[Rich]

Pretty much, yeah. Right wingers are gung ho for free markets,

Well historically this has not always been the case. In the nineteenth century it was often the liberal left that pushed for free market liberalisation. Or take the Nazis in the nineteen thirties. They were the hard right and they really were socialists. In late Weimar Germany it was the centre that was most pro market. It was the Cold war that embedded the idea that the right are pro market and the left are anti market. It should be noted that at least in America the Cold War conflict was often not characterised as a conflict of economic systems, but as Christian America, the new Jerusalem, the City on the Hill against Godless Communism.

In the seventies and eighties it was the left that pushed for a free markets in pornography, strip clubs and prostitution and the right that viscerally opposed this. In the seventies we saw the emergence of the Libertarian ideology, right wingers, with a faith in free market fundamentalism, who argued for s free market in heroin.

[Hakeer]

How would your tribe "getting there first" erase my tribe's liberty to do what your tribe is doing? You somehow have a right to do it but I don't?? Run that one by me again.

It is the landowner who engages in extortion -- demanding that the land user pay him for permission to use what would otherwise have been available -- and I will thank you to remember it. The extortionist is the one who makes someone else worse off than if he did not exist. That's you, not me, because if you did not exist, I would be at liberty to use the location. If I also use the location, I have not made you worse off, because you can still use it.

Only if you choose to be evil, and forcibly deprive me of what I would otherwise have.

How has my liberty right to use the more desirable location been erased? How is it that you have a right to use what nature provided for all, but I do not?

What got erased was your chance to get there ahead of my tribe. Once we have settled the area, I don’t want you coming in and depriving my tribe of space, resources, and privacy. Our tribe will thrive and grow without you coming in and depleting the amount of land, fish, etc. available to us in the area we chose to settle. Yeah, primates are selfish and territorial. That would make our tribe worse off than if your tribe never arrived after us on Olympic Peninsula . That’s why the European intruders acknowledged my exclusive fishing rights in the area in the treaty between my tribe and the federal government in 1855 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is only in your fantasy world that all land is free for anybody to use at any time for any purpose. In the real world, that was only true 12,000 years ago when the first humans set foot on the peninsula. Since then, land use has been determined by law, and we no longer have wars over land use.

Your argument is this: “If you weren’t here, we would be at “liberty” to come in here and have it all to ourselves, so unless you pay us “compensation” for your exclusive use of the land and resources in your settlement, I’m going to come in here and pitch my teepee in your front yard!” That’s extortion.

[Truth To Power]

What got erased was your chance to get there ahead of my tribe.

Why would that be relevant? You're acting like those explorers who landed on a beach, stuck a flag in the sand, and said, "I claim this continent for France!" actually had some kind of legitimate right to do so.

Once we have settled the area, I don’t want you coming in and depriving my tribe of space, resources, and privacy.

Why would I care what you want? How does what you want erase my right to liberty? I don't want you to be a greedy, evil sack of $#!+, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

Our tribe will thrive and grow without you coming in and depleting the amount of land, fish, etc. available to us in the area we chose to settle.

So that somehow gives them the right to starve other people to death? What about my tribe's ability to thrive and grow?

Yeah, primates are selfish and territorial.

Yes, and they are also violent. That doesn't make it right. But more to the point, landowners are greedy.

That would make our tribe worse off than if your tribe never arrived after us on Olympic Peninsula.

No, of course it wouldn't. Your tribe still has everything it got by being there first. All it loses is what it expected to get in the absence of competition. But being made worse off than you expected to be is not at all the same thing as being made worse off.

Maybe you are sweet on a girl, and you want to marry her, and she indicates that she might be willing. But that does not give you any right to stop other men from courting her, and when some better-looking, more charming (richer) dude comes along, and suddenly your girl is more interested in him, he has not made you worse off -- however much it might feel like it. You have still had all those pleasant times with your ex-girl. All the competition has done is disappoint your expectations, just like my tribe competing with yours for the resources nature provided for all. The fact that you got to the girl or the resources first does not give you ownership of the resources or the girl just because you are worse off than you expected to be.

