I don't care that you think it has holes in it.
"I don't care that my opponent clearly showed that my argument doesn't work"
Thanks for telling the world you don't argue honestly.
Look, if you say that once a thief sells your property, you don't own it anymore, your system has a ton more problems than you think mine has.
Moral argument: I say it is anarcho-tyranny and that makes it immoral.
Happy?
See, now we are getting somewhere, only that's a shit moral argument and you know it. What makes it anarcho tyranny other than you saying so? You've introduced a term, you now need to define anarcho tyranny, and explain why a) what I've described fits your definition, and b) what you describe is morally bad. I think you can only do one of a or b.
I know what a legal argument is.
You've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know when to use one though. You kept bringing them up for some reason, so I felt you needed a refresher course.
Basically, when we are engaged in a moral question, such as "what are property rights", you citing a legal opinion doesn't work.
Now we can stop beating around the bush that minutia of property law are generally more based on politics and practicality than on direct moral arguments, moral systems generally don't concern themselves with whether a 5% property tax rate is more moral than 6% but with flexible yearly, monthly or quarterly payment scheme, and also whether property abandonment should be something that can be fully pulled off without involving the sovereign into it and in a timeframe that makes it a bit of a viable and safe criminal enterprise.
Run on sentence much? Honestly, as best as I can tell about the bold part, you are asking to have a debate based on practicality and what policy should be, instead of a moral debate?
That's, frankly, a request I'm going to deny. First, once we open a policy argument, we'd need to agree on what a good policy is. Are we judging based on some form of utilitarianism? But usually, policy is based on some underlying moral belief (like that it is wrong to homestead). And since we disagree on the morality of the action, any policy debate needs to resolve the moral debate first. The only time a policy debate really matters is between two people that share a moral understanding, when they are curious about how to best implement that moral.
This is why I keep asking for a moral argument, because your constant appeals to government or policy are frankly a waste of everyone's time. You alslo don't understand that policy
For one if the property is being regularly traded, then claiming it's forgotten, abandoned and no one cares about it is kinda in conflict with reality - if someone goes through the effort to buy it, then someone indeed cares about having it.
What if most of the persons involved were nuclear industry businessmen, who were all owning this plot of land as a huge extended safety buffer zone for a nearby nuclear fuel processing company? After all, that land was cheap, unimproved, why not own it just in case, would save the company owner a huge headache if something happens, and so as company owners changed, the extended safety zone was sold too.
For hundreds of years no leak reached that zone because they have a multi-layered safety system and know how to use it.
But one day it does happen, and turns out the groundwater under the mansion is so radioactive a sip will probably kill you. The mansion guy's lawn, prized cherry tree and horse are dying. If he drinks well water, he is dying too.
Yes, there was a no warning sign. 500 years ago. But local youths kept stealing them so they stopped replacing those 490 years ago.
Legally the safety zone doesn't need to be so big so no strict regulations on marking apply, but the businessmen are prudent to own it anyway.
The issue with this analogy is that the land
is being put to use by the nuclear power people. It's being used as possible pollution containment. In general, a person needs to demonstrate exclusive use over the land to adversely possess it, which the occupants cannot do here, as the original owner is taking advantage of the property rights.
This is in contrast with my requirement of "not using the land."
When land is just being held, say, in the middle of a city, by someone who frankly doesn't care about it, then we have adverse possession. And in fact, this doesn't usually hit small homeowners for a house, but instead hits banks who own a foreclosed property. I suspect it is very common for banks in Detroit, for example. To the effect that it hits small homeowners, usually that's simply a moved/wrongly put down property marker, and results in the taking of a small strip of land that was wrongly mislabeled, not the whole house.
Of course if we aren't larping post-apocalypse or pulling some other sovereign citizen crap then at least some of the people buying and selling must have paid taxes, notarized records and so on, to a local government of some sort, so it's a completely unreal scenario meant to excuse laws that in practice are just a fuck you to absentee owners, especially small time ones.
So some local smartasses out to do that decided, why not try it. Cool real estate, it's great. No one ever shows up for taxes or paperwork, neighbors are jealous and want to know how that can be arranged. But i don't know why, don't care, it's better to not know.
In a functioning state, when the would be mansion owner's ancestors were applying for a construction permit for the mansion, or were trying to pay taxes for that property, the representative of local government should have said wait a minute, it's not your land, wtf are you doing. No, you can't claim it, it's not the Wild West. We have a recorded owner, he even pays taxes and left a mailing address. No, he doesn't need to justify himself to you regarding how he's using his land. If you want we can write him a letter about you, he will probably reply that you should fuck off and he wants the time and money spent replying to the letter back.
Another argument based on obeying a legal system HAHAHAHA goddamn you just can't stop doing this. Look, I'll tell you again, I frankly don't care what the state was doing, or who paid taxes to it. Come back with
