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

That capacity is utterly lost. It was lost when we decided globalism was good. The integrity of the cultural mores which led to the short-lived 'good life' in Scandinavia etc, now fractured beyond repair by the influx of vastly different demographics. There is no possible way that any multi-cultural society can ever hope to regain that kind of unity of purpose. It can only happen now via fiat .. which means totalitarianism.

If you want someone to blame, look to the Progressive Left. They are the ones who insisted on mass migration without filter, and support non-assimilation. They killed their own idea with their own hubris.

 

Worth reminding ourselves that these worker owned coops have nothing to do with socialism - they're still capitalist enterprises. IOW, armchair socialists don't know their a##hole from their elbow.

 

Stick it to him!

 

Only in formal argument. You don't seem to understand the difference between reason and tautology.

That's right. Or the sun, the oceans, the earth's atmosphere, the alphabet, or other people.

How does one have the right to own anything if one has no liberty to own the sun, the oceans, the alphabet, other people, etc.?

People have the right to own things that others would not otherwise have been at liberty to use: products of labor. Products of labor would not otherwise have existed, so owning -- preventing others from using -- the products that one has created does not deprive them of anything they would otherwise have. No deprivation, no right violation. Land, by contrast, was already there anyway, so whenever someone appropriates it as private property, they are forcibly violating everyone else's liberty rights to use it. All ownership titles to land are based on nothing but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

 

So who should control the land upon which my neighbor's house sits, if not him?

 

Us...

 

Not sure what this has to do with the concept of rights, or where they come from. We, as individuals and as a collective, usually decide what is right in regards to one's property...

 

<yawn> You are just makin' $#!+ up again. Do Hong Kong or Singapore look like the Middle Ages?

 

<yawn> Easy to answer...

 

Because the community is all living together peacefully (give or take a violent criminal or two), and that's not possible except under a sovereign authority that can secure people's rights.

 

A sovereign authority responsible to the people whose rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor it exists to secure and reconcile.

 

So, no.

 

And they would violate my right to liberty?

 

The sovereign community authority whose function it is to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all. He would of course control it as long as he paid the community for what he was taking from everyone else by doing so. Unfortunately, security and reconciliation of equal individual rights is impossible if your neighbor has unconditional control of the land under his house.

 

And this sovereign community would violate my right to liberty?

 

It would actually be the landholder violating your right to liberty, just as it is now. Unlike now, the state would ensure just compensation was both made and received for such violations.

 

The exclusive landholder would, just as now. The difference would be that unlike now, the landholder wouldn't be able to violate your right to liberty without making just compensation.

 

So your system would violate my right to liberty.

 

So your system would violate my right to liberty.

 

The landholder would, just as now. You just want to be legally entitled to violate other people's rights to liberty without making just compensation for what you take from them. I want to pay. You want to steal. Simple.

 

So your system still results in violating people's right to liberty.

 

No, the landholder would. The community would just make sure he compensated you.

 

No, exclusive land tenure does. If no one wants exclusive land tenure, my system would not violate anyone's rights. Under my system, it's only the exclusive landholder who violates people's rights.

 

So your proposed system would mean that my right to liberty is violated.

 

So under your system, I could use any land nature created? Or would your system violate my right to liberty?