[Hakeer]

Inequality does not trouble me. INJUSTICE troubles me. It is certainly the case that both the USA and China are very unjust societies. But in both societies, the major injustice arises from the uncompensated removal of people's liberty rights to use land. Even in China, where land cannot be privately owned, the great majority of the unjust inequality stems from private leaseholders pocketing publicly created land value. Almost every Chinese millionaire and billionaire got that way by doing so.

<sigh> Same arguments as for chattel slavery. Such arguments are already known in advance to be fallacious, dishonest, and evil, with no further argumentation needed.

The difference is that it is government and the community that CREATE the land value, not private landowners. You are essentially complaining that when you buy a loaf of bread, you have to pay the baker, and not a thug who stands around outside the bakery and charges you for permission to go in. Government and the community are the baker. A private landowner is the thug who extorts value and contributes nothing.

Private ownership of land is a far greater evil than slavery. It has impoverished the great majority of humanity for thousands of years, and has killed billions of people. The other great evil of human history, war, has almost always been fought over who gets to own the land. Slavery is almost trivial by comparison.

You violate people's rights when you forcibly deprive them, without just compensation, of their liberty to use the resources nature provided to sustain themselves. The only difference between chattel slavery and landowning is that chattel slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.

I still don't understand why you are trying to change the subject to money. The issue is private property in land. Address my argument: rightful private property is always rooted in an act of production, never an act of forcible appropriation.

Inequality does not trouble me. INJUSTICE troubles me. It is certainly the case that both the USA and China are very unjust societies. But in both societies, the major injustice arises from the uncompensated removal of people's liberty rights to use land. Even in China, where land cannot be privately owned, the great majority of the unjust inequality stems from private leaseholders pocketing publicly created land value. Almost every Chinese millionaire and billionaire got that way by doing so.

In China and U.S., the billionaires are the heads of corporations who use their enormous wealth to corrupt the political system. There are no private leaseholders in China. The government owns all the leases in urban areas, and the land use rights are bid for by private land developers who build those gigantic apartment buildings. I’m sure there are government officials who get rich through corruption, but none of them are as rich as corporate elites who head the tech companies, autos, etc.


“The difference is that it is government and the community that CREATE the land value, not private landowners.”

This is bullshit. When I bought my land, what had value to me and justified the price I was willing to pay for it was the features of the land itself, and none of that was created by the previous owner (had it been an individual or government).. I am referring to the beautiful Western red cedar trees, the beautiful view of Mt. Baker, the quietness of the forest, the easy location for getting into town, etc. Now, if the timber company had built a road into my building site, drilled a well, and installed a septic system, THAT would have created more value in the land and justified a higher price.

You are barking at the moon with your fantasy primitive communist society. Even animals in the wild claim land as their own and fight off intruders. Look at how in the 19th century we forced American Indian tribes into reservations. The land was free for the taking once the Indians were removed. You stake out a claim, file your claim at the local land office, and start farming. Your land is your private property as well as your crops and cattle on your ranch. I don’t see the injustice in that – only in forcing the Indians into the reservations. I understand that you think you have the right to camp in the rancher’s front yard.

Maybe you have a right to land in your fantasy world, but that is not how it works in the real world. Except for Antarctica, nearly all land on the planet is already owned. You arrived too late to the party to settle on it without permission from the owner.

“I still don't understand why you are trying to change the subject to money.” When I exchange money for land in a free market, there is no unjust appropriation. This is where I agree with the Libertarians: If there was no force or fraud employed, it was no injustice – just an exchange of property rights at an agreed price exactlly like any other sale.

[Truth To Power]

There are no private leaseholders in China.

That is just baldly false, like most of your other claims. Both private individuals and private firms commonly hold land leases in China.

The government owns all the leases in urban areas,

That is baldly false.

and the land use rights are bid for by private land developers who build those gigantic apartment buildings.

Those are private leaseholders, duh.

I’m sure there are government officials who get rich through corruption, but none of them are as rich as corporate elites who head the tech companies, autos, etc.

Although there are a handful of famously rich tech and manufacturing billionaires in China, real estate "developers" -- i.e., private land leaseholders -- outnumber them by an order of magnitude.

“The difference is that it is government and the community that CREATE the land value, not private landowners.”

This is bullshit.

It is an indisputable fact. It is merely a fact that you refuse to know because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

When I bought my land, what had value to me and justified the price I was willing to pay for it was the features of the land itself,

Value is what the market says it is, not what you say it is. You merely happened to be the market participant who was willing to pay the most for it. If no one else had been willing to pay even half that amount, you would not have had to pay that much either.

and none of that was created by the previous owner (had it been an individual or government)..

Correct. Land value comes from the desirable public services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. You may note the absence from that list of anything the landowner provides. He is merely legally entitled to demand to be paid for what government, the community and nature provide.

I am referring to the beautiful Western red cedar trees, the beautiful view of Mt. Baker, the quietness of the forest,

Provided by nature.

the easy location for getting into town, etc.

Provided by government and the community. More importantly, what you were willing to pay for was secure, exclusive tenure, which is a service provided by government and the community.

Now, if the timber company had built a road into my building site, drilled a well, and installed a septic system, THAT would have created more value in the land and justified a higher price.

Those are improvement value, not unimproved land value.

You are barking at the moon with your fantasy primitive communist society.

No, that is just some bull$#!+ you made up. It has nothing to do with anything I said.

Even animals in the wild claim land as their own and fight off intruders.

No. There is a difference between ownership of property and brute, animal possession. The animal must fight to maintain possession itself, whereas a human owner has government to do it for him.

Look at how in the 19th century we forced American Indian tribes into reservations.

I.e., private ownership of the land is based on forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. I.e., on stealing it.

The land was free for the taking once the Indians were removed.

Just as slaves were free to be bought and sold once their rights to liberty had been removed.

You stake out a claim, file your claim at the local land office, and start farming.

Because government has already stolen the land from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it.

Your land is your private property as well as your crops and cattle on your ranch.

Garbage. Your crops and cattle are things you produced. "Your" land was merely stolen from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it.

I don’t see the injustice in that – only in forcing the Indians into the reservations.

You don't see the injustice in forcibly removing people's rights to liberty without just compensation and making them into other people's private property?

You don't see the injustice of landowners being legally entitled to charge workers full market value just for permission to work for the local employers, and also turn around and charge employers just for permission to hire the local workers?

You don't see the injustice in landowners being legally entitled to take 20%-30% of GDP in return for no contribution to production?

You don't see the injustice of landowners demanding that starving, landless peasants pay them for what government, the community and nature provide, and forcibly starving them to death, by the millions every year, if they can't afford it?