Clear?

That’s why the European intruders acknowledged my exclusive fishing rights in the area in the treaty between my tribe and the federal government in 1855 and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

No it isn't.

It is only in your fantasy world that all land is free for anybody to use at any time for any purpose.

No, that is false. That was the natural condition of all people for millions of years -- people who had not had their rights to liberty forcibly removed by greedy, evil parasites, that is.

In the real world, that was only true 12,000 years ago when the first humans set foot on the peninsula.

It was true everywhere on earth for millions of years, and you know it. So you are fully aware that calling it a "fantasy world" is just another bald falsehood on your part.

Since then, land use has been determined by law,

Garbage. It has been determined by violence, by custom, by superstition, by happenstance, and only in some cases by law.

Now, I happen to think law is a better way to do it, but not if the law merely codifies injustice.

and we no longer have wars over land use.

What do you think is happening in Ukraine and Gaza?

Your argument is this: “If you weren’t here, we would be at “liberty” to come in here and have it all to ourselves,

No it isn't. My argument is the FACT OF OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL REALITY that if you do not initiate the use of force against us, we have the same liberty right to use the land that you do. We all have equal rights, so we can come to a peaceful accommodation for sharing access to the resource on an equal basis -- but only if both of us respect justice and others' equal rights to liberty.

Clear?

so unless you pay us “compensation” for your exclusive use of the land and resources in your settlement,

No, you made that up. I'm not assuming either side has a legitimate claim to exclude the other.

I’m going to come in here and pitch my teepee in your front yard!” That’s extortion.

Garbage. That's no more extortion than another dude competing for "your" girl's affections is extortion. What's really extortion is your demand that we pay you just for your permission to use what nature provided for all, and which we would have been at liberty to use if you did not forcibly deprive us of it.

[Potemkin]

@Truth To Power has a valid point, in an abstract sense. But the fatal flaw is that there is no plausible historical process which could lead to his proposed utopia, as @Hakeer has argued. One thing which I think Marx got right was his insistence that any utopian thinking must be grounded in historical realities, that if you make a map of utopia, then you must also make a map of the route to utopia.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power has a valid point, in an abstract sense. But the fatal flaw is that there is no plausible historical process which could lead to his proposed utopia, as @Hakeer has argued.

GARBAGE. People who thought as he does also argued that slavery could never be abolished:

“When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.”

–Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850

One thing which I think Marx got right was his insistence that any utopian thinking must be grounded in historical realities, that if you make a map of utopia, then you must also make a map of the route to utopia.

Justice in land tenure arrangements is such a powerful force for progress and prosperity that even though it is extremely imperfect and corrupt, China's system of public ownership of land has in the last 40 years enabled it to achieve the greatest economic miracle in the history of the world. Modern mainstream neoclassical economics is unable to understand or explain that historical outcome, but a genuine empirical science of economics would show that it was inevitable.

There are lots of possible paths to liberty, justice and prosperity, some more likely than others.

It is true that in most capitalist countries, the majority of households own land, and mistakenly believe that landowner privilege is consequently in their interests. It is not. If a way can be found to help people understand the situation, they will be angry enough to vote for justice, and will not accept the status quo.

If China were to adopt justice in land tenure and taxation arrangements as a way to solve its refractory economic problems, it would solve those problems and rapidly become the richest and most powerful country in the world. Other countries would have to adopt the same model or be left in the dust.

Perhaps the most likely path to justice is superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI): people will realize that SAI knows better than they do what is good for them, and it will prescribe justice.

[Hakeer]

Why would that be relevant? You're acting like those explorers who landed on a beach, stuck a flag in the sand, and said, "I claim this continent for France!" actually had some kind of legitimate right to do so.

Why would I care what you want? How does what you want erase my right to liberty? I don't want you to be a greedy, evil sack of $#!+, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

So that somehow gives them the right to starve other people to death? What about my tribe's ability to thrive and grow?

Yes, and they are also violent. That doesn't make it right. But more to the point, landowners are greedy.

No, of course it wouldn't. Your tribe still has everything it got by being there first. All it loses is what it expected to get in the absence of competition. But being made worse off than you expected to be is not at all the same thing as being made worse off.

