In the UK, the Queen has more territory than the government does despite them running the country.

but property loses all meaning when it comes to government

i don't see why the government being an entity that defends its own property, and thus not being subject to a higher sovereign authority, renders that null

well for one, the queen is part of the government, and two, even if we delineated between them i don't think that's true

ownership cannot exist without a central authority that administers the titles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OrsgFUBxIk

I don't think you understand the definition of sovereignty.

i.e. possession is 9/10ths of the law

of course it can, because an owner can defend their own claim

the gov OCCUPIES territory

it doesn't own it

it has possession of it

this is distinction without a difference

No.

It's bearly a distinction

it has custody of land until someone offers to buy that land within the country

it's an important distinction

because one sets the bounds which govern the nature of the exchange

Also the government has no money of it's own. This fact should be obvious to the public.

even when you buy land the government still owns the territory its on, you land that you "own" is subject to whatever rules the government, the owner of the territory, decides on

in the second example, this isn't possible

Oh for gods sake

Why do commies use same brain dead argumenta every time

ikr

Except if you own a patch of land you can legally speaking sue the government for trespassing on it.

Guys everything is ultimately communism so stop resisting communism

because they've decided on that rule

This is literally what they think

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

well i'm not a communist and i'm not saying everything is communism so

again, as i explained before with the old Soviet party, the gov owned nothing. BUT they CONTROLLED everything

It's exactly what you are saying

the government did not own nothing

i'm just saying that governments own territory

control/custody/possession is NOT ownership

The entire concept of law protecting civilians and companies from government

A little hard to own something without having their own money don't you think??

Is distinctly anti communist

because ownership stems from a neutral, mediating third party

i don't even know what that means

how do they not have their own money