I hate this argument. "Property", as in land ownership, does not exist outside of the State. You "own" land only by the consent of society. Conceptually, land ownership is inseparable from the State.
Believing that the concept of owning property is inseparable from a government that defines property and resolves property disputes doesn't make me un-American. Sheesh.
Let's stop pretending that the 18th century understanding of society transcends time just because this nation happened to be founded at that particular era.
All you have shown is that we as people are flawed, even when the truth is right there in front of us.
Try not paying the taxes on it. See how long you "own" it.
It doesn't mean take your land without compensation. It means take your land whether you like it or not, for fair market compensation.
Humans would do the same thing, except now we have outsourced the violence to the state. Instead of peeing on trees to mark our property, the state keeps a registry of property owners. Instead of physically fighting with intruders, we call the law enforcement arm of the state.
The concept of property or territory you control exists apart from the state.
I can shoot you, and then your land becomes mine, by "natural right". Is this really the hill you want to die on?
Feudal society, maybe.
Because again, that's what you're arguing.
And you say "do you believe anything is made morally right when the State does it", but what you mean is "do you believe everything is morally right when the State does it". So you're turning bad phrasing into a bad argument. I can think that some things, even most things that the State does are good, without being universal. This includes eminent domain, which is a social good but must be applied carefully, on a case-by-case basis.
Absolutism is the second core failing of libertarianism, after the absurd ideas of "natural rights".
What the State does depends on which State. You would probably agree that what the State does in Venezuela is atrocious, but of course pales in comparison to what State has done historically in other countries.
So by what principle do you judge whether a particular thing the State does is good or bad?
States that behave atrociously toward their citizens tend to fall victim to revolution, sooner or later. Constitutional democracies, where "consent of the governed" has some real teeth, tend to be stable and avoid violent revolutions, because the need for social change can be handled via the ballot box.
But in terms of State injustice, we're talking about matters of degree, not absolutes. If you're saying that any injustice invalidates the State, you fail, because as long as the State is working pretty well for the majority (as it usually does), then the complaints of the few will just be seen as complaining, not cause for revolution.
Hence, eminent domain. It works pretty well for most people, who see direct benefit in terms of, say, new transportation systems.
Okay, so if the absense of State would prove to work for the majority of people (which seems to be your criterion), you would support a State-free society?
That said, a State-free society would necessarily be a property-free society. We need the State in order to have the records and the courts to resolve disputes over property ownership.
Paradoxically, I don’t believe an anarchist society could work without private property rights. And if you are familiar with anarchist thought, you are probably also aware of and have considered the arguments for privatizing courts and so on, so I won’t bore you with that.
It’s speculative, of course, but “well they voted for it” is not necessarily cause for “well we’ll force out landowners with a fair market value price”. These are often someone’s homes — places for families, their memories, and their sense of pride and security — for which fair market value does not fully appreciate.
I cannot fathom disagreeing with anything more than I disagree with your post.
It's a novel concept, really.
Obviously, if you like the idea of a powerful nation-state, you can try any number of other experiments, elsewhere. Those nations do not even try to veneer their actions with the consent of their populace.
I'm not laughing.
Neither are you, right?
When things become unacceptable, we can elect legislators to change the laws and make them acceptable again. I don't hear a cry to end eminent domain in our elections, or see anyone in Congress making any effort in that direction. That's consent of the governed.
Eminent domain nevertheless has not been "long okay," it has been hotly contested in every case.
That doesn't sound like "society is okay with it," unless you were on the take.
One could say society in general is "on the take". Which gets back to my contention that your "property" is yours only by the consent of everyone else.
I'm saying you are, which is why you contest that my property is not mine.
That's a pretty narrow, twisty way of defining property, and it's not upheld by US case law.
Acknowledge? Yes. We gave them all the guns.
Accept? Consent to? Absolutely not. I despise the status quo and want to see my children grow up in a more free society than what we're living in now. Unfortunately things have consistently gone in the wrong direction and I seem to be in the minority of people not okay with that, but I'll still do what I can as one man.