Maybe you are sweet on a girl, and you want to marry her, and she indicates that she might be willing. But that does not give you any right to stop other men from courting her, and when some better-looking, more charming (richer) dude comes along, and suddenly your girl is more interested in him, he has not made you worse off -- however much it might feel like it. You have still had all those pleasant times with your ex-girl. All the competition has done is disappoint your expectations, just like my tribe competing with yours for the resources nature provided for all. The fact that you got to the girl or the resources first does not give you ownership of the resources or the girl just because you are worse off than you expected to be.

Clear?

No it isn't.

No, that is false. That was the natural condition of all people for millions of years -- people who had not had their rights to liberty forcibly removed by greedy, evil parasites, that is.

It was true everywhere on earth for millions of years, and you know it. So you are fully aware that calling it a "fantasy world" is just another bald falsehood on your part.

Garbage. It has been determined by violence, by custom, by superstition, by happenstance, and only in some cases by law.

Now, I happen to think law is a better way to do it, but not if the law merely codifies injustice.

What do you think is happening in Ukraine and Gaza?

No it isn't. My argument is the FACT OF OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL REALITY that if you do not initiate the use of force against us, we have the same liberty right to use the land that you do. We all have equal rights, so we can come to a peaceful accommodation for sharing access to the resource on an equal basis -- but only if both of us respect justice and others' equal rights to liberty.

Clear?

No, you made that up. I'm not assuming either side has a legitimate claim to exclude the other.

Garbage. That's no more extortion than another dude competing for "your" girl's affections is extortion. What's really extortion is your demand that we pay you just for your permission to use what nature provided for all, and which we would have been at liberty to use if you did not forcibly deprive us of it.

“You're acting like those explorers who landed on a beach, stuck a flag in the sand, and said, "I claim this continent for France!" actually had some kind of legitimate right to do so.”

If all I did was plant a flag and get back in the boat, you would have pulled my flag out of the ground and built your settlement after you arrived. That is not what happened. I cleared the land, planted crops, built my house, etc. long before you ever got here.

“Why would I care what you want?”

I don’t care what you want, either. I am just telling you (evil sack of s**t) that I don’t want you in my settlement that we have all worked hard to build for ourselves. You have no “liberty” to crowd into my space .

“So that somehow gives them the right to starve other people to death?”

Your tribe can settle farther down the river. Your tribe may not prosper as much as mine, but that’s the result of first settlers in an area settling in the best spots.

Yeah, primates are selfish and territorial. You are right that they are violent when another band of monkeys tries to use land inside their territory boundary that they have marked with pee and fur.

If it is “greedy” to not want you to pitch your tent on my front yard, so be it. I won’t attack you, but if necessary, I will call police to have you removed. If I wanted neighbors jammed up next to me on all sides, I would live in town, not on 20 acres of forest land.


“All it loses is what it expected to get in the absence of competition.”
I always knew that sooner or later other tribes would arrive. What I actually expect (know) is that my tribe will do better if you stay out.

“Maybe you are sweet on a girl, and you want to marry her, and she indicates that she might be willing.”

A piece of land is not a woman. The land cannot choose among settlers. The settlers who get there first is a fact that does not change. Clear?

“No it isn't.”
The Clallam tribe’s exclusive fishing rights was upheld by the U.S. Supreme court. You can look it up. I did.

“It is only in your fantasy world that all land is free for anybody to use at any time for any purpose. No, that is false. That was the natural condition of all people for millions of years -- people who had not had their rights to liberty forcibly removed by greedy, evil parasites, that is.”

Your fantasy world no longer exists. There is no longer any land here that is not claimed by some entity (Person, Government, Company). It did take millions of years for humans to settle the whole planet (except Antarctica).
You can no longer legally just pitch your damn tent with impunity nearly anywhere on Earth. The universal hunting and gathering world of your dreams ended 12,000 years ago, and it is not coming back.

