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

it doesn't have to stem from a third mediator

it does

otherwise it has no meaning nor validity

it's only possession

Because June the money comes from the citizens.

not o wnership

no it doesn't it comes from banks

And where did they get it exactly??

a key element is the role of force

they create money digitally

if you possess something and i am bigger and stronger... i can just TAKE it

yeah