[jimkleiber]

You say that the government should never be able to take away land from us that we own. But what if they take away the services that guarantee other people don't take away that land from us?

In that way, they're not taking the land, they're just ceasing to provide police officers, judges, courts, etc., to ensure no one else takes the land.

I think I agree with you in theory, that if we own it, we own it, and yet I think "owning" something is a social construct protected by institutions doing services.

It almost seems like the debate in software where companies have often shifted to subscription SaaS models and customers want to be able to own the software outright. And customers say they don't want updates, but often they still want security updates and for as long as the product exists, which is an ongoing service software companies provide, not so dissimilar to services governments might provide to protect land.

In other words, if I buy a plot of land, does that entitle me to 10 years of someone defending my land borders? 100? 1,000? And if not and i have to defend those borders myself, do we really have government property rights or lots of individuals with guns saying who owns which property?

I dont think it HAS to be paid with property taxes, but i also dont think the concept of infinite ownership makes sense either.

[_heimdall]

Are governments really protecting our land borders in that situation though, or protecting their monopoly such that they are the only ones who can take it from us? Governments can absolutely protect our borders, my only issue is that it should be universal and governments should also be ensuring that even they can't strip us of land that we own based on the existing laws and social contracts that are fundamental to our society.

I totally agree that land ownership is propped up on by social contracts, and that we have institutions meant to enforce those contract. I'd be okay with getting rid of land ownership entirely if it also meant getting rid of all those centralized powers that are supposed to defend it but sometimes do the opposite.

[jimkleiber]

Because of what you said, I'm starting to think about human rights and how governments also provide services to protect citizens from others and yet, if I don't pay any tax as a citizen, often the government still provides those services to me, because it's not just for my benefit but the benefit of the community.

So I wonder if this is kinda what you meant about still guaranteeing those rights as property as well.

And also, if i understand correct, youre saying that you just want the governments to abide by the social contracts and laws that exist to protect these land rights, not revoke them, correct?

I think i may really enjoy a proper conversation with you about this and I struggle sometimes in these long HN chains to learn and reply.