There is a simple explanation for your inability to see the injustice in such appalling, horrific evil: your beliefs are false and evil.

But hey, don't beat yourself up over it. There are lots worse things a guy could do than disingenuously try to justify the greatest evil that has ever existed. I'm just not able to think of any at the moment.

I understand that you think you have the right to camp in the rancher’s front yard.

It is indisputable that before the land was ever owned -- and all land indisputably started out unowned -- or if he had never existed, I would be at liberty to do so. So how is it that he has erased my right to liberty, hhmmmm?

Maybe you have a right to land in your fantasy world,

If I have no right to use land, I have no right to life or liberty. You just think your property "rights" (actually privileges) have unconditional priority over others' rights to life and liberty. Simple.

but that is not how it works in the real world.

It worked that way just fine for millions of years in the real world until greedy, evil parasites found people stupid enough to believe their false and absurd claims to own what nature provided for all.

Except for Antarctica, nearly all land on the planet is already owned.

It is mostly owned by governments.

You arrived too late to the party to settle on it without permission from the owner.

Oh, really? How so? Chancing to have been born after a greedy, evil parasite has already stolen my right to liberty is not a justification for that theft, whether I am born into slavery or born into a private landowning economy. Would you make the same absurd claim if someone owned the earth's atmosphere, and you were "born too late" to be able to breathe without paying him rent?

“I still don't understand why you are trying to change the subject to money.” When I exchange money for land in a free market,

You can't. Ever. I already proved to you that private ownership of land is inherently impossible in a free market, because it forces everyone to subsidize landowners, and forced subsidies cannot exist in a free market.

there is no unjust appropriation.

GARBAGE. Where land is concerned, there is nothing but unjust appropriation. How can a land patent granted by some European monarch hundreds of years ago based on some greedy "explorer's" claim to have appropriated a whole continent justly remove everyone's rights to liberty?

This is where I agree with the Libertarians: If there was no force or fraud employed, it was no injustice

There was definitely force employed. All ownership of land is based on nothing but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Read and learn:

https://www.prosper.org.au/2007/11/geor ... bertarian/

The folks you call "libertarians" actually advocate feudalism.

– just an exchange of property rights at an agreed price exactlly like any other sale.

You mean like sale of a slave?

Try to remember what I told you about "arguments" that if valid, would justify chattel slavery.

[Hakeer]

That is just baldly false, like most of your other claims. Both private individuals and private firms commonly hold land leases in China.

That is baldly false.

Those are private leaseholders, duh.

Although there are a handful of famously rich tech and manufacturing billionaires in China, real estate "developers" -- i.e., private land leaseholders -- outnumber them by an order of magnitude.

It is an indisputable fact. It is merely a fact that you refuse to know because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

Value is what the market says it is, not what you say it is. You merely happened to be the market participant who was willing to pay the most for it. If no one else had been willing to pay even half that amount, you would not have had to pay that much either.

Correct. Land value comes from the desirable public services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. You may note the absence from that list of anything the landowner provides. He is merely legally entitled to demand to be paid for what government, the community and nature provide.

Provided by nature.

Provided by government and the community. More importantly, what you were willing to pay for was secure, exclusive tenure, which is a service provided by government and the community.

Those are improvement value, not unimproved land value.

No, that is just some bull$#!+ you made up. It has nothing to do with anything I said.

No. There is a difference between ownership of property and brute, animal possession. The animal must fight to maintain possession itself, whereas a human owner has government to do it for him.

I.e., private ownership of the land is based on forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. I.e., on stealing it.

Just as slaves were free to be bought and sold once their rights to liberty had been removed.

Because government has already stolen the land from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it.

Garbage. Your crops and cattle are things you produced. "Your" land was merely stolen from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it.

You don't see the injustice in forcibly removing people's rights to liberty without just compensation and making them into other people's private property?

You don't see the injustice of landowners being legally entitled to charge workers full market value just for permission to work for the local employers, and also turn around and charge employers just for permission to hire the local workers?

You don't see the injustice in landowners being legally entitled to take 20%-30% of GDP in return for no contribution to production?

You don't see the injustice of landowners demanding that starving, landless peasants pay them for what government, the community and nature provide, and forcibly starving them to death, by the millions every year, if they can't afford it?

There is a simple explanation for your inability to see the injustice in such appalling, horrific evil: your beliefs are false and evil.

But hey, don't beat yourself up over it. There are lots worse things a guy could do than disingenuously try to justify the greatest evil that has ever existed. I'm just not able to think of any at the moment.

It is indisputable that before the land was ever owned -- and all land indisputably started out unowned -- or if he had never existed, I would be at liberty to do so. So how is it that he has erased my right to liberty, hhmmmm?

If I have no right to use land, I have no right to life or liberty. You just think your property "rights" (actually privileges) have unconditional priority over others' rights to life and liberty. Simple.

It worked that way just fine for millions of years in the real world until greedy, evil parasites found people stupid enough to believe their false and absurd claims to own what nature provided for all.

It is mostly owned by governments.

Oh, really? How so? Chancing to have been born after a greedy, evil parasite has already stolen my right to liberty is not a justification for that theft, whether I am born into slavery or born into a private landowning economy. Would you make the same absurd claim if someone owned the earth's atmosphere, and you were "born too late" to be able to breathe without paying him rent?

You can't. Ever. I already proved to you that private ownership of land is inherently impossible in a free market, because it forces everyone to subsidize landowners, and forced subsidies cannot exist in a free market.

GARBAGE. Where land is concerned, there is nothing but unjust appropriation. How can a land patent granted by some European monarch hundreds of years ago based on some greedy "explorer's" claim to have appropriated a whole continent justly remove everyone's rights to liberty?

There was definitely force employed. All ownership of land is based on nothing but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Read and learn:

https://www.prosper.org.au/2007/11/geor ... bertarian/

The folks you call "libertarians" actually advocate feudalism.

You mean like sale of a slave?

Try to remember what I told you about "arguments" that if valid, would justify chattel slavery.

“All land in China is owned by the government, which parcels it out to developers and homeowners through 20- to 70
-year leases.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/busi ... r%20leases.


Private individuals do not own land or grant land leases in China. I misunderstood the word “leaseholder.” I thought it meant the party who is owed money, not the party who pays.

I am sure there are more land developers than corporate billionaires, but they are not as rich.

“Value is what the market says it is.”
Finally, that’s something we can agree on. At the time, most people around here who could afford over $100,000 for land preferred to buy in a prestigious area called Bell Hill. As timber land, it was actually worth more than that, and the timber company tried to pull it off the market rather than sell to me, until my real estate agent reminded them that they are legally required to sell at their listed price.

“He is merely legally entitled to demand to be paid for what government, the community and nature provide.”

