[_heimdall]

To be clear I'm talking about the US here. I actually very much align with the views of some other cultures where land can not be owned at all. I'd much prefer that model, it just isn't what we have today.

> This makes absolutely no sense.

For something to be a right means that we are each entitled to it simply by being human [1]. Free speech, for example, is a right that isn't supposed to be infringed upon regardless of what you say.

Privledges come with strings attached. you have the opportunity to drive a car but not the right to do so. You have to be licensed, you have to pay taxes, you have to register your vehicle, etc. If you don't follow the rules you may lose that privledge.

Many of the US founding fathers wrote extensively about the importance of property rights [2]. They also viewed slaves as property and took land from loyalists after the revolutionary war was over, so by no means am I saying they were perfect. The history of the right to property ownership literally goes back to the creation of our country though.

The right to own property doesn't mean that everyone must own some though, I'm not sure where you're getting that. The government doesn't have to ensure that everyone does own land, only that everyone can own land.

[1] https://helpfulprofessor.com/rights-vs-privileges/ [2] https://www.hillsdale.edu/educational-outreach/free-market-f...

[scott_w]

So let's look at the United States. By your definition, this "property right" is still not fundamental, as Property Tax seems to be a thing. [1]

According to the US Constitution, property is outlined as a right but not inalienable. Clearly it's possible for governments to take property with due process (i.e. a process written down) and they don't mention taxing them at all. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also doesn't mention taxation, so I still don't see how any of this supports your argument that property taxes violate property rights.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax_in_the_United_Sta...

[_heimdall]

> So let's look at the United States. By your definition, this "property right" is still not fundamental, as Property Tax seems to be a thing. [1]

That was actually the core of the original point I was trying to get at, I may have just done a poor job explaining it.

Property ownership should be a fundamental right in my opinion, and at least based on their writing that's an opinion shared by our country's founders.

The existence of property taxes and the state's power to claim eminent domain both show that it isn't treated as a right.

> Clearly it's possible for governments to take property with due process (i.e. a process written down)

Well clearly that is how it is being handled today, but that doesn't mean it should be that way. Though rare, you will occasionally find stories of individuals who's land was taken by the government ad the person is effectively thrown out on their ass. I don't think that should ever be possible, I don't care what the government would like to use the land for.

I actually saw this happen just a few years ago. The cities of Orange Beach and Gulf Shores, aong with the Alabama stage government, were all fighting over where a new bridge to the barrier island should go and who would get to tax it. A plan was drawn up putting the bridge on part of the canal where homes already existed on both sides.

The owners were forced out and given under market rate for the houses. This was in 2017 or so if I remember right, property value there has gone crazy in recent years meaning they also lost all that potential growth in value. Anyway, the legal fight over the bridge ultimately swung a different way and the homes were taken only to sit vacant and abandoned as the bridge is now going elsewhere.

This should never happen in my opinion, plain and simple. If I lawfully own a piece of land and followed all the rules the government shouldn't be able to kick me out and effectively use my land as a piece on a political game board.

[scott_w]

If the founders intended that, they had the opportunity to make that explicit in the constitution. They even reference “due process” so it’s clear they had something in mind. It’s just not what you’re claiming.