It would appear we're being told that a stationary person is enslaving the remainder of humans by depriving others to occupy the same space. Government could ban the construction of permanent residences and require everyone to carry a tent with them, but simply setting one's tent would still infringe on the liberty of others to set their tent in the same space.
Of course it is, just as owning the earth's atmosphere would be stealing: it forcibly removes people liberty right to use what they would otherwise be at liberty to use. The only difference is that people actually DO own others' rights to liberty by owning land. It's quite obvious. These are things that cannot rightly be owned, like land. The effects of owning all three are roughly comparable. The only difference is that evil, murdering thieves have persuaded people that land CAN rightly be owned. Or if you want to buy other people's rights to liberty one person at a time instead of one right at a time, you could contact Omar's Discount Slave Mart. You don't seem to understand that being "free" to buy and sell a license to steal from one of the privileged folks who already own one does not mean it isn't stealing when you take other people's stuff and contribute nothing in return.
A 50 x 100 plot of land is nothing like the entire earth's atmosphere. Owning a 50 x 100 plot of land is not stealing. Also, if you really want land so bad you can buy some. It's for sale.
No, of course that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. You are being informed of the fact that those who seek to deprive others of access to opportunity that would otherwise be accessible owe just compensation to the community of those thus deprived. One person standing still does not deprive anyone of all the equally good nearby spots. Our ancestors lived that way for millions of years, and never fought over it because the excluded space is both too small to affect others' access to the good spots and a very temporary situation, not a claim of permanent ownership. You know this. True; but as tent space isn't scarce, that's not a problem: no one else is deprived of their liberty to pitch a tent, as our nomadic ancestors did for thousands of years.
You don't have to own the whole atmosphere to enslave people: just the air they want to use. And when not only that 50x100 plot but all the nearby plots are likewise owned, enslavement is the inevitable result, as I already proved to you.
According to the communist a guy who voluntarily sells his land becomes a slave to the guy who bought it. Nuts for sure but just another silly form a libcommunism wherein govt acquires all the land at gun point!!
Who's making $#!+ up now? The vast majority of humans long ago evolved from being nomadic creatures, and the 'fact' is property owners DO pay compensation to the community in which they live. It is called property tax. Same is true for your above statement, but our ancestors quite frequently fought over land, even that which they could not constantly occupy and protect from intrusion by others. Go buy a tent, problem solved. Now, can we return to the threads topic, "the debt is proof of our wealth"?
Right. Just as whipping a slave to make him work is not the same as threatening to cut off his leg to make him work. The difference is in how the result -- removal of others' rights to liberty for your unearned profit -- is effected.
He's a slave to everyone who owns his rights to liberty. Land can never become property by any means but forcible appropriation. You just want to benefit unjustly by stealing it.
Good so we agree that owning a plot of land and slavery are not the same. Good. So I suppose you'll stop comparing them from here on out then?
You, of course. No, their society changed. That's not compensation for what he deprives everyone else of any more than the meals and housing a slave owner gives his slave is compensation for the slave's liberty. Nope. Now you are disingenuously changing the subject again to evade the fact that you have been proved wrong again. Our ancestors never fought over land to stand on. They fought over access to the fertility of large areas. <yawn> The problem would only be solved if no one wanted to do anything with land but pitch a tent on it, if no other opportunity were involved. But you know that is false.
Which is more of a monopoly, 5,000 individuals each owning a quarter acre, or single town owning all 5,000 quarter acres?
I never said they were the same. In fact, I have repeatedly identified the difference: slavery forcibly removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time. That is why the condition of the landless is indistinguishable from that of slaves in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. I will continue to identify the relevant facts. And you will continue to claim I have said things I have explicitly denied.
I thought that when you said "right", that meant you agreed with what I said. So your solution is to make the town the sole monopoly land owner rather than having thousands of individual landowners?
They are both equally monopolies. All landowning is monopoly. Which is more of a monopoly, 20 people each owning a Rembrandt, or one person owning 20 Rembrandts? Each owner of something in fixed supply is a monopolist. But good attempt to change the subject when you realized you had been refuted.
I did, with THAT statement. No. Thank you for immediately proving me right by claiming I said something I have explicitly denied many times. No one can rightly own land, and owning land is a monopoly no matter how minutely it is divided. Government administers possession and use of land in trust for the community because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. If it performs that function to systematically rob the productive for the unearned profit of private landholders, as you would prefer, that does not make it any less the "owner" of the land than if it performs that function in the interest, and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights, of all the people.
You're misusing the term monopoly. You seem to be using the term 'monopoly' for what normal people would call 'ownership'. The latter is more of a monopoly. One person owing all of the things as opposed to many people each owning one thing. Not by any definition I've ever heard, but okay. Your solution is the the town to be the single owner of all 5,000 quarter acre plots rather than 5,000 individuals each owning one of the quarter acre plots. I find the idea ludicrous on its face, and monopolistic.
You seem to be conflating government with society. The government of a town is not the town. So you're suggesting that this small cadre of people would "administer possession" of all the land in the town. And these fallible humans would do this in a completely angelic and rational and unselfish manner. There wouldn't be any corruption or kickbacks or payoffs or anything at all.
No, you are. You are aware that that is false. In fact it isn't, and the market reflects that fact: the existence of multiple monopolists does not affect the price of any of the monopolized items. It makes no difference when the supply is fixed and each one is unique. That is why land is a canonical example of monopoly. You could profit by reading more widely. No, my solution is for the town to administer possession and use of the 5K plots in trust for, and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of, all the people, rather than to forcibly remove everyone's rights to liberty and transfer their rights to 5K private landholders to be their private property for their perpetual, unearned profit at everyone else's permanent expense. But in fact, historically, minute division of landowning has only made each owner even more jealous of his monopoly rent.
It sounds like the government of the town would be acting in the same capacity as a landlord. Sounds like feudalism to me.
So let's say the town is called Brington. And some person is wandering along in the wilderness and sees a very nice field that happens to be inside the Brington town limits. The field, like all land in Brinton, is "administered" by the Brington town council, and they have given it to one of their serfs, Joe, to farm. Now let's say the wanderer, Karl, pulls his vehicle up onto this very field and starts setting up a home, planting seeds, and generally making himself at home. What happens next?
No. Government acts for society. Principal-agent. No, I am identifying to you the fact that government officials DO and WILL administer possession and use of all the land in the town no matter what arrangements they make for such possession and use. The only difference is in whether they will do so as the servants of all the people, to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all the people, or as the servants only of landowners, to profit landowners unjustly at the expense of producers, consumers and taxpayers by pretending that landowners rightly own the land. They'd do it as their jobs, same as anyone else does a job they get paid to do. There might be. After all, landowners are the greediest form of life known on earth or any other planet, so no doubt they would do their best to corrupt any fair and impartial process for their own unearned profit. But at least unlike greed-besotted private landowners, public officials would be accountable to someone other than their own delicate consciences.
No, that's just more silly, disingenuous horse$#!+ from you. YOU KNOW that feudal landlords were not accountable to their serfs by any sort of democratic process, while public officials are. Why are you pretending you do not know it?