Not really. He can ask for any price he wants, but he won’t get it unless somebody values the property more than that amount of money.

I agree that the value of a property is a combination of the intrinsic features of the land plus the quality of the community in the area.


“You are barking at the moon with your fantasy primitive communist society.”

No, the society you like has virtually disappeared off the planet. I mentioned there is one hunting and gather society in Tanzania. Once humans transitioned from H&G to horticulture, they could produce a food surplus. That was about 9,000 years ago, and correlated with permanent settlements and private land ownership. That eventually transitioned to feudalism and later to industrial society and capitalism.

“The animal must fight to maintain possession itself, whereas a human owner has government to do it for him.”

Would you rather manage it like the animals, and just leave you scent on the boundary of the territory you claim for yourself? I prefer the nonviolent, civilized way.

I agree you have a right to not be captured and forced into slavery. I disagree that you have the right to pitch your tent on my front yard.

Holy cow, how far back do you want to go with this? The human species originated in Africa. There was a time thousands of years ago when nobody owned any land in North America. From that point forward, we had various tribes claiming territories and fighting each other for control. The Clallam Indians hundreds of year ago lived on my property. They stole it from some other tribe that stole it from some other tribe. The land since then changed hands countless times by force before the timber company acquired it and sold it to me.

“If I have no right to use land, I have no right to life or liberty.”

You are not a farmer. You don’t need land to live. That is why we have grocery stores. I didn’t own any land for most of my life, and that did not prevent me from living as I wished. In a free market capitalist society, land is just a commodity, which is bought and sold like anything else. Someday, I will sell my land and move into a retirement home.

“It worked that way just fine for millions of years in the real world.”
And life expectancy was about age 30. I don’t think you would find many people would vote to go back to hunting and gathering.

“Would you make the same absurd claim if someone owned the earth's atmosphere, and you were "born too late" to be able to breathe without paying him rent?”
We have been through this one before. I can live without land. I can’t live without air. I have a right to air. I don’t have a right to land.

“You mean like sale of a slave?”
We went over this one before, too. Slavery violates human rights. A piece of land does not have rights.

The difference between buying a used car in the free market and a piece of land is that, as you say, if we trace the history of that land, it was probably acquired by force multiple times during the last 10,000 years. I am sorry that humans fight wars over land. That has been going on for as long as the human race has existed. Maybe in some future society we can have your fantasy world. Meanwhile, all we evil people will continue to buy and sell land.

[Truth To Power]

“All land in China is owned by the government, which parcels it out to developers and homeowners through 20- to 70-year leases.”

I.e., private leaseholders.

I misunderstood the word “leaseholder.” I thought it meant the party who is owed money, not the party who pays.

OK. It's even easier to confuse the legal terms, like "lessor" and "lessee," "mortgagor" and "mortgagee."

I am sure there are more land developers than corporate billionaires, but they are not as rich.

The total amount of their wealth is vastly greater.

“He is merely legally entitled to demand to be paid for what government, the community and nature provide.”

Not really.

Yes, really.

He can ask for any price he wants, but he won’t get it unless somebody values the property more than that amount of money.

The unimproved value of the land -- what the person who wants it most would have to pay to get it from the person who wants it second most -- is the value of the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location. That is what the owner is legally entitled to demand from a purchaser. None of which he provides. He is just legally entitled to steal it.

I agree that the value of a property is a combination of the intrinsic features of the land plus the quality of the community in the area.

Which come from government and the community, not the landowner, as I have informed you.

“You are barking at the moon with your fantasy primitive communist society.”

No, the society you like has virtually disappeared off the planet.

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I have never advocated a primitive communist society, and I would give long odds that you cannot accurately describe the society I would like.

I mentioned there is one hunting and gather society in Tanzania. Once humans transitioned from H&G to horticulture, they could produce a food surplus. That was about 9,000 years ago, and correlated with permanent settlements and private land ownership.

No. Private ownership of land came much later; it was essentially a Roman innovation. After the advent of agriculture and permanent settlements, land was normally held under customary tenure arrangements like the village commons that persisted into modern times in Britain. It was usufruct landholding by families, clans, etc., not private property in land in the modern (i.e., Roman) sense.

That eventually transitioned to feudalism and later to industrial society and capitalism.

No. Feudalism -- private landowners discharging the essential security functions of government -- is what happens when private landowning survives the demise of the government power that issued and enforced the land titles.

“The animal must fight to maintain possession itself, whereas a human owner has government to do it for him.”

Would you rather manage it like the animals, and just leave you scent on the boundary of the territory you claim for yourself? I prefer the nonviolent, civilized way.

No you don't. The non-violent, civilized way would be to make just compensation to the community for what you take from them instead of taking it by force and relying on government to stop them from resisting your depredations.

I agree you have a right to not be captured and forced into slavery. I disagree that you have the right to pitch your tent on my front yard.

How was my right to do so -- which certainly obtained before anyone owned the land -- erased?

Holy cow, how far back do you want to go with this?

I want to go forward, to liberty, justice and prosperity. But that means recognizing the context, and being willing to know the fact that all land started out unowned, and there was never an occasion when any of it became rightfully owned.

The human species originated in Africa. There was a time thousands of years ago when nobody owned any land in North America. From that point forward, we had various tribes claiming territories and fighting each other for control.

Right. Land was held by communities, not private individuals, and like territorial social animals -- chimpanzees, gorillas, wolves, etc. -- they had to defend their possession of it themselves, by force.

The Clallam Indians hundreds of year ago lived on my property. They stole it from some other tribe that stole it from some other tribe. The land since then changed hands countless times by force before the timber company acquired it and sold it to me.

They "acquired" it by dint of government forcibly dispossessing all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it.

“If I have no right to use land, I have no right to life or liberty.”

You are not a farmer. You don’t need land to live.

Everyone needs land -- a space on the earth -- to live, and you know it.

That is why we have grocery stores.

Garbage. You don't think one has to be at a location on the earth to shop at a grocery store? You don't think the grocery store also has to exist at such a location? Even the homeless have to use land just to have a space to sleep.

I didn’t own any land for most of my life, and that did not prevent me from living as I wished.

You don't have to own land to use it, duh.

In a free market capitalist society,

I already proved to you that that is logically impossible, as capitalism requires private ownership of land, private ownership of land forces everyone to subsidize landowners, and forced subsidies cannot exist in a free market. Try to remember that.

land is just a commodity, which is bought and sold like anything else.

GARBAGE. Commodities are produced by labor. Land exists without being produced, and cannot be produced by labor. The only way it can be bought and sold is if people's liberty rights to use it are removed by force and made into others' private property, like slaves' liberty rights.

