Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

A squirrel finds property? You are spewing absurd nonsense.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

 

most home owners use their property, they don't rent it???

why not ask your mother if she can understand it

 

I didn't forget, stop makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written.

I don't know if it's the best example, but the Irish Potato Famine is certainly a good enough example.

 

most men want to own land to increase their liberty. You might ask them to learn these basics yourself

 

We also say that having bought a slave's right to liberty doesn't give you rightful ownership of it. Having bought counterfeit money doesn't give you a right to spend it.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT?

 

low life liberal said land owners kill millions every year, now he goes back to potato famine?

So tell us what is Famine a good example of exactly??

 

do you have example of buying a slave's right to liberty given that slavery is illegal???

 

THAT famine was a good example of landowners murdering people by depriving them of their natural liberty to use land to sustain themselves. There was plenty of food to sustain the Irish during the famine. Landowners just took it from them in rent, starving them to death.

 

if people who rented thought owning gave them more liberty they would buy

 

Certainly. Slaves were occasionally able to purchase their liberty from their owners, and of course slave owners routinely purchased the liberty of other owners' slaves. The fact that slavery is illegal NOW is irrelevant to that fact.

 

"If slaves thought owning their rights to liberty would give them more liberty, they would buy their liberty from their owners."

It's just despicable, evil, blame-the-victim filth.

 

so?? Stalin and Mao killed 120 million with land policies because those policies, like the Irish, were not based on natural law. Do you know what subject yo are on??

 

slavery is illegal so why pretend this is not so and that slaves are operating all around us?

 

Every gold atom is a natural resource. Nobody has the right to deprive others from accessing the atom that were provided by nature.

 

correct and that is irrelevant to our subject

 

wrong because there was no free market thus no opportunity to buy freedom

 

The number 7 isn't a thing in the physical world, so it's impossible to own it.

 

The number 7 is a concept. IP law allows people to own concepts. We just haven't yet got to the point where greedy rentiers can own numbers, which is why I used that example to show you that some things can't rightly be owned someone just because someone else can't own them.

 

There is no free market when land is owned, either, because landowning automatically creates a subsidy to landowners by removing everyone else's rights to liberty. That is kinda the point.

 

No, it is not, because slavery is very similar to landowning: the only difference between landowning and slavery is that slavery removes people's rights to liberty and makes them someone else's property one person at a time, landowning removes them and makes them into someone else's property one right at a time.

 

No, because gold atoms removed from their natural places are no longer what nature provided. WHAT nature provided, WHERE nature provided it is what "natural resource" MEANS.

No, that's false. They do when they have removed those atoms from nature under one of the three scenarios I specified, as I have already proved to you.

 

wrong of course the free market is based on one owner selling to a new owner. Sorry to rock your world.

 

total gibberish!!! does car owning automatically create a subsidy to car owners? Why not ask somebody if what you write makes sense before you write it?

 

Slavery is illegal, but landowning is very similar to slavery, as already proved: both slavery and landowning involve forcibly removing people's rights to liberty and making them into other people's private property. That is why the results of slavery and landowning are so similar. The condition of the landless has been indistinguishable from the condition of slaves in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively, through minimum wages, public education, welfare, etc., etc. to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

Read and learn:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: "Mas George, you say you sot us free; but 'fore God, I'm wus off than when I belonged to your father." The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say: "How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves." How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can." - George M. Jackson, Reprinted in Social Problems, 1883