Your argument is this: “If you weren’t here, we would be at “liberty” to come in here and have it all to ourselves,

You have the same right as me to be the first to settle on the Olympic Peninsula. But once I have settled the best section along the river, I have no obligation to permit you to pitch your tent in my front yard. And I don’t owe you any “compensation” (extortion) for you to agree to stay out.

And I am not interested in charging you a price to settle here. I don’t want you here -- period. You can try to negotiate, but I don’t have to accept your offer, unless it is to my benefit. That’s justice in the real world. It’s also why I won’t sell anybody my 12 acres.

“No it isn't. My argument is the FACT OF OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL REALITY that if you do not initiate the use of force against us, we have the same liberty right to use the land that you do.”

You can put it in boldface all day, and it is still bullshit. Let me give you an analogy. I get to the river ahead of you and cast my line into the best fishing hole. Then you come along and stand 3 feet from me and claim you have “liberty” to fish right next to me. You cast your line across mine, spook the fish, etc. I say, “Get out of here and find your own spot farther down the river.” You tell me I am a greedy S.O.B. for not sharing the spot with you. This is the same way the Clallam Indians feel when some other tribe tries to crowd into their settlement. Clear?

“What's really extortion is your demand that we pay you just for your permission to use what nature provided for all, and which we would have been at liberty to use if you did not forcibly deprive us of it.”

I don’t want you to pay me anything. I just want you to get off my front yard! Going back to your last post, you want me to pay the local government “compensation” for exclusive use of my property. Extortion: If you don’t pay me, I will do “X.” (pitch tent in front yard). Then, you said you want it to be a recurring payment. That’s essentially the same as the property tax I am already paying the county for roads, law enforcement, etc.

[Truth To Power]

“You're acting like those explorers who landed on a beach, stuck a flag in the sand, and said, "I claim this continent for France!" actually had some kind of legitimate right to do so.”

Try to learn how to use the quote function. It will make it easier to follow the discussion. Just select the passage you want to quote, and click on the speech bubble icon in the editing bar above the text window.

If all I did was plant a flag and get back in the boat, you would have pulled my flag out of the ground and built your settlement after you arrived. That is not what happened. I cleared the land, planted crops, built my house, etc. long before you ever got here.

And you have a perfect right to own the crops and house that you created. But that is not enough for you. You want to own the land, which you did not create. You claim a right to steal it from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Isn't that right?

I don’t care what you want, either. I am just telling you (evil sack of s**t) that I don’t want you in my settlement that we have all worked hard to build for ourselves.

First, it is not "your" settlement and you do not speak for everyone in it. Maybe other people in your community are not as greedy and evil as you, and understand that peaceful, productive immigrants are a net benefit to the community. Second, whatever you may have built, you did not build the land, and you consequently have no right to stop others from using it the same way you have unless you make just compensation for depriving them of it. Third, what you want has absolutely no effect on others' rights.

You have no “liberty” to crowd into my space .

What would make it "your" space other than your intention forcibly to dispossess all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it? You are claiming it is yours, but there is no basis for that claim but your intention to use force to dispossess others. Any claim that is based on nothing but force is just as validly overturned by force.

“So that somehow gives them the right to starve other people to death?”

Your tribe can settle farther down the river.

There are greedy, evil landowners there, too.

Your tribe may not prosper as much as mine, but that’s the result of first settlers in an area settling in the best spots.

No, it's the result of greedy, evil thieves forcibly violating our rights.

Yeah, primates are selfish and territorial. You are right that they are violent when another band of monkeys tries to use land inside their territory boundary that they have marked with pee and fur.

They are also violent among themselves, because unlike people, they do not have rights. You want to claim rights -- property rights -- for yourself, but you also want to forcibly deprive others of their rights to liberty, without justly compensating them for what you are taking from them.

If it is “greedy” to not want you to pitch your tent on my front yard, so be it.

It's certainly greedy to deprive me of that natural opportunity without making just compensation for what you are taking from me.

I won’t attack you, but if necessary, I will call police to have you removed.

Just as slave owners would call on the authorities to catch their runaway slaves rather than take the trouble and risk of doing it themselves.

If I wanted neighbors jammed up next to me on all sides, I would live in town, not on 20 acres of forest land.

