Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

That would violate economic principles due to the fact that it would require forcibly confiscating people's wealth in order to accomplish.

 

for 4rd time, nothing would preclude it as long as taxpayers are willing to pay for it. Econ 101 class one day one.

 

i think he's assuming people agreed to surrender their wealth to pay for free universal education.

 

Yes, but that is what I meant in writing, "The mechanism is there in the UN. If men do not wish to avail themselves of it, then what is to be done?

The failure is not in the mechanism (the institution, "UN"), but in our collective application of it ..."

Countries employ the UN mechanism when it in their best interest, not when an obvious necessity exists. For instance, the West Bank does not belong to Israel. They confiscated it to enlarge territory for their "colonies". This was an obvious confiscation of land that did not belong to Israel - regardless of the fact that Israel took it in a war that it had won.

Which gives it no right of possession, however. Were winning a war gives the right of possession to the victor, then Europe belonged to the US after WW2 ...

 

Evil defeat good. I know.

You can't for long. That's unstable. Landed private wealth tends to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. Landowning started out democratic in Rome, but by the time of Marcus Aurelius, just 2000 individuals owned 80% of the land in the entire Empire. You just want the privileged hundreds of thousands to be legally entitled to rob, enslave and kill all the underprivileged hundreds of millions.

There is no such thing as a valid landowner, not individuals, communities or governments. But whether individuals legally own land or not, government administers possession and use of land in any case, because that is what government IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. So your only choice is between government that discharges that function in the interest of and to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all the people, or only in the narrow financial interest of a few hundred thousand rich, greedy, privileged parasites.

Being deprived of access to that which nature provided is inevitable in any economy above the nomadic herding stage. The question is, will those thus depriving their fellows of their liberty make just compensation to the community of those thus deprived? You prefer that other people who are unaccountable to you own your rights to liberty, and make no compensation to you for them, so that those who are deprived are simply robbed and enslaved, rather than have an institution that is accountable to you and everyone else secure and reconcile everyone's rights to liberty by requiring just compensation FROM those who deprive others of their liberty TO those thus deprived.

Thanks, but I already knew that was your position.

 

A broad societal recognition that forcible intervention by some to prevent others from doing what they would naturally be at liberty to do is wrongful.

 

Yes: those who make just compensation to the community of those whom they exclude from it.

 

They were put there rather than left in their natural places by labor.

Nope. They only WERE before labor removed them from nature. That's what we MEAN by something being a product of labor rather than a gift of nature. We don't mean the atoms were created ex nihilo by labor. We mean they were removed from their natural places and made into something more valuable by labor.

And YOU KNOW THIS. You are just trying to pretend words do not mean what they indisputably do mean.

 

No, because a free market can't have land purchases any more than it can have slave purchases. As privately owning land automatically forces everyone else to subsidize the landowner, a free market is impossible where land is privately owned.

I don't even know what you incorrectly imagine that could mean. Prices would be reduced in a location subsidy repayment system, because people would not have to pay for government twice.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

I'd rather that me and my hundreds of neighbors each own our own small piece of land. And that the hundreds of thousands of people like myself each own their own small piece of land. As opposed to the government owning all the land in the country. Too communist for me...

 

Compensation to whom exactly? Which individuals?

 

No, of course it isn't. Give your head a shake.

No; if you actually have a right to liberty, you don't have to pay anyone for permission to exercise it.

No, of course they don't. Why would they? They'll just pay the market price for what they want from you, and no more. What you paid for inputs is completely irrelevant to them. They don't care if you paid too much and go bankrupt.

 

Hm, so a 6'9" 325lb man would naturally be at liberty to rape your wife or daughter. Would preventing him from doing so be wrongful?

 

Land titles are a privilege. Owning a factory or retail store is not, because it doesn't deprive anyone else of their natural liberty.

Garbage. Everyone being at "liberty" to buy a privilege of pocketing a subsidy does not mean those who own the privileges aren't getting a subsidy. The fact that they are getting a subsidy is proved by the price paid to buy the privilege that entitles them to it. Duh.

 

No, the free market, where no one gets a subsidy by owning a privilege. What you have to refuse to know is that location subsidy repayment (LSR) AUTOMATICALLY aligns government's own financial incentives with the public interest in productive use of land and efficient investment in public services and infrastructure. So the democratic, rights-securing government you hate and fear because it is just and good will try to measure the free market value of exclusive land tenure as accurately as it can, using the same methods any private appraiser would use (in fact, using private appraisals).

 

It sounds like you're saying that property rights should be considered a privilege.

 

No, because that would forcibly remove THEIR rights to liberty. There can be no liberty right to remove others' liberty rights. That is a self-contradiction so obvious, it should not require me to point it out to you. But I guess if you think it is OK for land thieves to removes others' rights to liberty, it is also OK for 6'9" 325lb men to do so.

Let me know if you ever decide to say anything relevant.

 

Property "rights" in legal entitlements to benefit from the forcible abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation are definitely a privilege.

Now it's time for you to pretend that there is no difference between exercising one's natural liberty to use what nature provided and appropriating what someone else's labor provided.

 

No, of course I don't think so. I was just asking whether you did.

I think what I'd like to say is that I prefer that the land in our country be owned by hundreds of thousands of different owners rather than one single monopoly owner.

 

We all need land to live on. I would prefer that each of us own our own land rather than it be owned by one giant central government. I don't trust concentrations of power, i.e. monopolies.

 

And some are privileged to deprive others of their liberty to do so.

That can't happen. The privilege of private landowning is so exorbitant that the greedy and evil will always contrive a way to deprive others of their liberty to use it. At least with location subsidy repayment (LSR) and a universal individual exemption (UIE), everyone would be guaranteed the liberty to use enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity as long as they lived. There would be no way to take it away from them.

Government administers possession and use of land in any case. You want it to do so in the interest of rich, greedy, privileged parasites rather than in the interest, and to secure and reconcile the equal rights, of all.

Land is always a monopoly. Power in a democratic government's hands is at least accountable to the people. Power in private landowners' hands is simply their entitlement to rob and enslave everyone else, and be accountable to no one.

 

All land ownership is inherently monopoly ownership. It cannot be anything else. Land is a canonical example of monopoly.

 

Um yeah. It is happening right now. I and all my neighbors each own our own land.

No, not really. I don't want it to do so in those interests.

No, it's not. Hundreds of thousands of individuals own land in the US.

You worry me sometimes.

 

The community of those deprived.

Those who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. Say all citizens within normal commuting distance. Obviously this can't be done on an individual basis: government has to do its rightful job of securing and reconciling the equal rights of all.

 

No one can rightly own land, and government ALWAYS administers possession and use of land in any case. So you are talking nonsense. The alternatives are government enforcing the privilege of landowning at the expense of everyone but a handful of rich, greedy privileged parasites, or securing and reconciling the equal rights of all to life, liberty ,and property in the fruits of their labor. At least it is government's JOB to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all. Landowners having the power just ends up with feudalism.

What nonsense. You might as well claim that working for wages is too capitalist.