Roy simply does not understand NP Lockean property rights.
OTC, I understand them far better than you, because I know how to make them non-contradictory.
It's pretty evident by the absurdity of his comments about the sun and the air. No one can own the sun because it is simply impossible to homestead,
Says who? We can easily imagine a future where technology makes it possible to orbit so many solar energy collectors around the sun that its light on earth is dimmed -- the widely known Dyson Sphere concept. That's homesteading by the usual propertarian definition.
and with air you do own it, whenever you breathe.
No you don't, stop lying. All you are doing is fallaciously and dishonestly renaming ordinary animal functions as exercises of property rights. Does a fish have property rights when the water passes over its gills?
Don't be so dishonest.
You've taken the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, etc. and inhaled it, making it your own,
I repeat: do fish, insects, etc. all have property rights when they breathe?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire.
The more interesting corollary of Voltaire's penetrating observation is that those who would make you commit atrocities will first try to make you believe absurdities. You are trying to get people to believe the absurdity of animals having property rights in the air they breathe in order to make people commit the atrocity of forcibly removing other people's rights to liberty without just compensation.
but air outside your body cannot be owned unless you build a large bubble or something and enclose it (say, like a balloon).
Fine. Now at least you have said something honest that we can work with.
WHY CAN'T IT BE OWNED?
As far as rents, capital, and land go, the Georgists have STILL yet to address Frank Fetter on this issue.
I have demolished Fetter's stupid nonsense utterly.
What the hell do you think you are saving and investing?
?? Nothing. Natural resources exist without being "saved" or "invested."
Next dishonest absurdity?
Resources....resources are capital.
Blatantly absurd and dishonest.
Another blatant lie. Capital must be made by labor. Land
cannot be made by labor. The initial owner of capital is a producer. The initial owner of land is a thief: as I already proved, there is REALLY no distinction between a bandit and a landowner.
So much for your "no distinction" crap.
and to make one is to obfuscate and deceive the issue.
No, you are just lying. To
DENY the crucial, self-evident, and indisputable distinction -- that capital is a product of labor and land is not -- is to obfuscate and deceive the issue.
Rents are just fine so long as the property has been homesteaded and or, proper title has been traded / gifted.
Rents are just fine because that's how people can justly compensate those whose liberty rights they violate by excluding them from accessing and using what nature provided for all. But there can be no such thing as proper title to land, because there is no such thing as homesteading that does not forcibly remove others' rights to liberty.
Roy has no meaningful basis of his for property rights.
Another blatant lie from you. The basis of all valid property rights is the producer's act of production, which brings something into the world that did not previously exist. The product of his labor is his property because he does not thereby deprive anyone else of anything they would otherwise have, while depriving him of it WOULD deprive him of something he would otherwise have.
I've yet to see something other than Lockean property rights make sense and or not be illogical.
See immediately above. When you produce something, you own your product, not the location where you produced it. Pretty simple -- unless you are greedy and dishonest, and want to steal the fruits of others' labor.