“It worked that way just fine for millions of years in the real world.”
And life expectancy was about age 30.

As it also was when land was privately owned, until some time in the 19th century.

I don’t think you would find many people would vote to go back to hunting and gathering.

Do you think that's what they do in Hong Kong, where there has been no private ownership of land for over 170 years?

“Would you make the same absurd claim if someone owned the earth's atmosphere, and you were "born too late" to be able to breathe without paying him rent?”
We have been through this one before.

Yes, and I proved you wrong.

I can live without land.

No you can't. No one can.

I can’t live without air. I have a right to air. I don’t have a right to land.

GARBAGE. Both land and atmospheric air are necessary to live, both are provided free to all by nature, and all have a natural liberty right to use them. The only difference is that our natural liberty rights to use land have been forcibly removed and made into the private property of landowners.

“You mean like sale of a slave?”
We went over this one before, too.

Yes, and I proved you wrong.

Slavery violates human rights.

So does landowning. How else could landowners murder millions of landless poor people every year? How else could they pocket 20%-30% of GDP in return for no contribution?

A piece of land does not have rights.

The people who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it do, just as the atmosphere does not have rights but the people who would otherwise be at liberty to breathe it do even if it were privately owned, and I will thank you to remember it.

The difference between buying a used car in the free market and a piece of land is that, as you say, if we trace the history of that land, it was probably acquired by force multiple times during the last 10,000 years.

No. That is not the difference. The difference is that land could never have become property in the first place except by force.

I am sorry that humans fight wars over land.

But you are not sorry that landowners murder millions of innocent people every year by depriving them of their liberty to use what nature provided for all, or that they legally steal 20%-30% of GDP.

That has been going on for as long as the human race has existed.

Correct. In fact, warfare over land has almost certainly shaped our species in significant ways: we are the descendants of the people who were able to take the land from other people and hold it.

Maybe in some future society we can have your fantasy world.

Only if people choose liberty, justice, and truth over tyranny, injustice and lies.

Meanwhile, all we evil people will continue to buy and sell land.

Sure, because you like being legally entitled to steal. Simple.

[Hakeer]

Inequality does not trouble me. INJUSTICE troubles me. It is certainly the case that both the USA and China are very unjust societies. But in both societies, the major injustice arises from the uncompensated removal of people's liberty rights to use land. Even in China, where land cannot be privately owned, the great majority of the unjust inequality stems from private leaseholders pocketing publicly created land value. Almost every Chinese millionaire and billionaire got that way by doing so.

<sigh> Same arguments as for chattel slavery. Such arguments are already known in advance to be fallacious, dishonest, and evil, with no further argumentation needed.

The difference is that it is government and the community that CREATE the land value, not private landowners. You are essentially complaining that when you buy a loaf of bread, you have to pay the baker, and not a thug who stands around outside the bakery and charges you for permission to go in. Government and the community are the baker. A private landowner is the thug who extorts value and contributes nothing.

Private ownership of land is a far greater evil than slavery. It has impoverished the great majority of humanity for thousands of years, and has killed billions of people. The other great evil of human history, war, has almost always been fought over who gets to own the land. Slavery is almost trivial by comparison.

You violate people's rights when you forcibly deprive them, without just compensation, of their liberty to use the resources nature provided to sustain themselves. The only difference between chattel slavery and landowning is that chattel slavery removes people's rights to liberty one person at a time, landowning removes them one right at a time.

I still don't understand why you are trying to change the subject to money. The issue is private property in land. Address my argument: rightful private property is always rooted in an act of production, never an act of forcible appropriation.

“The total amount of their wealth is vastly greater.” Prove it.

“He is merely legally entitled to demand to be paid for what government, the community and nature provide.”

There is no law that forbids a landowner to name any price he wants for his land, even if it is ridiculously high.

“Which come from government and the community, not the landowner, as I have informed you.”
The landowner can also build roads, drill well, plant trees, etc. to add value – not to the intrinsic feature of the land itself but to the worth of the whole property when he advertises it for sale.

“I have never advocated a primitive communist society, and I would give long odds that you cannot accurately describe the society I would like.”

What you want is a society with no private land. You can call it any name you like.

“No. Private ownership of land came much later; it was essentially a Roman innovation.”

“Based on their model, a system of mutually recognized private property rights was both a precondition for farming and also a means of limiting costly conflicts among members of a population.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... e_vignette

Once humans transitioned from hunting and gathering to permanent settlements, you want assurance that when you invest the time and resources to build a house, clear land, and plant crops, you don’t want to have to stand over it with a shotgun to keep your neighbor from taking it. You make an agreement with him and draw property lines. This happened in prehistoric agrarian societies all over the world long before there were any huge kingdoms and empires with militaries to seize land, impose taxes, etc.

The first written records were around 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Land was owned by a family and passed on to their sons.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/ne ... -ownership

We can say the king technically owned the land, but it passed within the family for generation after generation

“No you don't. The non-violent, civilized way would be to make just compensation to the community for what you take from them instead of taking it by force and relying on government to stop them from resisting your depredations.”

I pay plenty of compensation to the country for roads, county sheriff, etc. My property taxes in 2023 was $10,400.

How was my right to do so -- which certainly obtained before anyone owned the land -- erased?

Your claimed right exists in your mind, not in the law. You need to turn back the clock 10,000 years to find the society you prefer where there is no private land.

“If I have no right to use land, I have no right to life or liberty.”

You are not a farmer. You don’t need land to live.

Everyone needs land -- a space on the earth -- to live, and you know it.



“You don't think one has to be at a location on the earth to shop at a grocery store? You don't think the grocery store also has to exist at such a location? Even the homeless have to use land just to have a space to sleep”

The grocery store is on land, and you have the right to go in there and get food. You do not need to own your own land to live. You DO need air to live.

You can legally use…
1. On your own land (with some restrictions)
2. Public land (with some restrictions)
3. Private land (with permission)

You cannot camp in my front yard with the claim that you have that “right” because somebody took the land by force 500 years ago.

“ Commodities are produced by labor. Land exists without being produced, and cannot be produced by labor.:”

There is that difference. Also, because every land parcel is unique, it cannot be sold on the stock market like gold or copper futures. But in capitalism, you can buy and sell it on the market like any other object. I have a 12-acre parcel and get unsolicited offers on it all the time. The low bid was $60,000. The high bid with $200,000.. My tax assessment is more than that.

“Do you think that's what they do in Hong Kong, where there has been no private ownership of land for over 170 years?”

I would rather own my land than rent it. You would rather do neither like the hunters and gatherers. That is a long-gone fantasy world except a few isolated places on Earth.

[Truth To Power]

“The total amount of their wealth is vastly greater.” Prove it.

