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

So instead of being free to own as much or as little land as I want (or none at all, if that's my preference), "Administrators" will decide it all for me?

 

So this community prevents people from outside the community access to what nature provided?

 

Just as people -- including slaves -- were all "free" to purchase as many or as few slaves as they saw fit to own.

It refutes itself: the requirement to purchase permission to own land means that one is NOT free to own it.

That is literally false, absurd, and disingenuous garbage. The title held by the owner is self-evidently and indisputably a legal and institutional impediment to land acquisition. You know that is true, and you know you cannot refute it.

Learn the difference between having a right and merely having an opportunity to pay a greedy parasite for permission to exercise that right.

Freedom to choose would not include A having to pay B for permission to choose what he would otherwise be at liberty to choose. You will just say, do, and believe anything whatever in order to avoid knowing the fact that without the landowner depriving others of land, it would be available for free.

 

Right: instead of you being free to own others' rights to liberty and deprive them of their liberty to use land without making just compensation, you have to pay them for what you take from them. It is self-evidently disingenuous to claim your freedom is impaired merely because you are not "free" to remove others' freedom.

No, they will just make sure that you make just compensation for what you take from everyone else, and that everyone gets just compensation for the rights to liberty that landholders take from them. You would have your choice of the available land you want to pay for depriving others of.

 

Yes it does mean that, because you are equally free to not purchase land. You don't seem to understand what freedom means. It has nothing to do with consequences. When you manipulate consequences, you remove freedoms.

Decide what you want. Do you want liberty for all? If so, then you must make peace with the fact that some of us will choose to fail. You can't interfere with that, without interfering with liberty.

 

1) I pay the price the vendor accepts as compensation for that which she/he no longer requires/desires. I have never yet managed to 'take' someone's land. And I have never claimed my freedom is impaired by this system. I'm the one who champions capitalist democracy as the fairest possible model for any nation-sized community.

2) Once again, I don't know any way to 'take' land. If you know of something, some brilliant loophole, please let me know. I keep having to pay for mine, and it's very expensive! Meantime, who am I depriving of their freedom to choose land ownership? Please explain how my purchase of land, obstructs the free choice of others to purchase land? Remember, we're all free to buy, or not to buy (if we don't like having to pay for things).

 

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. You are infinitely MORE free not to purchase land because you don't have to pay anyone for permission not to.

I understand it incomparably better than you.

False. It has everything to do with whether the consequences of others' actions make you worse off than you would otherwise have been. If they do, then those others are depriving you of your freedom.

False. Only when consequences imposed by others leave someone worse off than they would otherwise have been do you remove freedoms.

What are you even talking about? Why do you refuse to know the fact that depriving people of what they would otherwise have violates their rights?

 

If a member has paid for exclusive tenure thereon. Mutual support for members of one's own community is what makes human beings social, and not atomistic individuals.

 

What if he hasn't paid the community rent? Then what? The community kicks him off the land that nature provided?

 

Why should anyone compensate them for frustrating their desire to get something for nothing? If someone desires to charge me for air to breathe, do I owe them compensation for breathing "their" air?

All owned land is taken from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

So? It is whether you consent to know it or not.

But it isn't.

With a land title.

It's called, "owning land," and it is one hell of a brilliant scam.

Because that's how much the market judges the expected subsidy to be.

Everyone.

They have to pay you for permission, but if you didn't purchase it, they would have had to pay someone else.

Being "free" to buy permission to do something is not the same as being free to do it.

 

If another member has paid for exclusive tenure on that location.

 

So the community will keep the outsider from accessing what nature provided?

 

If a member has paid for exclusive tenure on that location. Sovereign authority over the land is what makes the community a state with a government.

 

Authority over what nature has provided. How abhorrent.

 

Yep, that trailer park garden owner is free to buy the million acres? Crikey, you've pandered to the right wing way too much

Thanks for the laugh.

 

Show me the precise law/s which prevent the 'trailer park garden owner' from purchasing a million acres. I'll wait

 

That you think buying a million acres is a choice only confirms that you have the same level of realism as the standard right winger. God bless!

 

I'll ask again. Please outline the law which prevents people from choosing to purchase a millon acres.

Of course I realise you can't, and that that's why you keep beating around the bush - but it's a useful exercise to drill down through your assumptions until you hit logic (and therefore truth). You know full well that no one can be prevented from making the choice - whether they follow through, or succeed or fail, is quite beside the point. Some will eventually own that one million, and some won't. The ONLY thing that matters is that we are all free to choose it.

 

Love your effort to avoid what you said: someone with a garden next to their trailer chose that garden over a million acres.

That you ignore the extreme inequalities in land ownership is expected. That you make such a mess of it is most splendid!

Crikey, you right wingers are a blast

 

Cornered so easily, Reivs. What's happened to your game?

Still, I'll carry on. If you stand for freedom (and you must, else you're an authoritarian/totalitarian), you have no choice but to accept that freedom to fail is a part of the deal. Decide what you want - freedom and the human failure which goes with it, or a totalitarian regime wherein everyone is forced to comply with a 'success' dictate.

 

Cornered? Hahaha, love the blag effort. Someone saying owning a million acres is a choice for a trailer owner hasn't got much 'choice' I suppose.

How about super yachts? They a choice too? Of course the difference with land wealth are the negative externalities it imposes on others (and the anti-commons that you deliciously ignore, shattering the left wing pretense)

 

Please name the law/s which prevent individuals in capitalist democracies from choosing to pursue the purchase of land OR yachts.

I'll keep asking, and you'll keep pretending you didn't see the question. And I'll also keep asking if freedom is really what you want .. because your insistence that outcomes are controlled (IOW, you refuse the freedom to fail), indicates that you don't care for freedom - at all.

 

Let's put you out of your misery. Someone who only has enough dosh to pay for a 1 foot square garden cannot buy million acres of land. There is no choice. Bit obvious really, but you right wingers do need your hand held.

And of course, once we accept the extreme inequalities in land ownership, we necessarily are imposing negative externalities on folk. Its a shame you don't give a toss about such force mind you. Makes me sad!

 

You have yet to provide any information (at all) on the specific law which prevents individuals from choosing to pursue ownership of land.

Remember ... freedom of choice, is freedom of CHOICE. If you start talking outcomes, you're talking about something other than freedom. You either accept that a significant percentage of us will always choose failure, or you don't. Since you apparently don't accept that, I would advise you to make peace with your essential authoritarianism. Besides, if you own it we can discuss this stuff far more productively. As you know, I'm fundamentally opposed to controlling for outcome (since doing so is the antithesis of equality, fairness, and freedom), but have pretty firm ideas about how to 'change the world' from the ground up. I'm not interested in top down change at all, so you have a good opponent. Fire away

 

What do 'inequalities in land ownership' have to do with freedom to choose? You are talking outcomes again, further evidencing your authoritarian bent.

Nothing is being forced upon anyone, we live in free market capitalist democracies FFS. Any one of us can choose to pursue a million acres, at any time we like. Literally NOTHING can stop us from making that choice, nor from obtaining those acres when/if we reach the financial position required. Do you want to live in North Korea?