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

Huh? What are you talking about? Of course two people might want the same piece of land, just as two people might want the same apartment. But if one of those people has already paid the rent for that apartment, the other guy is out of luck.

HELLO???

Why are you pretending not to understand such a simple, obvious fact?

Yes, it certainly is.

 

No. You know that is false. There is a world of difference between paying the government and community that make the land valuable for it and paying a private parasite for what government, the community and nature provide. Likewise, there is a world of difference between paying a baker for a loaf of bread and paying a thief who took it from the baker without paying for it. You get the same loaf of bread, but in the former case the baker is paid for the value he created, while in the latter case, the thief gets something for nothing, while the baker who CREATED THE VALUE gets stiffed.

GET IT??????

 

It hasn't America's advantages and is under the CPC's control, but its land tenure system is certainly working better than America's.

Ah, no. HK is intensely crowded, so land rent is a much higher fraction of GDP there than in the USA, which makes the lack of individual rights to liberty much more onerous there, but that doesn't mean the USA's land tenure system is better.

No it's not. Some people choose a path that leads to the cages: drugs, alcohol, crime, indolence, etc. You just hate justice, and are pretending no one ever makes choices that justly lead to living in a cage. For someone who yammers on about how everything is a result of freely chosen personal choices, that's pretty hypocritical.

 

No, you would have free access to all land that no one else was willing to pay for exclusive tenure to, and free access to enough of the more advantageous land to have access to economic opportunity. Only if you wanted to exclude others from more land than that would you pay the community that secures exclusive tenure for you and makes the land valuable, rather than paying a private parasite who only takes and contributes nothing in return.

 

Only if someone else also wanted exclusive tenure on it, and it was worth more than the universal individual exemption amount.

 

Assuming they had first justly obtained secure, exclusive tenure by making just compensation to you and everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use that land for excluding them. Landholders would pay you for excluding you, and then if you wanted to use the land after all, you'd pay them back.

See how clear, simple, and obvious justice is when you are willing to know facts?

 

They can, because that's the only possible way to secure rightful property in fixed improvements, which is necessary in an economy higher than the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages. You know this. Why are you pretending you do not? Why the constant resort to your despicable feigned ignorance act?

As if we both don't know why...

 

Whoever wanted to abrogate others' rights to liberty by excluding them from land would have to make just compensation to the community of those they excluded. So you would GET compensation for BEING excluded, but PAY compensation for excluding others. See how clear, simple and obvious justice is when you are willing to know facts?

As you know perfectly well, but are pretending not to.

Of course: exclusive land tenure is always inherently a violation of people's rights to liberty. The question is, will that violation be justly compensated? You do not want it to be justly compensated, while I do. I prefer justice, you prefer injustice. Simple.

 

That only works as long as there are no significant fixed improvements, as in a hunter-gatherer or nomadic herding economy. As soon as there are significant fixed improvements, there has to be a way to reconcile the natural liberty rights of all to use all land non-exclusively with the property rights of those who produce the fixed improvements. The only way to secure, respect and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor is through a system of just compensation for abrogations of rights. You just don't want a system that is just because you prefer injustice that benefits you.

 

That's the situation in the state of nature, but it only obtains as long as your exercise of your liberty doesn't abrogate anyone else's rights to liberty or property in the fruits of their labor. That's when rights must be reconciled through just compensation for their abrogation. You just hate justice, so you oppose just compensation. You want to be able to abrogate other people's rights without compensating them for what you are taking from them.

 

As long as it doesn't abrogate anyone else's equal individual rights to life, liberty, or property in the fruits of their labor. Once you start abrogating other people's rights, you would have to make just compensation, which you refuse to do.

 

Not rightly. But as a matter of legal form, it probably has to be held in trust at a minimum.

Glad you agree that the landowner is violating everyone else's rights to liberty. That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

It's OK as long as there are no significant fixed improvements: our remote ancestors did just fine that way for millions of years. But an economy above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding stages requires secure property in fixed improvements. Landowning was the quick and dirty solution to that, but just compensation is obviously far better.

 

<yawn> That's just more of your puerile, "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" nonsense. History shows beyond any doubt that a government has to be very bad indeed to be worse than no government.

 

Agreed: forcible taking of others' rights to liberty without just compensation is just so unenlightened.

 

So your system would require me to pay a landlord for exclusive use of my land.

 

So you're happy with the destruction of the commons? That doesn't surprise me!

 

You mean WHOEVER OFFERS THE RIGHT MONEY gets the property? As in EXACTLY THE SAME SYSTEM we have now?

Your innovations are world changers.

 

How are 'the commons' destroyed when they're available to anyone who wants them, for any purpose (heck, some people even share theirs with those less able ... imagine that)?

There is not a single legal or instititutional impediment to any of us aquiring any lands we want, outside of National Parks and the like.

 

Compensation is always made for property. At least, I've not yet found a way to get 'em for free.

 

This isnt a cunning response. Private property, by definition, destroys the commons. We are within the realm of the anti-commons (where multi-use is stopped and economic activity therefore destroyed). Perhaps you've made your money painting "private property, keep out" signs?

 

So in your system, nobody would tell me to "keep out" of the several dozen acres I would like to use to farm? I could just use it for free?

 

Nope. Not when the property consists of others' rights, forcibly stripped from them without just compensation.

The fact that a buyer of stolen goods has to compensate the seller for them doesn't mean the seller had to compensate the victims.

DUH.

 

That would depend on whether others also wanted exclusive tenure there, and if they had made just compensation to the community of those excluded for it.

 

The market value. I'm not sure what you mean by, "the right money."

No. In the system we have now, the RECIPIENT of the payment is just a greedy private parasite who contributes nothing in return. In the system I propose, the recipient is the community that secures the landholder's exclusive tenure and makes the land valuable, and all the resident citizens, whose rights the landholder abrogates.

Which might be why you oppose them with such maniacal ferocity...