Total market cap of all Chinese companies, $10T:
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... 9&dpr=1.82

Total value of Chinese real estate, $130T:
https://www.statista.com/outlook/fmo/real-estate/china

You may consider yourself schooled.

“He is merely legally entitled to demand to be paid for what government, the community and nature provide.”

There is no law that forbids a landowner to name any price he wants for his land, even if it is ridiculously high.

How is that responsive to the fact that the unimproved land value he demands to be paid for is provided by government, the community, and nature, not by him?

“Which come from government and the community, not the landowner, as I have informed you.”
The landowner can also build roads, drill well, plant trees, etc. to add value – not to the intrinsic feature of the land itself but to the worth of the whole property when he advertises it for sale.

That is all improvement value. The unimproved land value comes from government, the community and nature, not from the landowner. The landowner is merely legally entitled to steal it.

“I have never advocated a primitive communist society, and I would give long odds that you cannot accurately describe the society I would like.”

What you want is a society with no private land. You can call it any name you like.

As I knew with 100% certainty would be the case, you have no idea what I want. What I advocate is secure, exclusive private landholding by anyone who repays the community for what he is taking from the community.

“No. Private ownership of land came much later; it was essentially a Roman innovation.”

“Based on their model, a system of mutually recognized private property rights was both a precondition for farming and also a means of limiting costly conflicts among members of a population.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... e_vignette

That's private ownership of improvements, crops, etc., not the land.

Once humans transitioned from hunting and gathering to permanent settlements, you want assurance that when you invest the time and resources to build a house, clear land, and plant crops, you don’t want to have to stand over it with a shotgun to keep your neighbor from taking it.

<yawn> Do you claim -- falsely, absurdly, and disingenuously -- that that is what happens in Hong Kong? Do you claim -- falsely, absurdly, and disingenuously -- that that is what happened in the communities where COMMON land was allocated among and used exclusively by private households for thousands of years?

You make an agreement with him and draw property lines. This happened in prehistoric agrarian societies all over the world long before there were any huge kingdoms and empires with militaries to seize land, impose taxes, etc.

No it didn't. What happened was that communities arranged for private households, families, clans, etc. to have secure, exclusive usufruct land tenure without private ownership.

The first written records were around 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. Land was owned by a family and passed on to their sons.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/ne ... -ownership

Sorry, no, it was not owned by the family. It was held in usufruct, and that is why a special document had to be created to transfer it to the sons.

We can say the king technically owned the land, but it passed within the family for generation after generation

Right: it was held in usufruct and could not be sold at will like a cow or even a slave, as later emerged in Rome.

“No you don't. The non-violent, civilized way would be to make just compensation to the community for what you take from them instead of taking it by force and relying on government to stop them from resisting your depredations.”

I pay plenty of compensation to the country for roads, county sheriff, etc.

Those expenses are a small portion of what you take from the community by owning the land.

My property taxes in 2023 was $10,400.

The unimproved land value is the market's estimate of how much more the landowner can expect to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever repay in taxes on it.

Now, it may be that you are already paying more than that, especially if the improvement value is many times the unimproved land value. This often happens in places like Detroit, where the high property tax rate crushes land value, so almost the entire property tax liability is based on improvement value. I advocate abolition of the property tax on improvement value.

How was my right to do so -- which certainly obtained before anyone owned the land -- erased?

Your claimed right exists in your mind, not in the law.

Just like the liberty rights of slaves in the antebellum South, my right to liberty is a self-evident fact of reality, which the law has removed by force.

How many times do I have to remind you that any "argument" that would have justified chattel slavery is already known in advance to be fallacious, dishonest and evil, with no further argumentation needed?

You need to turn back the clock 10,000 years to find the society you prefer where there is no private land.

Already refuted. There is no privately OWNED land in Hong Kong, and hasn't been for over 170 years, yet people manage to have and use their private land just fine.

“If I have no right to use land, I have no right to life or liberty.”

You are not a farmer. You don’t need land to live.

GARBAGE. No one can live without using land. No human being has ever been able to live without using land.
Everyone needs land -- a space on the earth -- to live, and you know it.

“You don't think one has to be at a location on the earth to shop at a grocery store? You don't think the grocery store also has to exist at such a location? Even the homeless have to use land just to have a space to sleep”

The grocery store is on land, and you have the right to go in there and get food.

Only if I pay a landowner for permission to live near it.

You do not need to own your own land to live.

I didn't say you had to own it, I said you had to use it. You are just disingenuously trying to pretend that to use land, you have to own it. That is false and you know it.

You DO need air to live.

You need land to live just as much as you need air, and in neither case do you have to own it to use it.

You can legally use…
1. On your own land (with some restrictions)
2. Public land (with some restrictions)
3. Private land (with permission)

Rights existed before laws.

You cannot camp in my front yard with the claim that you have that “right” because somebody took the land by force 500 years ago.

If you want to deprive everyone else of their liberty to use the land, make just compensation to the community of those whom you deprive of it.

“ Commodities are produced by labor. Land exists without being produced, and cannot be produced by labor.:”

There is that difference. Also, because every land parcel is unique, it cannot be sold on the stock market like gold or copper futures. But in capitalism, you can buy and sell it on the market like any other object.

Because capitalism forces everyone to subsidize landowners.

I have a 12-acre parcel and get unsolicited offers on it all the time. The low bid was $60,000. The high bid with $200,000.. My tax assessment is more than that.

That does not jibe with a $10K property tax bill.

“Do you think that's what they do in Hong Kong, where there has been no private ownership of land for over 170 years?”

I would rather own my land than rent it.

Of course, because you prefer being legally entitled to steal from everyone else rather than pay them for what you are taking from them.

You would rather do neither like the hunters and gatherers.

That is a fabrication on your part. I have said no such thing. I merely advocate that those who wish to deprive others of their liberty to use the land make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of it, like paying the baker when you buy a loaf of bread at the bakery. You just prefer being legally entitled to steal the bread.

[Hakeer]

Total market cap of all Chinese companies, $10T:
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... 9&dpr=1.82

Total value of Chinese real estate, $130T:
https://www.statista.com/outlook/fmo/real-estate/china

You may consider yourself schooled.

How is that responsive to the fact that the unimproved land value he demands to be paid for is provided by government, the community, and nature, not by him?

That is all improvement value. The unimproved land value comes from government, the community and nature, not from the landowner. The landowner is merely legally entitled to steal it.

As I knew with 100% certainty would be the case, you have no idea what I want. What I advocate is secure, exclusive private landholding by anyone who repays the community for what he is taking from the community.

That's private ownership of improvements, crops, etc., not the land.

