What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

I don't agree with the communism you suggest. If you want to call me evil for opposing communism, then I'm okay with that.

 

If it "allows" them to administer it, then IT is administering it.

GET IT??

Unless you own them.

I'm pointing out that your denials are disingenuous. You just want the monopoly that secures exclusive land tenure to serve you at everyone else's expense.

That is what landowning without the state IS. So, yeah.

 

So without the police, people would have property rights such as land titles, IP monopolies? Do tell...

 

I haven't suggested anything remotely resembling communism. You are just using the word, "communism" incorrectly. On form, you probably don't know what it is.

You oppose justice, and are trying to evade that fact by calling it communism.

 

The state? Can you please define your terms?

 

Huh? No, they WOULDN'T. That was my point. Duh. If the police are the ones stopping others from using those things, then without the police, there would effectively be no property rights in them.

CAPISCI???

 

You're right, because "right to liberty" isn't a thing. It's an oxymoron. Rights and liberties are synonymous.

Nonsensical terms aside, if one owns property, I would presume they wouldn't want just anyone to have access to it. Or, perhaps they would only like specific people to have access. As such, landownership is an essential part of protecting property rights.

 

I already did: the state is the sovereign authority over a specific area of land.

 

But how are you prevented from getting a property right or land title? My mother owns a nail salon and was able to obtain a land title with no interference from anyone.

 

Are you talking about certain people?

 

Nope. You just don't understand what rights are.

Huh? Now you are claiming it is not an oxymoron but a tautology!

Nonsense. Until a few thousand years ago, no one ever owned land. Yet people enjoyed property rights in the fruits of their labor just fine. You're just objectively wrong.
O B J E C T I V E L Y.

 

I think it's better that millions of people own small bits of land as opposed to the state owning all the land. But then again, I'm not a commie.

 

By the legal removal of my right to liberty.

Huh? Didn't she have to pay a former owner just for permission to have the land nature put there with no help from him or any previous owner?

 

You mean your right to the right to the having the liberty of having your right to the liberty?

 

I don't think anyone or any organization can rightly own land. You just childishly and disingenuously repeat your false claim that administration of possession and use in trust is ownership.

More accurately, you are a person who falsely claims others are commies.

 

Did that enable you to avoid knowing the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil?

 

I would rather millions of people over one single entity.

I just don't like monopolies.

But perhaps that's because I'm not an aspiring commie.

 

No.

 

Yes. It enabled me to know that communism is evil.

 

Then, when you refer to the state, to which particular people are you referring?

 

I'm not referring to any particular people. The state is a way for the whole community to be organized. That organization can be effected top-down, by force, or bottom up, by cooperation.

 

So, for all of human existence before a few thousand years ago when land was first appropriated as private property, people lived under evil communism??

 

So you can't define your terms. Got it.

 

That's feudalism. There is no other way for millions of individuals to administer possession and use of land.

Unless you own them.

You are apparently an aspiring joke.

 

Nope. Not until *******s started taking other people's ****.