Free State Project

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TOAFK hit what I'm trying to get at. You know you own it because you have title to it -- you have a deed. Just because you bought something and someone voluntarily transferred it to you doesn't mean you legitimately own it. Consider a piece of stolen art -- or a stolen car -- that you mistakenly buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever bought a house?

Who insures the validity of that title? Researches the property, and makes sure who you're buing it from is the actual owner, and indemnifies you from any shenanigans? Hint: it's not the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when your title insurance company recognizes there's a question about the validity of the deed in question, where exactly does the case end up? Who is the final arbiter in a dispute, exactly?

And how do the title insurance companies do all that research, anyway? What do they look at?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TOAFK hit what I'm trying to get at. You know you own it because you have title to it -- you have a deed. Just because you bought something and someone voluntarily transferred it to you doesn't mean you legitimately own it. Consider a piece of stolen art -- or a stolen car -- that you mistakenly buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever bought a house?

Who insures the validity of that title? Researches the property, and makes sure who you're buing it from is the actual owner, and indemnifies you from any shenanigans? Hint: it's not the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when your title insurance company recognizes there's a question about the validity of the deed in question, where exactly does the case end up? Who is the final arbiter in a dispute, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does this make? The party that I rely on to guarantee the validity is private. They assume the risk. Who arbitrates is immaterial, and one arbitrator could be substituted for another.

[ QUOTE ]
And how do the title insurance companies do all that research, anyway? What do they look at?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? They're assuming the risk. If they didn't do their research, it's their problem.

NB:

1) dodging the question

2) moving goalposts

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TOAFK hit what I'm trying to get at. You know you own it because you have title to it -- you have a deed. Just because you bought something and someone voluntarily transferred it to you doesn't mean you legitimately own it. Consider a piece of stolen art -- or a stolen car -- that you mistakenly buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever bought a house?

Who insures the validity of that title? Researches the property, and makes sure who you're buing it from is the actual owner, and indemnifies you from any shenanigans? Hint: it's not the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when your title insurance company recognizes there's a question about the validity of the deed in question, where exactly does the case end up? Who is the final arbiter in a dispute, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does this make? The party that I rely on to guarantee the validity is private. They assume the risk. Who arbitrates is immaterial, and one arbitrator could be substituted for another.

[ QUOTE ]
And how do the title insurance companies do all that research, anyway? What do they look at?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? They're assuming the risk. If they didn't do their research, it's their problem.

NB:

1) dodging the question

2) moving goalposts

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the answer to the question of "how do you know you own your property?" is ---> "insurance companies assume the risk of indemnity" and "who cares?".

And I'm dodging the question?

Again, I ask: how do you know you own your property? Saying your title insurance company assumes the risk of indemnity doesn't answer that question. The answer to the question is, of course: you have a deed. But it's just a piece of paper. What gives that paper its meaning? Why will title insurers give you coverage in the first place?

[BluffTHIS!]

DV,

How you know you own it is simple possession in absence of a legitimate counter-claim. The government's recognition or not of that valid possession doesn't confer legitimacy of ownership in itself. And pvn and others can argue that all the functions of government such as recording of deeds and arbitration of disputes, could just as easily be conducted by private concerns, and be more likely as well to be free from corrupt influences.

Government depends on the mutual consent of a majority for its legitimacy, and we and our property don't depend upon it for same.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So, the answer to the question of "how do you know you own your property?" is ---> "insurance companies assume the risk of indemnity"

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. If they're wrong, they're going to lose a crapload of money, and I'll be compensated.

[ QUOTE ]
and "who cares?".

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting words in mouths? "Who cares" is an answer to a more specific question.

If you ask how I obtain a car, and I tell you I get it from a company which specializes in the manufacture of cars, then you ask how they assemble the car, and I say "who cares? I got the car." you would characterize my response to "how do you obtain a car" as "who cares"?

Because that's what you're doing. You took an answer to a question about the mechanics of how a service is provided and applied it to a question about who provides a service.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I ask: how do you know you own your property? Saying your title insurance company assumes the risk of indemnity doesn't answer that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't own the property, they wouldn't indemnify me.

Why do you think title insurance is even provided by the market in the first place? Because (in the US) governments do not provide any *determination* of ownership, or if any transactions are legitimate or not.

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to the question is, of course: you have a deed. But it's just a piece of paper. What gives that paper its meaning?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the deed itself proved ownership, I wouldn't need title insurance, would I?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
DV,

How you know you own it is simple possession in absence of a legitimate counter-claim. The government's recognition or not of that valid possession doesn't confer legitimacy of ownership in itself. And pvn and others can argue that all the functions of government such as recording of deeds and arbitration of disputes, could just as easily be conducted by private concerns, and be more likely as well to be free from corrupt influences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay? That private companies could preform a similar function is irrelevant. The current observable reality is such that:

[ QUOTE ]
What about those of us who understand that the land I currently live on is owned by me and not the government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shake only 'owns' the land in any kind of meaningful way because his title to it is recognized by a central authority -- it's also the reason title insurers will grant him insurance on that title.

"Simple possession" is wonderful standard until all those messy disputes emerge. And that you deny government recognition doesn't confer legitimacy is strange. If you own any real estate, I doubt your title insurance company feels the same way as you do.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If I didn't own the property, they wouldn't indemnify me.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does your title insurance company know you own the property?

Wonderful circular logic on display here: You know you own your property because an insurance company will indemnify it -- but how do they know you own it? Well, they'll offer you indemnity!

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think title insurance is even provided by the market in the first place? Because (in the US) governments do not provide any *determination* of ownership, or if any transactions are legitimate or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "determination"? When your title insurance company wants to *determine* chain of title, where do they go -- you know, all that research you referenced earlier -- what kind of research do they do?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
That private companies could preform a similar function is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not at all. All your arguments here depend upon government providing those functions.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That private companies could preform a similar function is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not at all. All your arguments here depend upon government providing those functions.

[/ QUOTE ]

True or false: the state currently provides the function of storing and authorizing the records which insurance providers rely on, AND the state is the final arbiter when disputes arise.

I'm not asking whether or not a private company could do the same functions -- I know ACists love that question and would very much want to discuss that if possible -- but I'm not talking about hypotheticals and neither was Shake when he notes that he owns his property and the state doesn't. I'm just asking what the current empirical reality is.

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm not disputing what the reality is. But that doesn't change the fact that your arguments fall totally flat if government isn't the one to provide those services. And I don't mean as in there being no government at all, but just a more limited one that farms out as many services as it can when it doesn't have a compelling reason not to.

But all that really isn't necessary either. This question all comes down to whether you really own something only when another person recognizes your ownership, even when no one else is asserting a claim on that object.

And FWIW, me and my 12 guage say I am the arbiter of what I own. Whether I will actually use that 12 guage to defend an article of my property depends upon how much I value it versus the likely risks of protecting same.