And that is why you were willing to pay a previous greedy, evil parasite for the privilege of doing so. You just aren't willing to pay the community for what you are taking from the community.

“All it loses is what it expected to get in the absence of competition.”
I always knew that sooner or later other tribes would arrive. What I actually expect (know) is that my tribe will do better if you stay out.

So how does that prospect give your tribe a right to deprive others of what nature provided for all?

“Maybe you are sweet on a girl, and you want to marry her, and she indicates that she might be willing.”

A piece of land is not a woman.

It's also not a product of labor that can rightly be owned.

The land cannot choose among settlers.

But "settlers" can choose to remove others' liberty to do what they did??

BY WHAT RIGHT?

The settlers who get there first is a fact that does not change.

How does it remove others' equal liberty to do likewise? The land can't choose, but you are claiming a right to choose for it, like a right to stop rivals from courting "your" girl because you had her first.

“No it isn't.”
The Clallam tribe’s exclusive fishing rights was upheld by the U.S. Supreme court. You can look it up. I did.

So what? The US Supreme Court also issued the Dred Scott decision. You can look it up.

“It is only in your fantasy world that all land is free for anybody to use at any time for any purpose. No, that is false. That was the natural condition of all people for millions of years -- people who had not had their rights to liberty forcibly removed by greedy, evil parasites, that is.”

Your fantasy world no longer exists.

You have just admitted that it did exist, so your claim that it is a "fantasy" is merely another bald falsehood from you.

There is no longer any land here that is not claimed by some entity (Person, Government, Company). It did take millions of years for humans to settle the whole planet (except Antarctica).
You can no longer legally just pitch your damn tent with impunity nearly anywhere on Earth.

The existence of such claims is not an argument that they are rightful, nor is their codification in law, as chattel slavery proved.

The universal hunting and gathering world of your dreams

As I have already proved, that is just another fabrication on your part. Why do you keep repeating it even though you know that it is false?

Your argument is this: “If you weren’t here, we would be at “liberty” to come in here and have it all to ourselves,

No, it is not, as I have already informed you multiple times. My argument is, "If you want to deprive others of their liberty rights to access the opportunities that they would otherwise be at liberty to access, make just compensation to the community of those whom you deprive of them."

You have the same right as me to be the first to settle on the Olympic Peninsula.

No, the past cannot be altered. Stop being so absurd.

But once I have settled the best section along the river, I have no obligation to permit you to pitch your tent in my front yard.

Yes you do, or to make just compensation to me for depriving me of my liberty to do so. It's called "respecting others' rights if you want them to respect yours."

And I don’t owe you any “compensation” (extortion) for you to agree to stay out.

You most certainly do, just as slave owners rightly owed their slaves compensation -- wages -- for their labor, and a slave who asked for his wages was not engaging in "extortion." The law merely relieved slave owners of their obligation, as it has relived you of yours. The landowner is always the one engaging in extortion, not the land user, just as it was always the slave owner, not the slave, and I will thank you to remember it.

And I am not interested in charging you a price to settle here. I don’t want you here -- period.

What you want does not determine my rights -- period.

You can try to negotiate, but I don’t have to accept your offer, unless it is to my benefit. That’s justice in the real world.

GARBAGE. You being legally privileged to extort value from others just for your permission to access the advantages government, the community and nature provide at that location can be called many things, but "justice" is not one of them.

It’s also why I won’t sell anybody my 12 acres.

Sure you would. It's just that no one has acquiesced to your extortion demands yet.

“No it isn't. My argument is the FACT OF OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL REALITY that if you do not initiate the use of force against us, we have the same liberty right to use the land that you do.”

You can put it in boldface all day, and it is still bullshit.

No, it is a fact of objective physical reality, and you know it.

Let me give you an analogy. I get to the river ahead of you and cast my line into the best fishing hole. Then you come along and stand 3 feet from me and claim you have “liberty” to fish right next to me. You cast your line across mine, spook the fish, etc. I say, “Get out of here and find your own spot farther down the river.” You tell me I am a greedy S.O.B. for not sharing the spot with you. This is the same way the Clallam Indians feel when some other tribe tries to crowd into their settlement. Clear?

