Paidion wrote:
By their own authority as government.
The owner of U.S. property has the right to require any authority, even the U.S. President to get off his premises.
In Canada, even the police cannot legally force their way into a privately owned dwelling unless they have a warrant.
I presume it's the same in U.S.A.
This demonstrates that you are a property owner over the land you live on.
Paidion wrote:
But notwithstanding, the municipal government has the authority and therefore the right to require us to pay taxes on this land.
But the municipality does not own our land.
This demonstrates that the State claims to be a property owner over the land you live on. If you don't pay your taxes, it will seize the land and evict you from it. It's claim to property rights in land are also apparent in that the State will prohibit or compel certain uses for property.
So as it is, neither you nor the State claim 100% ownership of the land - you both claim partial ownership. If so, then the idea that "States do not own property" is not a flaw in dwight92070's argument. Further, if the State indeed has the authority to own property, and if it has the authority to unilaterally change its portion of the ownership, then it may build a wall - or do anything else. If it does not own any property, then it may not do anything.
I actually agree with you that States are not able to own property, and thus I do disagree with Dwight's premise. I am pointing out here that the idea of the authority of the State is inseparable from the idea that States have property rights, so I think it is an error to claim the State has authority while denying hat it has partial or total property rights.