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

You mean when landowners started taking others' rights to liberty?

 

Feudalism? Where one person swears fealty to a lord in return for a fiefdom? Seriously? I think you read too many fantasy books.

 

There is no such thing as a right to liberty. Sorry.

 

I already defined the state, and you know it. The names of individual state officials are not part of the definition of the state, as you know but are pretending not to. If you want me to define any other terms, just ask.

 

Right. Your definition: People with guns.

Based upon your definition, I can't see why there would be any moral compunction to do what they say.

 

He's trying to lead you by the hand, and is holding it relatively low at that. Why are you not able to grab it?

 

Um, what?

I don't know what you are talking about. The former owner was interested in selling his property. By this act, he is setting up an invitation to negotiate. My mother and the former owner made several offers and counter-offers, but ultimately made a deal that worked for both parties.

Simply put, there is no permission. In order to obtain what someone else has, you need to have what they want. It's called "business," and it's not a one way street.

 

Because he's a commie?

 

Tautology implies that they're equal. They're similar words but you're using them in a way they contradict one another, which would make your statement an oxymoron.

I don't know when or where in time thousands of years ago you're referring to, so I can only assume that you're referring to some children's fairy-tale/bedtime story or a some religious bible fable. Regardless, I'm not sure what this has to do with 2019...

 

No, I am not. You just seem not to know what those words mean.

Are you unaware of the fact that all land started out unowned, and only came to be owned through being appropriated by force within the last few thousand years??

No. I am referring to self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

Oh, I see: you think 2019 popped into existence with conditions unrelated to the events of any antecedent years. Sorry, that is just infantile twaddle.

 

The liberty I -- and everyone else -- would otherwise enjoy has been forcibly stripped from us and given to the privileged, especially landowners, as their private property.

Yes you do.

I.e., in extracting payment from someone in return for his permission to use it. Like I said.

No he isn't. He is demanding payment for his permission to use what nature provided at no charge. As you know perfectly well.

Right: she paid him for permission to exercise her liberty right to use the land, liberty she would have enjoyed if he had not existed. Like I said.

Simply put, you know very well there is. And so does everyone else reading this.

Oh, really, now? What did the landowner give everyone else in exchange for taking from them their liberty rights to use the land?

It is when the landowner forcibly deprives everyone else of their pre-existing liberty rights to use the land without making just compensation, demanding that they pay HIM for permission to enjoy the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.

 

I would prefer millions of landowners rather than a single landowner. I don't like monopolies.

 

That's not my definition and you know it. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

Morality originates in the fact that the community is more valuable to the individual's reproductive success than the individual himself is.

 

I see. So, you have a right to your property, but no one else has a right to their liberty...?

Your property can remove others' liberty and they have no grounds for complaint?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that....

 

What is "right to liberty" and how is it different from "liberty"?

 

Yes. That is the natural result of private landowning that survives the demise of the state that granted the land titles.

I think you have read too few -- if any -- history books.

 

And what is the difference between private landowning and public landowning?

 

Rights are undertakings by the community to constrain its members' behavior towards each other. Liberty is just being free to act, unconstrained by others. So the right to liberty is the community's guarantee of one's ability to act unconstrained by others.

 

So how are "right to liberty" and "liberty" different?

 

The private landowner can pursue his own interest, and need not consider or compensate others for the harm he does them by forcibly excluding them from the land. A public landowner is responsible to the community of those whose interests are damaged by being forcibly excluded from the land.

 

A public landowner can pursue his own interest, and need not consider or compensate other for the harm he does by forcibly excluding them from the land.

 

<sigh> I just explained that to you. A right is social, conferred by the community. Liberty is physical, a condition of others' non-intervention in one's behavior.

 

No, that's not what "public" means.

 

So "right to liberty" and "liberty" are two different things in your mind?

 

Of course it does. A landowner can pursue his own interest, and need not consider or compensate other for the harm he does by forcibly excluding them from the land. This is your contention?