SolarCross wrote:The sidewalk is likely owned either by the owner of the house or by a municipal authority.
I have a default right to use it, proving you objectively wrong. OBJECTIVELY.
If you don't own it then you don't have a liberty right to use it by default.
Yes, I most certainly do, as that is what having a right to liberty means
. That is how our ancestors lived for millions of years before greedy, parasitic, thieving murderers figured out that they could enslave everyone else if they could just get ownership of their rights to liberty by owning the gifts of nature they would otherwise be at liberty to use.
But there is implied consent to use in that the function of a "sidewalk", as yanks call it, is for people to walk upon thus whoever owns and maintains it does so exactly so that people can walk upon it.
You are evading the facts again. Even if no such structure existed, I would have a default right to walk there.
Occasionally access might be restricted by maintenance or some security incident in which case that implied consent is explicitly withdrawn.
No, in such cases the default
right to liberty is temporarily in abeyance in the interest of public safety.
If no one owned it then for sure you can rightfully use it without anyone's consent, implied or otherwise.
Proving your claim that I don't have a right to use anything I don't own objectively false. Your whole "argument" thus collapses. The onus is on the one claiming to own others' rights to liberty to explain why that is rightful, not on them to explain why it is not.
A sidewalk is not a personal space however so it is not safe to assume that what is right for a sidewalk is also right for someone's private bedroom...
You are again just trying to evade the facts of objectively physical reality that prove your beliefs are false and evil by trying to change the subject from land to built space. I have already stipulated that products of labor -- like a bedroom -- are rightly private property, initially of their producers and subsequently of those who acquire them in consensual exchange. But there is no act of production at the root of property in land, only an act of theft.
No one is doing that with air so I don't really see what that has to do with anything.
No one is doing it with air because your claim that people have no right to use what they do not own is so obviously false.
Generally a landowner is exercising some authority over a space not just because it is empty space but because that space has structures, tools or other possessions upon or in it which he is interested in preserving.
No, he has simply been given a legal privilege of abrogating others' rights to liberty without making just compensation, same as a slave owner, or a hypothetical owner of the earth's atmosphere.
Even when people just walk around they claim the immediate space around them even as they move about.
No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. They OCCUPY the space their bodies fill, but they do not
claim to own
it. Try to learn the difference.
Ownership claims are generally functional not whimsical.
Of course. Same as the claim to own slaves was -- and in some places still is -- functional and not whimsical. Owning slaves solves some very real problems. We just have better, consent-based solutions to those problems now, as we do with land. The only difference is that the case of land is subtler, less direct, and distributed rather than individual, so most people haven't understood it yet.
That depends on what that something is. You can't assume that the rights of using an alphabet is the same as the rights of entering someone's private space, especially without their knowledge. Otherwise you are basically saying burglary is a right.
No. You are again trying to change the subject from land to built space. I agree that products of labor like built space are rightly the private property of, initially, their producers, and subsequently anyone who has obtained them in consensual exchange. Burglars take products of labor, not land.
I wonder if you have the courage of your convictions?
You mean your lie about my convictions:
Do you actually trespass against your neighbours? Do you think any jury in the world would let you off for entering some woman's bedroom at night without permission? Perhaps you think she should be punished instead for calling the police on you?
Not true because animals will claim spaces even if they have not built on them
Claiming is not owning, as thieves prove every day. Brute, animal possession must be defended by the possessor. Ownership of property is defended by the community.
and anyway it hardly matters that which is built must occupy some space so whether the animals is claiming and defending the structure or the space is moot because the result is the same and humans are functionally doing the same thing anyway.
Wrong again. Claiming something you have added to the sum of wealth does not deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have. Claiming something that was already there, ready to use, with no help from you DOES deprive others of something they would otherwise have.
If it is wrong for the human then it must also be wrong for the beaver.
Beaver don't have rights. Humans do. You just want to take those human rights to liberty away from people by force and give them to landowners as their private property because you know that will effectively enable landowners to enslave the landless. You want
the landless to be enslaved by landowners, as has happened in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.
Yet no one, human or otherwise, except for you thinks so.
No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. Just because you want people's rights to liberty removed and given to landowners as their private property doesn't mean everyone else wants that, too.
No, I am objectively correct.
The right or wrong of a property claim is quite independent of whether force is available to defend it or what allies may help defend it.
Right. It has nothing to do with making claims, applying force or having "allies," but only on whether a property claim is socially recognized as validly grounded in justice, as the property right of the producer to his product is. In which case, society will generally support and defend the claim. But valid
property rights cannot be based only on custom, tradition, social acceptance, functionality or convenience, as chattel slavery proved.
Your very personal mis-definition of "ownership" is idiosyncratic to yourself and irrational.
There is nothing idiosyncratic about it. It is a dictionary definition.
If it were true that rights are a mere popularity contest of who has the most allies then the conventional idea that people can rightfully claim ownership of space is ubiquitous to every culture and people throughout all history
No, that's just indisputably false. The notion of private property in land is unknown, even inconceivable, in pre-agricultural societies until it is forcibly imposed on them by more advanced ones. Even in agricultural societies, it was not until Roman law that property in land was considered analogous to property in products of labor. Before that, it was always understood that land was a communal resource, and exclusive private tenure was temporary and conditional.
with only yourself and a handful of other nutcases saying otherwise
As you would have said to the abolitionists 250 years ago.
which would leave your position completely wrong by your own just-made-up-now standard.
Your claims continue to be reliably false.