What's clear is that you think exercising your liberty right somehow removes mine.

“What's really extortion is your demand that we pay you just for your permission to use what nature provided for all, and which we would have been at liberty to use if you did not forcibly deprive us of it.”

I don’t want you to pay me anything.

Don't be disingenuous. You are just waiting for someone to offer you the right price.

I just want you to get off my front yard!

What you want does not determine my rights.

Going back to your last post, you want me to pay the local government “compensation” for exclusive use of my property.

Which, remember, is only your "property" in the first place because government says so, and you knew when you bought it that you would have to keep the taxes current to keep it, and there was no guarantee that the taxes would not increase, or be calculated a different way.

Extortion: If you don’t pay me, I will do “X.” (pitch tent in front yard).

GARBAGE!! Requiring you to pay the community for what you are taking from the community is not extortion, any more than a baker requiring you to pay him for a loaf of bread you take from his shop is extortion, and I will thank you to remember it.

Then, you said you want it to be a recurring payment. That’s essentially the same as the property tax I am already paying the county for roads, law enforcement, etc.

It is similar to a property tax in that it is a recurring payment based on ownership rather than a transaction, but the property tax is actually two opposite taxes: the tax on improvement value, which is a measure of what the owner contributes to the wealth of the community, and the tax on unimproved land value, which is what the community contributes to the wealth of the landowner. It should not take a genius to understand that the former is extortion, the latter, justice. Ironically, property owners almost always object to the idea of location subsidy repayment (LSR) even though in many places like Detroit (I don't know if it applies to your area, or your property), their LSR liability would actually be less than their current property taxes.

[Hakeer]

Try to learn how to use the quote function. It will make it easier to follow the discussion. Just select the passage you want to quote, and click on the speech bubble icon in the editing bar above the text window.

And you have a perfect right to own the crops and house that you created. But that is not enough for you. You want to own the land, which you did not create. You claim a right to steal it from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Isn't that right?

First, it is not "your" settlement and you do not speak for everyone in it. Maybe other people in your community are not as greedy and evil as you, and understand that peaceful, productive immigrants are a net benefit to the community. Second, whatever you may have built, you did not build the land, and you consequently have no right to stop others from using it the same way you have unless you make just compensation for depriving them of it. Third, what you want has absolutely no effect on others' rights.

What would make it "your" space other than your intention forcibly to dispossess all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it? You are claiming it is yours, but there is no basis for that claim but your intention to use force to dispossess others. Any claim that is based on nothing but force is just as validly overturned by force.

There are greedy, evil landowners there, too.

No, it's the result of greedy, evil thieves forcibly violating our rights.

They are also violent among themselves, because unlike people, they do not have rights. You want to claim rights -- property rights -- for yourself, but you also want to forcibly deprive others of their rights to liberty, without justly compensating them for what you are taking from them.

It's certainly greedy to deprive me of that natural opportunity without making just compensation for what you are taking from me.

Just as slave owners would call on the authorities to catch their runaway slaves rather than take the trouble and risk of doing it themselves.

And that is why you were willing to pay a previous greedy, evil parasite for the privilege of doing so. You just aren't willing to pay the community for what you are taking from the community.

So how does that prospect give your tribe a right to deprive others of what nature provided for all?

It's also not a product of labor that can rightly be owned.

But "settlers" can choose to remove others' liberty to do what they did??

BY WHAT RIGHT?

How does it remove others' equal liberty to do likewise? The land can't choose, but you are claiming a right to choose for it, like a right to stop rivals from courting "your" girl because you had her first.

So what? The US Supreme Court also issued the Dred Scott decision. You can look it up.

You have just admitted that it did exist, so your claim that it is a "fantasy" is merely another bald falsehood from you.

The existence of such claims is not an argument that they are rightful, nor is their codification in law, as chattel slavery proved.

As I have already proved, that is just another fabrication on your part. Why do you keep repeating it even though you know that it is false?