<yawn> Do you claim -- falsely, absurdly, and disingenuously -- that that is what happens in Hong Kong? Do you claim -- falsely, absurdly, and disingenuously -- that that is what happened in the communities where COMMON land was allocated among and used exclusively by private households for thousands of years?

No it didn't. What happened was that communities arranged for private households, families, clans, etc. to have secure, exclusive usufruct land tenure without private ownership.

Sorry, no, it was not owned by the family. It was held in usufruct, and that is why a special document had to be created to transfer it to the sons.

Right: it was held in usufruct and could not be sold at will like a cow or even a slave, as later emerged in Rome.

Those expenses are a small portion of what you take from the community by owning the land.

The unimproved land value is the market's estimate of how much more the landowner can expect to take from the community by owning the land than he will ever repay in taxes on it.

Now, it may be that you are already paying more than that, especially if the improvement value is many times the unimproved land value. This often happens in places like Detroit, where the high property tax rate crushes land value, so almost the entire property tax liability is based on improvement value. I advocate abolition of the property tax on improvement value.

Just like the liberty rights of slaves in the antebellum South, my right to liberty is a self-evident fact of reality, which the law has removed by force.

How many times do I have to remind you that any "argument" that would have justified chattel slavery is already known in advance to be fallacious, dishonest and evil, with no further argumentation needed?

Already refuted. There is no privately OWNED land in Hong Kong, and hasn't been for over 170 years, yet people manage to have and use their private land just fine.

GARBAGE. No one can live without using land. No human being has ever been able to live without using land.
Everyone needs land -- a space on the earth -- to live, and you know it.

Only if I pay a landowner for permission to live near it.

I didn't say you had to own it, I said you had to use it. You are just disingenuously trying to pretend that to use land, you have to own it. That is false and you know it.

You need land to live just as much as you need air, and in neither case do you have to own it to use it.

Rights existed before laws.

If you want to deprive everyone else of their liberty to use the land, make just compensation to the community of those whom you deprive of it.

Because capitalism forces everyone to subsidize landowners.

That does not jibe with a $10K property tax bill.

Of course, because you prefer being legally entitled to steal from everyone else rather than pay them for what you are taking from them.

That is a fabrication on your part. I have said no such thing. I merely advocate that those who wish to deprive others of their liberty to use the land make just compensation to the community of those whom they deprive of it, like paying the baker when you buy a loaf of bread at the bakery. You just prefer being legally entitled to steal the bread.

Now that I understand a little more about your fantasy society, I would like to take my property as an example and ask you a few questions.

Let’s start with defining my “community.” I live in Clallam county WA. The nearest town is Sequim population 8,000, but my land is about half way between Sequim (Clallam word for “quiet waters”) and Port Angeles (population 20,000. The county population is 78,000. The Clallam Indians tribe is by far the largest property owner in the county with over 200 acres in a prime location. They have a casino, big hotel, golf course, two medical centers, gas station, etc. Like other Indian tribes they are politically separate from Clallam county, but geographically embedded in what you could call my “community.” So, as you can see, figuring out the boundary of my “community” is a problem in itself.

Facts about my land. I purchased 20 acres in 1991 for $110,000. It is subdivided into 8 acres (where we built our house) and 12 acres with minimal improvements. As I told you, I paid Clallam county $10,400 on my property which they assessed at a value of $1.1 million.

You say I stole my land, and should have paid more. How much more? How would you calculate it? Who would I pay? The county? The Clallam tribe? I don’t use their facilities, but they are a big revenue source for the “community”, depending on how you want to define the word. If both, how much to each? Who decides how the land is to be chopped up into parcels and how much is owed for each?

The county raises my property taxes every year. I don’t see that they need a big influx of money from the community. We have good roads, schools, medical facilities, and other amenities.

So there you have it. Go.

[Verv]

Conservatives almost never have any inclination towards actual free markets. What they desire is privilege for themselves unconstrained by others' rights to liberty.

I disagree. It is certainly the case that there are lots of market inhibitors at all levels across the US economy that results in it not being as free, but this is more of a reflection of the special privileges large businesses can get from the politicians that they sponsor.

[Truth To Power]

I disagree. It is certainly the case that there are lots of market inhibitors at all levels across the US economy that results in it not being as free, but this is more of a reflection of the special privileges large businesses can get from the politicians that they sponsor.

Even as individuals, conservatives like privileges that violate liberty rights, especially fungible ones like land titles and IP monopolies.

[Truth To Power]

Now that I understand a little more about your fantasy society,

I see no evidence of that:

Let’s start with defining my “community.”

The community is the social organization whose members all live under the same laws. There are different levels of community from local to national. IMO payment for land should be to junior governments because they are more responsible for enhancing the desirability of locations, and national governments (at least of large countries) should be funded by seigniorage on issuance of money and Pigovian taxes.

Facts about my land. I purchased 20 acres in 1991 for $110,000. It is subdivided into 8 acres (where we built our house) and 12 acres with minimal improvements. As I told you, I paid Clallam county $10,400 on my property which they assessed at a value of $1.1 million.

That doesn't tell me what portions are now land value and improvement value, but let's go with it.

You say I stole my land, and should have paid more.

No, I say your land is stolen from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it, and you should justly compensate the community for what you are taking from the community, rather than paying a previous owner for what he would be privileged to steal.

How much more?

Hard to say, but if the land was worth $110K 33 years ago, it's probably worth about $900K now. Its unimproved rental value is likely around $30K -- but remember, that takes the place of all other taxes.

How would you calculate it?

Based on market transactions for comparable nearby parcels, same as normal real estate appraisal.

Who would I pay? The county?

If there is no city government, the county and state would share it. Location subsidy repayment (LSR) is best suited to junior governments.

The Clallam tribe?

Aboriginal title is no more valid than any other private land title.

If both, how much to each?

That would be up to voters to arrange depending on the jurisdictions' respective responsibilities.

Who decides how the land is to be chopped up into parcels and how much is owed for each?

Private users would decide how they wanted to apportion it, but there would be some limit on subdivision so that the land was not split into unusably small, narrow, or oddly shaped parcels. Each separately held parcel would be assessed based on market data.

The county raises my property taxes every year. I don’t see that they need a big influx of money from the community. We have good roads, schools, medical facilities, and other amenities.

It really has little to do with how much the county spends, or on what. What you owe the community is the value you are taking from everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

[Hakeer]

I see no evidence of that:

The community is the social organization whose members all live under the same laws. There are different levels of community from local to national. IMO payment for land should be to junior governments because they are more responsible for enhancing the desirability of locations, and national governments (at least of large countries) should be funded by seigniorage on issuance of money and Pigovian taxes.

That doesn't tell me what portions are now land value and improvement value, but let's go with it.

