No I don't. See? You have to resort to makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written in order to deceive your readers again. I don't say you are hurting ME, I identify the FACT that you are hurting all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land you exclude them from, because they then have to pay you or someone else just for PERMISSION to exercise their rights to liberty. What they have to pay for that permission is the measure of the harm you and other landowners do to them. It is inherent in landowning. The market value of your land is nothing but the market's estimate of how much you will steal from the community of those excluded by your ownership of the land, over and above any taxes you can expect to pay on it.
That is just baldly false. It defended your property for you every time it put a violent criminal in jail. Certainly you would never have been able to defend your property for a single day if government were not doing that. No it isn't. Your claims are just false, absurd, and childish. All property is a communal agreement to constrain its members' actions with respect to the owned item. What you seem to be talking about is forcible animal possession, not ownership of property. But in fact, if you own any property, your silly and puerile fantasies of "fighting for it" to maintain forcible animal possession, which you certainly would never be able to do without government's help, are not what make it your property. That's why you are paying taxes on it, son: you know very well you CANNOT "defend your property" without government's agreement that it is yours. I doubt that very much. Unlike you, most people are aware of the fact that property is a right respected and secured by the community, not mere forcible animal possession. ROTFL!! You wouldn't last 15 minutes without government to protect your sorry @$$ from the REAL badasses. Get off the steroids, champ. Seriously. It's time. If you are still alive, thank the government for deterring and stopping those who would otherwise have killed you and taken your property. If you own land, you own part-shares in millions of part-time slaves called, "taxpayers." Maybe out there on Planet Zondo. Here on Earth, the government is definitely interested. We earthlings have developed an institution called, "civil courts" that the government operates specifically to resolve disputed property ownership. That is just absurd and childish "Meeza hatesa gubmint" yammering. <yawn> Depends on what you call "being robbed." On form, I'd say your definition is likely to have an element of idiosyncrasy that would lead the government to be skeptical of your claims. As you knew he would when you obtained the property. It's a condition of the title. LOL! You are really full of yourself, aren't you? Communities can make all sorts of voluntary, consensual arrangements. As long as people are stupid and ignorant enough to take the priest's or landlord's or any other con man's word as law, they'll get the oppression and injustice they deserve. But if you overstep the legal bounds with your childish Big Chief Pooh-Bah nonsense, government will defend others against you. You might want to ask Warren Jeffs about that. Good. You've been careful not to jeopardize the success of your long con by overstepping what government permits you to do. It provides resources equally to all who are in a particular area. Not capacities or situations. "Equal" in this sense doesn't mean, "the same everywhere." We all just have different kinds of opportunities and challenges, depending on where we happen to be. Nature does not grant them more to any one than to any other in the same area. It's friendlier than a landowner and more equal than landowning, that's for sure. Nonsense. Nature is part of your property. Follow its rules, and it will usually cooperate well enough. Without that possibility, the property likely wouldn't be worth much. Right. It's you being anti-human that makes me call you anti-human. Nope. You need to get a better dictionary. "Misspelt" is mainly British, American dictionaries prefer "misspelled." LOL! This, from YOU??!?!? I'm sure your cult followers respect you. But have you really achieved anything other than the exalted status of a big fish in a small pond?
Wood is different and consequently has different rules. It is not an eternal location that is temporarily occupied but a resource that can be extracted either sustainably or not.
But if a person doesn't create wood, what right does he have to keep others from having access to that wood?
yes in Brighton's liberal whacko world in a free market transaction the seller is acquiring liberty and the poor stupid fool who is selling it at a profit is unknowingly giving up his precious liberty!
They aren't the same because there is more to liberty than just being at liberty to use land. But the right to liberty certainly includes the right to use someone else's land, because land can never be made "someone else's" without forcibly removing everyone else's liberty to use it. If people don't have a right to use "someone else's" land, then they have no right to sustain themselves, no right to live, without paying a greedy, evil parasite merely for permission to do so.
The landownwers willingness to rent it out or sell it and the price he is asking for it if he is. Some things aren't for sale.
We've been through this many times, as you know. There are four main cases: 1. The wood was removed from nature when no one else wanted it, so no compensation was made or is due. There is no injustice because what nature provided has ceased to exist, and there can be no right to something that does not exist. 2. The wood was removed when others also wanted it, but the one who removed it made just compensation (the highest bid of the prospective users) to the community of those who were consequently deprived of it. Again, there is no injustice because the deprivation was compensated, and there is no right to a resource that no longer exists. 3. The wood was removed under conditions imposed by force (typically government), so while there may be injustice in the case, the remover can plead force majeure. Those excluded may have a case for compensation from the government for the deprivation they have suffered, but there is still no right to what does not exist. 4. The wood was removed without just compensation when others also wanted to use it. There is still no right to the nonexistent resource, but compensation is owed.
