Private Property is not recognized by the United States Government.

First, to address what seems to be the primary point of contention. What defines control over property? In the last round he states "The U.S. government first of all cannot simply come in and invade or seize your property without probable cause or reasonable need.". While this is true, it does not refute my argument, for two very simple reasons. First, the government defines what probable cause or reasonable need is. Therefore, those concepts are no restriction at all on its power, because the government is the ultimate arbiter of when those apply. Second, this admits the fact that the government has the power to take property, at its whim. Irregardless of whether or not is chooses to restrict its own actions, the fact remains that it has this power legally. When that is true, restrictions it places on itself are irrelevant, because it still reserves the right to violate private property. Now to address the specific restrictions. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Last round my opponent said "First let's address probable cause. If your house is subjected to a search warrant, it means that you have either done something or are accused of doing something that would endanger the lives and property of others. Let's say you have a rocket launcher in your home. The government is recognizing that you have control of your property, but your control over your property does not extend to having items that could harm others. In other words, until your actions infringe or have the extreme potential to infringe upon the private property of others, you have control over your property. Does this mean you have no control? No. As a property owner in the U.S., you are expected to adhere to the rules laid out by the U.S. Government, and should you break them, your rights may be temporarily or permanently forfeit. A good analogy would be purchasing a car outright. To drive it, it must be registered, and if you rack up too many DUI's, it can be confiscated, but since it was your failure to follow the rules that led to your loss of control, it cannot be said that until it was confiscated you did not have control over it. This argument is an inherent contradiction. My opponent states that government recognizes your control of your property, but also that that control does not extend to having items which could harm others. If the government actually recognized your control of your property, they would not have the power to affect things which occur on your property. So at the point where they can restrict those things, the owner does not have true control of the property, because if he misbehaves, it will be confiscated. Once again we see that the government is the true controller of the property, because they have the ability to enforce their will upon that property. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the last round my opponent stated "The Eminent Domain Clause is a bit trickier, but I still believe that I am correct in my original statement. However, I will provide further basis for my claim. So again you have a house that this time let's say is where a police station is going to go. In order for the government to recognize and protect the vast majority of properties in the area, it needs somewhere to go, and so it begins the legal process to obtain your property. You have the option of fighting it in court, where you could be successful, or acquiescing and taking the money. Either way however, your refusal to sell endangers the lives and properties of those who would be protected by the police station. Directly or indirectly your actions always infringe to a degree on the private properties of others, which leads to the state invading or taking your property." This argument assumes several things. First, it assumes that your land is the only possible place that a police station could be placed, and that there are no other properties anywhere near your land which are for sale, or where the owner would be willing to sell. Second, it assumes that without a police station, the neighborhood will be destroyed by crime. Thirdly, it assumes that, because you have refused to help others (using a very loose definition of the word help) that you are somehow responsible when someone else decides to violate their property rights. Until these assumptions are justified, then the actions of the land owner do not infringe on others property rights, and the state is therefore not justified in removing the owners property rights. The fact that it can do so without that justification means that it is the government which has true control over the property, as explicated above. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Finally my opponent stated "Now I'll address the argument about what I'll call the "survivor house". First of all, I don't believe this is a realistic scenario; how many houses are there with absolutely no connection to roads, police, etc. However, if you were in fact so far out that none of these things existed, you could certainly argue that the town's jurisdiction over you did not apply and you would not have to pay the taxes. But let's just say they tried to tax you anyway. How would they go about doing it? They'd have no way to serve court notices on you, unless they hiked or helicoptered in, and if you simply stashed all of your goods and money at your house, there'd be very little that they could do. However, I would reiterate that this is not, in my opinion, a realistic scenario, although if you can provide a source with an example I could perhaps revise my position." The "survivor house" is not intended to be a realistic scenario. What it demonstrates is that property tax is independent of services provided by the government, because property tax is demanded regardless of whether or not those services are provided. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I have thus demonstrated logically what must occur in order for private property to be recognized and how the United States government fails to recognize private property, in three different instances. I have refuted all of my opponents arguments, and eagerly await his reply.