do tax payers own big corporations

[Josh D]

Free market thievery would indeed be that efficient.

But public-sector thievery would steal your money, lose half of it, buy a car with the rest, give it to a person who already has three cars, and when it breaks down it will tell them that it's all your fault for hiding your money so they couldn't steal more of it.     Then next year they take your car and set it on fire.   

Good point,

Do you remember that program a few years back where government used stolen money to help people irreversibly destroy otherwise perfectly adequate cars?

I think it was called cash for clunkers.

[LegesNullae]

Im asking if the revolution occured tommorow would it be wrong to homestead them

How could you homestead them? What would that even look like?

The property of a corporation is essentially stolen, as it is possessed due to state granted benefits. As such, all buildings, equipment, and supplies under the control of that corporation have no legitimate owner. As with all unowned resources, those resources may be owned by those who mix their labor with them: the workers of the firm.

[Disengage]

Do you remember that program a few years back where government used stolen money to help people irreversibly destroy otherwise perfectly adequate cars?

Yes, Cash for Clunkers.     Where the government paid money to encourage people to destroy working vehicles (most of which were paid for) and go into debt to buy new vehicles.   Supposedly this benefited the auto industry. 

1) Any politician stupid enough to see this as a good idea should immediately be kicked out of office.  Literally kicked.    Hard.

2) Lots of people fell for this.   ...and they are how those politicians got in office in the first place.  I'm not going to call them all idiots, because I'm sure there are a few situations where it might have been in their best interest.   But the vast majority of them are very bad at math and logical thinking.   Or ANY kind of thinking.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Do you remember that program a few years back where government used stolen money to help people irreversibly destroy otherwise perfectly adequate cars?

I think it was called cash for clunkers.

The broken window fallacy lives on...

[Disengage]

The broken window fallacy lives on...

No, they didn't break the windows.   They poured some kind of chemical into the gas tank to permanently disable the engine.

OHH, I get it!   You knew they didn't break the windows; that's why you called it a fallacy!

I'm kidding.

[Aegidius]

They poured some kind of chemical into the gas tank to permanently disable the engine.

I . . . they . . . but . . .

Ow.

My brain hurts.

It's like a caricature.  A grossly exaggerated idiotic policy.  They bought goods in order to destroy them.  They didn't even abandon them so that passers by might take one and benefit.  They made certain no one could benefit from them again, and they used other people's money to do it.  I paid for them to make it harder and more expensive for me to find a used car.  This is actually real.  

And this is public knowledge.  I mean, people know about this?  There's a hefty Wikipedia article on it.  

How can anyone know about this and be . . . sane?

Eligibility criteria
...
Trade-in vehicles must be in driveable condition.
...

I think I'm dying.

[Hanzo]

Define "taxpayer". Define "corporation". Or at least define "own".

I thought anarchist knew using collectives as arguments was dangerous ("we are the government")?

[Syock]

Free market thievery would indeed be that efficient.

But public-sector thievery would steal your money, lose half of it, buy a car with the rest, give it to a person who already has three cars, and when it breaks down it will tell them that it's all your fault for hiding your money so they couldn't steal more of it.     Then next year they take your car and set it on fire.   

I like this quote.  Hahaha