No, it is not, as I have already informed you multiple times. My argument is, "If you want to deprive others of their liberty rights to access the opportunities that they would otherwise be at liberty to access, make just compensation to the community of those whom you deprive of them."

No, the past cannot be altered. Stop being so absurd.

Yes you do, or to make just compensation to me for depriving me of my liberty to do so. It's called "respecting others' rights if you want them to respect yours."

You most certainly do, just as slave owners rightly owed their slaves compensation -- wages -- for their labor, and a slave who asked for his wages was not engaging in "extortion." The law merely relieved slave owners of their obligation, as it has relived you of yours. The landowner is always the one engaging in extortion, not the land user, just as it was always the slave owner, not the slave, and I will thank you to remember it.

What you want does not determine my rights -- period.

GARBAGE. You being legally privileged to extort value from others just for your permission to access the advantages government, the community and nature provide at that location can be called many things, but "justice" is not one of them.

Sure you would. It's just that no one has acquiesced to your extortion demands yet.

No, it is a fact of objective physical reality, and you know it.

What's clear is that you think exercising your liberty right somehow removes mine.

Don't be disingenuous. You are just waiting for someone to offer you the right price.

What you want does not determine my rights.

Which, remember, is only your "property" in the first place because government says so, and you knew when you bought it that you would have to keep the taxes current to keep it, and there was no guarantee that the taxes would not increase, or be calculated a different way.

GARBAGE!! Requiring you to pay the community for what you are taking from the community is not extortion, any more than a baker requiring you to pay him for a loaf of bread you take from his shop is extortion, and I will thank you to remember it.

It is similar to a property tax in that it is a recurring payment based on ownership rather than a transaction, but the property tax is actually two opposite taxes: the tax on improvement value, which is a measure of what the owner contributes to the wealth of the community, and the tax on unimproved land value, which is what the community contributes to the wealth of the landowner. It should not take a genius to understand that the former is extortion, the latter, justice. Ironically, property owners almost always object to the idea of location subsidy repayment (LSR) even though in many places like Detroit (I don't know if it applies to your area, or your property), their LSR liability would actually be less than their current property taxes.

)
I only have time for a quick question. Maybe more later.

Under your theory of justice, I have a right to my own house (thank you), but you have the same so-called “liberty right” to the land it is built on. My house does not “erase” your liberty right to the land. Or does it?

And what about the land 10 feet in front of my front door? Do you have the “liberty right” to come in and build an ugly statue there against my protest?

[Truth To Power]

)Under your theory of justice, I have a right to my own house (thank you), but you have the same so-called “liberty right” to the land it is built on. My house does not “erase” your liberty right to the land. Or does it?

No. But I have no right to interfere with your enjoyment of the house, either. That is the fundamental problem of human civilization: once people have settled in fixed locations, and there are significant fixed improvements, how do we reconcile the producer's rightful property in his fixed improvements with everyone else's liberty rights to use the land? Private landowning is a quick and dirty solution to that problem, just as slavery was a quick and dirty solution to the problem of labor shortages resulting from war. In both cases, the solution was better than nothing (better to enslave captive peoples than slaughter them); but over the centuries, it took on a life of its own, and became a problem in its own right. And in both cases, we now know of better solutions. It's just harder for people to understand why private landowning is a problem, and how to solve it.

And what about the land 10 feet in front of my front door? Do you have the “liberty right” to come in and build an ugly statue there against my protest?

The way to reconcile your rights with everyone else's is just compensation. You pay the community for the services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities it provides -- including secure, exclusive tenure -- and in return you get to exclude others and use the land as you see fit, consistent with others' rights to do likewise with the land they pay for. The normal common law remedies for nuisance would apply.

Try to understand: your rights as landholder would be very similar to what they are now, but instead of paying a private parasite -- i.e., the previous landowner -- a single up-front payment for doing and contributing nothing, you would pay the community each month for the value it is providing to you each month. LSR is a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction, like buying a load of bread from a bakery. You are merely accustomed to taking the location value the community creates without paying the community for it (you instead paid the previous owner, and have to pay property tax, unjustly, on the improvement value; but you only repay a modest portion of the location value).