Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

a huge and very pathetic liberal lie of course. Animals and humans always had hunting and gathering territories, and killed others who invaded their territories to steal their food supply and thus their lives!

 

All agree land is not produced by labor but put you need land on which to labor sleep hunt gather and raise your children so all are subject to science, natural law, and thus private ownership.

 

we don't say a man or lion is a thief for controlling the property he needs to sleep hunt gather work and protect his children. Hitler Stalin and Mao ignored a million years of natural law and tried to instantly substitute something from their illiterate anti science imaginations. Do you know what the results were??? Do you know why it worked out that way??

 

one right at a time? under capitalism if someone feels it's important to own land they have a right to buy it .
Many elect to rent rather than buy because they have the right to seek liberty that way too. You are talking silly gibberish at best.

 

Can you think of a reason why anyone would consider that relevant?

And if only one person did it, that wouldn't be a noticeable problem, just as if only one person in the world is a slave, that's a problem for them, but not for the rest of us. But YOU KNOW that millions have done it, until there is no good land left for all to use. Just as when millions of people are slaves, that is a serious problem for the rest of us because it means we have to compete with slaves for work. Each small piece of land appropriated as private property is a small piece of everyone else's liberty made into private property. The fact that our rights to liberty have been sliced up into millions of little pieces owned by millions of different landowners doesn't alter the fact that our rights to liberty are other people's -- i.e., landowners' -- private property.

But that is not what we mean by a natural resource. You are just trying to pretend that words do not mean what they do mean.

 

Freely available in sufficient quantity for everyone's desired use, like air, or sea water, or beach sand.

Land -- location -- is not abundantly available because each piece is immovable and unique, and the characteristics that make some of them more valuable than others are not associated with the others. The more advantageous land is therefore scarce, not abundant, as its exchange value proves -- but you pretend not to know. Gold atoms are abundantly available because there are billions of tons of them dissolved in sea water, which is freely available to all. All you have to do is get them out -- i.e., exert labor to remove them from their natural places. There's the rub -- as you know perfectly well, but are disingenuously pretending not to know.

 

Just as slaves had a right to buy their rights to liberty from their owners.

Sorry, James, but having a "right" to buy your right to liberty from someone else is not the same as actually HAVING a right to liberty.

No, they elect to rent rather than buy because like slaves, they can't afford to buy their rights to liberty from those who own them.

I am stating the facts so clearly and succinctly that you cannot possibly misunderstand them, except by refusing to understand them. Which is what you are doing.

 

Landowner murdering millions of people EVERY YEAR by forcibly depriving them or their rights to liberty can be called many things, but "peaceful" is not one of them.

You mean consistent with the expectations of greedy, evil, murdering landowners and slave owners who expect something for nothing, and the human nature of some to be natural slaves, as Aristotle claimed?

The Nazis were hand in glove with the landowning Junkers, silly boy.

Naturally free people are violently enslaved by landowners coercively removing their rights to liberty and making them into their own private property, as history has proved so often, and so very conclusively.

 

Yes, because you cannot transfer yourself to anyone else.

The term, "libNazi" is itself absurd. Landowners owning our rights to liberty is not absurd: it is the fact of our current condition.

 

Yep: created by labor out of natural resources: i.e., nature-provided atoms.

You lose.

 

Who, other than you, has a more legitimate claim to own the number 7 and charge everyone else rent to use it?

Just because no one else has a legitimate claim to own something does not make your claim to own it legitimate.

CAPISCI?

 

sure you can to the degree you want to you can even marry someone, love someone, work for someone, commit suicide, wash their feet as the pope does etc etc. and then elect to transfer the relationship to another. Under capitalism we are free to do most things as long as they don't impinge on others freedom.

 

if people who rented thought owning gave them liberty they would buy and if forbidden from buying they would seek liberty through govt granting them permission to buy and own. You make no sense whatsoever

 

???? more goofy commie stuff. Why did you forget to present your best example of this??

 

when a squirrel or man finds a piece of property on which to sleep at night you would say that he greedy and evil you would say he is naturally sleepy. Do you understand?

 

That is another absurdity. Lions do not own property. Forcible animal possession is not property.

People did those things for millions of years without claiming to own land as property or excluding others from using it. So you are just objectively wrong.

You appear to know very little about them, not even how they were different. Stalin and Mao deprived people of property in the fruits of their labor. THAT was the natural law -- the natural right -- they ignored. Hitler only deprived Jews and other prohibited persons of their property. The rich actually supported him, thinking he would get rid of the communists for them.

Better than that, I know what the CAUSES were.

Oh, yes. Do you know why Hong Kong is remarkably free and prosperous despite no one there privately owning land for over 160 years? Your philosophy says that is impossible. Mine says it is inevitable. Proving your philosophy is wrong, while mine is at least potentially right.

 

most home owners use their property, they don't rent it??? goofy?? Most business owners prefer to rent so they can keep capital for business purposes. You are libgoofy in the extreme

 

Aristotle observed men and animals in nature and from that formulated natural laws that living things live by. Do you know about evolution? Do you know even today we study animals to understand ourselves? Before contracts men and lions took possession of land ton which to sleep and would object if others tried to take that land. Is this simple enough for you?

 

It is fact.

But forcible animal possession is not property, and humans never claimed private ownership of land in pre-agricultural societies. N E V E R. Territories were communal, and no one claimed ownership of them. They knew they had to defend possession and exclusive use by force.

Forcible possession of territory is not property in land. The defining characteristic of property is that third parties will defend its owners' rights to it. That has never been the case with animals, and was never the case with humans until a few thousand years ago.

 

Blatant non sequitur. Too bad you have no actual facts or logic to support your claims.

 

as I said animals and humans always had private land on which to hunt and gather and would kill to protect their territory. Never a Boy Scout? Private property is natural. You need it to live on to work on to sleep on.

 

so you don't need land to sleep on? Men and animals slept in outer space?

 

So you agree that appropriating land as private property is evil. About time.

"Your" land? What would make it "your" land but force, which is just as legitimately overturned by force?

It would only start a war if the greedy, evil, murdering landowner thought he had a right to deprive others of their rights to liberty by force.

 

preagricultiral more than ever. if others came to hunt and gather on your land you died so you had a life and death incentive to exclude others from your private property.

 

Which he built.

It is natural for all people to be free to use all land non-exclusively. That is how our ancestors lived for millions of years. However, advanced economies require exclusive tenure, which can only rightly be enjoyed by those who make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of their liberty.