No, I say your land is stolen from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it, and you should justly compensate the community for what you are taking from the community, rather than paying a previous owner for what he would be privileged to steal.

Hard to say, but if the land was worth $110K 33 years ago, it's probably worth about $900K now. Its unimproved rental value is likely around $30K -- but remember, that takes the place of all other taxes.

Based on market transactions for comparable nearby parcels, same as normal real estate appraisal.

If there is no city government, the county and state would share it. Location subsidy repayment (LSR) is best suited to junior governments.

Aboriginal title is no more valid than any other private land title.

That would be up to voters to arrange depending on the jurisdictions' respective responsibilities.

Private users would decide how they wanted to apportion it, but there would be some limit on subdivision so that the land was not split into unusably small, narrow, or oddly shaped parcels. Each separately held parcel would be assessed based on market data.

It really has little to do with how much the county spends, or on what. What you owe the community is the value you are taking from everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.

“The community is the social organization whose members all live under the same laws.”

That community would be every citizen of the United States. I have three local governments within 15 miles of my home. Who gets the money?


“That doesn't tell me what portions are now land value and improvement value, but let's go with it.”
The 12 acres are essentially unimproved. We build our home on the 8 acres in 1997 for $800,000.



“No, I say your land is stolen from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it, and you should justly compensate the community for what you are taking from the community, rather than paying a previous owner for what he would be privileged to steal.”

You can’t have something stolen that you never owned. Prior to about 100 years ago, NONE of these local governments you are talking about even existed here. The Clallam tribe was already here when the first Europeans arrived in the 1700’s. If land was stolen from anybody, they have the best case.

How much more?

“Hard to say, but if the land was worth $110K 33 years ago, it's probably worth about $900K now.”

That is not even close. As I said, people have been making unsolicited offers for my 12 acres for years, and the high bid so far was about $200,000.

“Based on market transactions for comparable nearby parcels, same as normal real estate appraisal.”

Nonexistent. There is no unimproved land within miles of my home. That is one reason people keeping trying to buy mine.

“If there is no city government, the county and state would share it. Location subsidy repayment (LSR) is best suited to junior governments.”

Sequim, Port Angles, and Carlsborg are all incorporated and within 15 miles of my home. My address says Sequim, but I “use” land more in the others, if that matters.

“Aboriginal title is no more valid than any other private land title.”
How so? They were here for hundreds of years with no “title” – private or otherwise.





Private users would decide how they wanted to apportion it, but there would be some limit on subdivision so that the land was not split into unusably small, narrow, or oddly shaped parcels. Each separately held parcel would be assessed based on market data.

Really? So all of us who were privileged to steal the land get to decide how to chop it up? What about existing zoning laws of the local governments? Do they just go out the window?

“The county raises my property taxes every year. I don’t see that they need a big influx of money from the community. We have good roads, schools, medical facilities, and other amenities.

It really has little to do with how much the county spends, or on what. What you owe the community is the value you are taking from everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.”

What about home sales? The house is sitting on land, so when you buy a house, you are depriving everyone the “liberty” to use the land. So should everybody who buys a house pay a one-time fee to the city? The city’s revenue would depend on the housing market. If there is a slump during periods of recession or high inflation, the city could go broke. Property tax is a much more stable and dependable revenue stream.

I didn’t deprive you of your fictive “liberty” by buying my land. You still could not use it without permission from the owner. And there was another private owner before them, and another before him, etc. back for hundreds of years. The first humans to set foot on the Olympic Peninsula had total liberty to do anything they wanted with the land, but nobody since then. I’m not sure whether the Clallam tribe had private property, but I have a hunch that if you walked into their land and started hunting and fishing — claiming “liberty” — you would have had a problem. They were serious about that in their treaty with the federal government in 1855.

[Verv]

Even as individuals, conservatives like privileges that violate liberty rights, especially fungible ones like land titles and IP monopolies.

OK, I see where you are coming from, and you are doubtlessly logically consistent.

But you have a very unique perspective on these things, lol, so a little bit of charity towards the beliefs of others is due.

[Truth To Power]

“The community is the social organization whose members all live under the same laws.”

That community would be every citizen of the United States. I have three local governments within 15 miles of my home. Who gets the money?

I suspect you know perfectly well which local jurisdictions you currently pay property taxes to. How to divide location subsidy repayment (LSR) revenue between the various levels of government is a matter for local jurisdictions to negotiate, and not really relevant to the issue that those who deprive others of what they would otherwise have should make just compensation for what they are taking.

“That doesn't tell me what portions are now land value and improvement value, but let's go with it.”
The 12 acres are essentially unimproved. We build our home on the 8 acres in 1997 for $800,000.

You spent $800K to build a house almost 30 years ago?

So you are rich, and therefore intent on rationalizing and justifying the parasitism of the rich. Check.

“No, I say your land is stolen from all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it, and you should justly compensate the community for what you are taking from the community, rather than paying a previous owner for what he would be privileged to steal.”

You can’t have something stolen that you never owned.

Yes, of course you can. No one owns the earth's atmosphere, but if someone invented a giant machine that sucked it in, compressed and stored it, until the air became so thin that people had to pay him rent for air to breathe or die of suffocation, he would be stealing, I repeat, STEALING the air from everyone who would otherwise have been at liberty to breathe it.

Clear?

Prior to about 100 years ago, NONE of these local governments you are talking about even existed here. The Clallam tribe was already here when the first Europeans arrived in the 1700’s. If land was stolen from anybody, they have the best case.

No, everyone who would otherwise have been at liberty to use the land has the best case, including those the Clallam deprived of it.

How much more?

“Hard to say, but if the land was worth $110K 33 years ago, it's probably worth about $900K now.”

That is not even close. As I said, people have been making unsolicited offers for my 12 acres for years, and the high bid so far was about $200,000.

I can't comment on how the value might be divided between the two parcels, as I don't know anything about their physical qualities, road access, etc. Your property tax assessment should tell you what the unimproved land value is (though most official assessed values are wildly inaccurate, often by law)

“Based on market transactions for comparable nearby parcels, same as normal real estate appraisal.”

Nonexistent.

Garbage. Ask a local real estate appraiser, and they will be able to tell you how much the land would be worth if all the improvements were removed. Any godd textbook on real estate appraisal can tell you how it is done.

There is no unimproved land within miles of my home.

That is false.

That is one reason people keeping trying to buy mine.

Then you admit that my $900K estimate was not far off. The notion that 12 acres of land in an area of Washington state that is so densely developed that there is no unimproved land within miles is only worth $200K is absurd.

“If there is no city government, the county and state would share it. Location subsidy repayment (LSR) is best suited to junior governments.”

