ownership is a societal construct that we agree to use to improve our lives together. If it's not serving our needs we can change it.

Sure, the name of the social construct is ownership. Therefore, you own it. Because of the social construct.

That is no different from ownership of anything else, including one’s own body. The government has an interest in property and may tax it, but how is that different from auto registration, income tax, or any other tax liability? Someone can be imprisoned for daily to pay income tax, but the government doesn’t own their job or work.

I don't know how it works where you live but I spend an insane amount of my time maintaining my property.

You maintain the property to make it suitable for your needs. But if you didn't "maintain" it, nothing would actually happen to it. It would still be completely usable in 1 million years.

Sure, I don't expect to still own it in one million years.

You will own nothing and be happy /s

>Do I own the property or not?

Yes, for the duration that you (and your crew) can defend it.