Comments Elsewhere

Scott:

Yes, and, to the second question, since 1787 at the very least.

Let’s say the government does something completely unheard-of in world history, like, say, passing a law declaring that henceforward the government will be the rightful owner of all the means of production, and authorizes the use of force to seize the factories, mines, mills, farms, etc. It seems that on your theory, since the government said they now have property rights over all the means of production, they do own all the means of production; and the use of armed force to seize them is not plunder but rather using defensive force to recover what they own.

Is this actually entailed by your position?

If so, in what way are you actually opposed to state Communism?

If not, what’s the relevant difference that makes the government able to conjure property rights in your scenario but not in mine?