Sequim, Port Angles, and Carlsborg are all incorporated and within 15 miles of my home. My address says Sequim,[ but I “use” land more in the others, if that matters.

Why are you disingenuously pretending not to know which jurisdiction you currently pay your property taxes to? I have no idea what you are on about, but it seems you are just trying to evade the facts. That is normal, routine, and expected.

“Aboriginal title is no more valid than any other private land title.”
How so? They were here for hundreds of years with no “title” – private or otherwise.

Aboriginal "title" is based on nothing but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land, same as your title.

"Private users would decide how they wanted to apportion it, but there would be some limit on subdivision so that the land was not split into unusably small, narrow, or oddly shaped parcels. Each separately held parcel would be assessed based on market data."

Really? So all of us who were privileged to steal the land get to decide how to chop it up?

Subject to restrictions as noted to ensure productive use is not compromised. Sometimes land has been subdivided to enable more productive use as SFD housing, but then later it is assembled again to enable larger-scale multi-family development.

What about existing zoning laws of the local governments? Do they just go out the window?

Land use restrictions are a different issue from subdivision; but in general, communities would be interested in enabling the most productive uses that did not interfere with the most productive use of nearby parcels, as that would maximize their total revenue. The justice of LSR aligns their incentives with the public interest in optimal productive use.

“It really has little to do with how much the county spends, or on what. What you owe the community is the value you are taking from everyone else who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land.”

What about home sales? The house is sitting on land, so when you buy a house, you are depriving everyone the “liberty” to use the land. So should everybody who buys a house pay a one-time fee to the city?

No; one-time fees do not solve the problem that the landholder is taking the land's current unimproved rental value from the community, not its value 10, 20, 50, or 100 years before.

The city’s revenue would depend on the housing market. If there is a slump during periods of recession or high inflation, the city could go broke. Property tax is a much more stable and dependable revenue stream.

I agree that the recurring value the landholder is taking from the community can only justly be compensated by recurring payment for it.

I didn’t deprive you of your fictive “liberty”

Probably a lot more serious than the federal government was....

[Hakeer]

OK, I see where you are coming from, and you are doubtlessly logically consistent.

But you have a very unique perspective on these things, lol, so a little bit of charity towards the beliefs of others is due.

Truth to Power:
The Clallam tribe were the first humans to settle on the Olympic Peninsula about 10,000 years ago. Did they steal the land from humans at that time who were still settled in Africa by “depriving” the Africans the “liberty” to use the land? Let’s start there.

[Truth To Power]

Truth to Power:
The Clallam tribe were the first humans to settle on the Olympic Peninsula about 10,000 years ago.

According to whom?

Did they steal the land from humans at that time who were still settled in Africa by “depriving” the Africans the “liberty” to use the land? Let’s start there.

How about we start with you trying to be honest?

You are aware of the fact that there were other people in the area, and others who arrived from time to time, not just in Africa. Why pretend you are not?

Everyone who forcibly deprives others of their liberty to use what they would otherwise have been at liberty to use, and does not make just compensation to them for what they are taking from them, is stealing. You know this is true. Of course you do. You just want to make an exception for land because you want to deprive others of their liberty to use it without making just compensation to them for what you are taking from them. You like being legally entitled to steal. Simple.

[Hakeer]

According to whom?

How about we start with you trying to be honest?

You are aware of the fact that there were other people in the area, and others who arrived from time to time, not just in Africa. Why pretend you are not?

Everyone who forcibly deprives others of their liberty to use what they would otherwise have been at liberty to use, and does not make just compensation to them for what they are taking from them, is stealing. You know this is true. Of course you do. You just want to make an exception for land because you want to deprive others of their liberty to use it without making just compensation to them for what you are taking from them. You like being legally entitled to steal. Simple.

Is a tribe 100 miles from the Clallam tribe “deprived”? The Clallam tribe got there first. Are they supposed to just stand aside, as the other tribe moves in? The best fishing is along the Strait of Juan de Fuca and so they settled that area. At one point they took a case to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend their fishing rights under their treaty. What if they don’t want any damn “compensation” and just want to be left alone on the land they have settled for the last thousand years?

[Truth To Power]

Is a tribe 100 miles from the Clallam tribe “deprived”?

That's a bit too far for a commute. When people had to walk to work, a few miles would be enough to put them in a different community.

The Clallam tribe got there first.

Even if that were true (it isn't), so what? If they have a right to use the land, how would that erase everyone else's similar rights?

Are they supposed to just stand aside, as the other tribe moves in?

They can keep using the land if they want; and if they want to stop others from doing what they are doing, they can make just compensation for what they are depriving them of.

The best fishing is along the Strait of Juan de Fuca and so they settled that area. At one point they took a case to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend their fishing rights under their treaty. What if they don’t want any damn “compensation” and just want to be left alone on the land they have settled for the last thousand years?

On what basis would their ancestors' use of the land erase others' rights to do likewise? If anything, it would seem to be someone else's turn.

[Hakeer]

That's a bit too far for a commute. When people had to walk to work, a few miles would be enough to put them in a different community.

Even if that were true (it isn't), so what? If they have a right to use the land, how would that erase everyone else's similar rights?

They can keep using the land if they want; and if they want to stop others from doing what they are doing, they can make just compensation for what they are depriving them of.

On what basis would their ancestors' use of the land erase others' rights to do likewise? If anything, it would seem to be someone else's turn.

If there is a great fishing section on the river and my tribe (Clallam) gets there first, I am supposed to pay your tribe or else you will crowd into my settlement. So I have to choose between (1) paying what you call “compensation” and I call “extortion”, or (2) we have a war, or (3) you establish your settlement in a less desirable location farther down the River.

[Truth To Power]

If there is a great fishing section on the river and my tribe (Clallam) gets there first, I am supposed to pay your tribe or else you will crowd into my settlement.

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.

So I have to choose between paying what you call “compensation” and I call “extortion” ,

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.

we have a war,

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

or you establish your settlement in a less desirable location farther down the River.

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?

[Verv]

Truth to Power:
The Clallam tribe were the first humans to settle on the Olympic Peninsula about 10,000 years ago. Did they steal the land from humans at that time who were still settled in Africa by “depriving” the Africans the “liberty” to use the land? Let’s start there.

To be fair, there's probably a lot of wildlife that would have appreciated them not settling their island, and it seems doubtful based off of what we know of tribal societies that they did not engage in seasonal warfare over specific plots of land or perhaps even simply to steal brides.

Now, this is not to say what you are saying is worthless... We should always strive to go within ourselves and find the most purely principled reason for doing a thing, but we are now running into the problem where we are pretending that that which was most primitive was most ethical, and that the most primitive claims to land are the most ethical... IDK.