Private Property is not recognized by the United States Government.

First, the definitions. The definitions my opponent provides are useful, but unnecessary, because they do not address my point that sovereignty is necessary for true private property. His primary response to this is just below the definitions, where he states, "If private property were sovereign, that would essentially give the owner the right to do whatever he/she wanted on it, which obviously cannot be permitted in the interests of the safety of the public. How would the government arrest those who break the law then flee to the safety of their private property and claim that their sovereignty cannot be violated? It would essentially be anarchy. If we try to extend your logic in defining private property as sovereign to people, it fails. " Unfortunately, this argument has a serious flaw. My opponent seems to be assuming that what is useful or good is what is true. This is, however, not the case. However useful or necessary it may be for the government to not recognize private property has no bearing on whether or not it does recognize private property. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ He later paraphrases his argument as "There is no need for sovereignty to have privacy. The mere ability to restrict the general public from trespass upon your land constitutes its being private, and since that right is recognized by the government of the united states, the U. S. government therefore recognizes private property. ". However, here I must contest his conception of property. One of the concepts inherent to that of property is that of ownership, according to the Princeton Wordnet. Likewise according to the Princeton Wordnet, ownership is defined as "possession: the act of having and controlling property" (1). Note the second part, controlling property. If what is crucial to the state of possession is the control of property, then we can clearly determine whether or not the "owner" of land has control of property. Just as clearly, we can determine that they do not. At the point where the state has the ability to take away that property, without consent, then the "owner" no longer has control of property, they are merely temporary controllers, who retain control only until the state decides to exercise its power. Their control exists at the whim of the state, and is therefore not control at all. If the state is the one with final control over property, does the state recognize private property? Of course not. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Now to his responses to my three examples. 1: Once again the utility of a thing=/= the truth of a thing. Simply because it is beneficial for eminent domain to exist does not mean private property is recognized. Saying that the claim is recognized because a monetary exchange occurred is ridiculous. Because the transaction is forced upon the "owner" of the property, they clearly do not have control over that property, and, as I outlined above, clearly lack ownership. 2: And yet, if I were to build a house, on my own land, in an area where there are no roads, and where there are no houses, police stations, or fire stations for miles, I would still be charged property tax. The tax exists independent of those services being provided. 3: Once again utility=/=truth. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ To summarize. Control over property is necessary for property to exist. Because private control of property exists at the whims of the state, it is not true control, and therefore, it is not private property. Therefore, the state does not recognize private property. I provide three examples of how the state retains control of all property in the United States, and have refuted arguments against those examples.