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

How can anyone be legally and forcibly prevented from purchasing land, please? Give us the legal framework of this phenomenon.

 

No right to establish a government?

 

No it does not.

That's what private landowning means. The public is "we" or "they," not "he."

 

I can't get behind your plan to steal mine and all my neighbors' land. Sorry.

 

Google "apartheid" and start reading.

The legal framework is that one must purchase permission to exercise one's liberty right to use the land from its owner. I think you are well aware of this fact. Why do you pretend you are not?

 

Accountability to the public whose rights the landowner abrogates.

 

I can't get behind your idea of the state stealing mine and all my neighbors' land. Sorry.

 

I know. You are only behind YOUR plan to continue stealing it.

No you aren't. You want to take from others without making any commensurate contribution in return. Simple.

 

I'm not the one advocating stealing people's land. You are.

I can't get behind your plan to steal mine and all my neighbors' land.

 

There is no legal impediment to land-owning in the democratic First World. Anyone can own land, or not, according to their lights. That is the great liberty we have in a First World democracy. We are all free to succeed or fail (though it's clear you want to legislate against failure, thus dramatically limiting that liberty).

 

Another non-sequitur.

 

Merely through the consent of the populace. The authority of the government has nothing to do with what rights are or where they come from.

 

How did the people acquire the right to establish a government?

 

There are incorrect assumptions in your line of questioning.

 

Really? What assumptions?

 

That the ability to establish a government is a "right" at all, or that it needed to be "acquired" from someone or something.

 

If people didn't have the right to establish a government, then how could they rightly do so?

 

You just do it. Again, you're assuming that this is a "right." It makes no sense.

 

So there's no right to establish a state?

 

It doesn't require the state. You, individually, may have rights that you grant to others. At the same time, others (as individuals) may have rights that they may grant to you and other people. Rights are only somethings' that we grant to each other... temporarily.

 

Like three people can grant themselves the right to rape and kill some fourth person?

 

I don't see how this is remotely applicable to anything that I have stated.

 

Of course there is, just as there is a legal impediment to owning anything else that someone else already owns: you have to pay the current owner for permission, just as slaves had to pay their current owners for their liberty.

No they can't. They have to pay a current landowner's extortion demand for it, and many can't afford it, just as many slaves could not afford to purchase their rights to liberty from their owners. Your claims are just false.

The "liberty" of the parasitic landowner to parasitize everyone else by owning what neither he nor any previous owner ever created: the land, and consequently others' liberty rights to use it.

No. Someone who is forced to run a race while carrying someone else on his back is not free to succeed, sorry. He is being forced to fail.

 

No. You and other landowners are the ones who are ACTUALLY STEALING the land from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

All private titles to land are nothing but records of what the owner has already stolen from everyone else.

 

I know you prefer your idea of keeping the stolen land you already have, and using your ownership of it to rob, enslave, and murder others.