[Joker_vD]

I imagine the state sees the land as their property, which private individuals don't, strictly speaking, own but merely hold infinite lease on (land tax = rent price, eminent domain = one-side lease termination with compensation, etc). This legal philosophy arguably makes some theoretical sense but has rather unpalatable practical consequences.

[JumpCrisscross]

> imagine the state sees the land as their property, which private individuals don't, strictly speaking, own but merely hold infinite lease on

No. The officer trespassed. Burglars aren't promulgating an alternate legal foundation of ownership, they're just jacking your shit.

[riskable]

It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. "Ownership" is a tradeoff: Individuals get to do what they want (for the most part) with the land and also get protection by the state against crimes/disasters (e.g. fire) that occur within that property while the state gets tax revenue.

If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state.

In this legal case the state is policing their water/fish on behalf of all the other property owners in the area as well as anyone that would benefit from said water/fish (downstream impacts, as it were).

[JumpCrisscross]

> It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders.

You're confusing ownership with control. Ownership grants but does not guarantee control [1].

Countries nominally control the territory within their borders. In this case, the state is also legally entitled to certain rights pertaining to the water. (Similar to how a homeowner is entitled to certain rights pertaining to their property.)

Neither the U.S. nor Pennsylvania purport to own freeheld private property. That means they aren't entitled to it. And aren't entitled to exercise unlimited control over it. If the answer is well it's only pieces of paper that delineate that divide, then sure, but it's only pieces of paper that delineate a state's border.

> If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state

Again, control. In many monarchies, the monarch controls a legal entity that owns the lands of the state. Or is the legal represenative of a deity who is the legal owner.

[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780333983898_3

[falcolas]

It's not even ownership. Not when the government can take back your property for virtually any reason.

It's a bit of a sore spot for me, when the local city tried to condemn my parent's land for $30k - less than a quarter of what they paid for it back in the 70's.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It's not even ownership. Not when the government can take back your property for virtually any reason

As you observed, ownership is never absolute. It's a social construct. Evertyhing from squatters' rights to condemnation by public officials to private foreclosure show that.