Maybe they should buy some land of their own. That would seem like a sensible idea, and then they wouldn't need anyone's permission.
Having to pay someone for permission to do what you would have been perfectly at liberty to do if they were not stopping you is not liberty. It is a protection racket. You might as well ask what prevents a slave from exercising their Liberty to purchase their rights to liberty from their owner. The only difference is that the slave's rights to liberty are all owned by one person. The landowner owns a tiny slice of everyone's rights to liberty.
The wood ceased to exist? That's not true. The wood gets removed from nature and sent to a store as a 2x4. The wood, which was made by nature, still exists and is sitting on a rack in Home Depot.
I'm not your son, and you are not my dad. Your continued attempts at condescension are noted. Clearly you feel I am a threat to your authority in some way and the the route to your social advancement is to belittle me. I cannot defend my property absolutely from my government. They have the potential to take it from me. What I can do is resist. Make the cost of them taking it from me, higher than the value they will receive from it, or go some way towards that goal. On other properties, I have successfully resisted entirely. The more remotely I live, the more effort it is for them to come for me. And like all bullies, they prefer softer targets. As you say, as long as I am willing to meekly consent, I'll get the justice I deserve. Nature is ruled on my property. Land is managed. I drain it. I pest control it. I plant it. I harvest it. Unmanaged land, Jungle for example, is worth very little compared to a farm or a park, a factory or a city. Nature has no rules. You are personifying. And yes, I am English as is the language I speak. My dictionary is an English one and it is a very good one. I might add that it is the world standard one. Nature grants two different men two different things. I am fit and healthy, my friend was born a dwarf. He was born in the room next to where I was born. You are not born with equal opportunities to others. You have been born to advantage. To privilege. A rich bloke in a rich country. How close to you do you feel I have to have been born to have equal rights of ownership to your house as you do? I've never been to a civil court. I have however resolved my land ownership disputes quite satisfactorily at gunpoint. Not least from multitudes of violent criminals my government was too scared to put in jail. I have no cult followers, but I am from a small town and do self associate with being a big fish in a small pond. Which suits me fine. What have I achieved? Enough for envious people to covert for themselves.
"Maybe slaves should buy their rights to liberty back from their owners. That would seem like a sensible idea, and then they wouldn't need anyone's permission." Having the "liberty" to buy your right to liberty from its owner is not the same as actually having a right to liberty. And buying everyone else's liberty rights to use a given parcel of land makes you just as much an evil trader in others' rights to liberty as the previous owner. GET IT????
No, the natural resource did, as I said. You are simply makin' $#!+ up and falsely attributing it to me again in order to have something you can deny. A 2X4 sitting on a rack at Home Depot was not made by nature. You know this. Of course you do. You just have to contrive some way of not knowing it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. The wood was only what nature made when it was AS and WHERE nature made it. As soon as it was removed, it ceased to be what nature provided and became a product of labor. That is what being a product of labor MEANS.
Your comparison to slavery would be a slap in the face to slaves if it weren't so ridiculous. I'm tired of you hyperbolic "right to liberty" idiocy. You want the government to own all property, I'm good with private ownership. I would rather have millions of individual owners than one single monopoly owner. Me owning a piece of land only affects your "right to liberty" in that it means you can't come onto my land uninvited. Otherwise, you are completely unaffected.
Of course wood is made by nature. People don't make wood. They cut nature-made wood into pieces, but every piece of wood is a product of nature, not man's labor.
A transaction in which one party owns the other's rights, and the latter must pay the former for permission to do what he would be perfectly at liberty to do if the former were not preventing him, is not a free market transaction. Oh, he knows what he is giving up, same as a slave owner taking payment for his slave's liberty.
"Owns another's rights" By this you mean that one party owns a particular piece of land and the other party has no right to enter that land. You're very hyperbolic. It's not surprising that most people have given up discussions with you.
By rights, he means, his right to own what ever he sets eyes on and your right to hand it over to him.
If seller owns land rights/liberties he would not sell them if these rights and liberties were so valuable. I guess he his giving up his liberty when he sells but does not know it until the one whacko liberal in the world who believes it tells him it is so?
got it so in liberal whacko world a land owner and slave owner are the same even though only one liberal person in the world believes it!!
