If US government owned the land (major problem for any state apologist), then theoretically it could distribute lands… but since there is no real owner, only arbitrary gang of thieves who get re-elected once in a term of years, that is just a fantasy tail.
Furthermore, empty lands not always were empty (well, at least not all of them). Some were taken from first inhabitants with force. So if it were possible to backtrack the heirs of those people, then it should belong to them, probably.
Assuming inheritance, your last statement is correct.
Not assuming inheritance, I still agree the USFG can’t redistribute the lands.
Might we consider Vatican City a legitimate state under ancap principles? I don’t think anyone is born there, it’s entirely homesteaded, and everyone voluntarily works for the Catholic Church. I don’t think anyone claims property there other than the Church.
If the property was voluntary contracted away after homesteading to the current owners, I suppose so. But was it?
What makes it a state under acap principles? In other words, given your evidence for the Vatican being a state under ancap principles, what do you consider a non-state under ancap principles?
Sorry, is Vatican City a legitimate anarchist community?
The Vatican does not collect taxes. It is not a State. However (lest I be suspected of sympathizing with the Vatican), it is evil because it clearly works with States in a cooperative manner. The Church has long been an accomplice of the State.
Clayton -