Cool. Like my strawbale hut and the land upon which it rests.
Nope. You're lying. The hut is a product of labor so owning it doesn't violate others' rights. The land is
not a product of labor, so owning it
DOES violate others' rights. It therefore can't rightly be owned.
All personal, private property.
Nope. The hut is personal and private property because you built it. The land is not personal or private property because all you are doing is temporarily occupying it.
Everyone else should be able to do likewise, and everyone else can fuck off from everyone else.
Nope. That's impossible. Once you steal the land from everyone who would otherwise be at liberty to use it, you have removed part of their liberty rights. Steal more land, and you remove more of their rights. This is easily proved: you build a hut in one location and claim it gives you ownership of the land; then you build a hut elsewhere, claiming that land, too. Others are doing the same. Gradually all the land is taken as property. Before long there is no place left for the younger generation to build a hut without paying rent to a greedy, evil, thieving, parasitic land thief. They cannot "do likewise," and are therefore robbed of their rights to liberty, and are permanently enslaved. To rob and enslave the honest and productive is the only possible motive for greedy, evil, thieving parasites to steal land.
Nope. You're just lying, and you know it. When you use forcible, aggressive, coercive government officials to obtain the evil, force-based, government-issued and government-enforced privilege of private property in land, thereby removing others' rights to liberty, you deprive them of their liberty, their access to opportunity, their rights to life, and their property in the fruits of their own labor.
No, I reject your concept of equal human rights to other peoples' life, liberty and property
You are again just baldly lying about what I have plainly written. It is private landowning that removes others' rights to life, liberty and property, as proved, repeat, PROVED by the condition of the landless in every country where land is privately owned but government does not intervene massively to rescue the landless from the inevitable economic effects of private landowning.
in the fruits of their labor via the pernicious geoist doctrine that the entire earth is "Common Property".
The earth is common "property" only in the sense that all have equal rights to exist on it and use what nature provided to sustain themselves. How are you claiming those rights were removed?
Nobody else needs the land under my hut to survive.
Which is why you have a right to use it -- but not to own it after you are done using it.
So long as there is enough land available for their own hut, and their own land to build it on, they can all fuck off. You especially.
I see. So, everyone can fuck off, especially me, until all the land is owned, and then they can pay you rent for access to space in which to exist, or die.
Evil filth.
Correct, and I am the ONLY one between us that recognizes and acknowledges that we're all making nothing but normative arguments about what we think "should/ought" to be.
No. We are identifying known facts of physical reality, history, and economics that support our position. You are just chanting about your desire to rob, enslave and murder the honest and productive for your own unearned profit, and pretending your chant somehow gives you a right to do so.
Private property was anything privately secured for exclusive possession and use, and which excludes others from possession and/or use. That was not constrained or limited to the fruits of labor.
Flat false. The land under his hut, for example, was secured for his private possession and use, and that right was socially recognized. But he had no property right in it, because until greedy, evil land thieves and their lawyers came along, no one even conceived the baldly evil notion that his TEMPORARY exclusive possession and use of it gave him a right to keep others off it once he had moved on.
A caveman finds a small cave, big enough for a large family only - and everyone else can fuck off.
BUT ONLY UNTIL HE MOVES ON. His right of temporary exclusive occupancy of the cave did NOT confer a property right in the cave because it ceased when he ceased to occupy it, just as his right to occupy the physical space of his body ceased when he took a step and moved it to a different location.
It's his property now, and he owes nothing to others for it.
Refuted above. It's not his property, because he has no right to keep others off it once he is no longer occupying it.
So it's not his property.
it did not come about as result of the fruits of his labor,
So it's not his property.
and in fact his only labor might be just defending it from intruders.
Which he typically wouldn't have to do, as others would recognize it as his temporary exclusive possession, like the space his body occupies.
It is a place that is provided by nature, where he can live, sleep, eat, and store the fruits of his labors.
Until he moves on. Then it is up for grabs. Proving, repeat,
PROVING he never
owned it.
PROVING.
And you can fuck off. Find your own cave. Build your own hut. Your survival need not depend on HIS cave.
Until all the caves are owned. Then what? Then the greedy, evil, parasitic cave thief -- call him, "Steven" -- starts charging others rent for "his" caves, of course.
His cave, like my hut, and all the land upon which it rests, is property,
Already proved a stupid lie, above. Stop telling such stupid lies, Steven. Seriously. It's time.
not because of the labor or materials required to build it, but because of the human requirement for exclusive use of land upon which every human requires for life,
TEMPORARY exclusive use, like the occupation of the space his body takes up.
and also the security on that land required to enable the pursuit of life, liberty and other property.
But NOT a privilege of keeping others off it (unless they pay you rent for it) once you are through using it. That's a little detail you "forgot."
When he leaves his cave to go hunt and gather, his mate and brothers and uncles and their mates are left behind to guard it.
Nope. No one has to guard it, because his right of
temporary exclusive possession and use is recognized, like his right to temporary exclusive occupation and use of the space his body passes through as he goes about his business.
That's the only "state" that exists. That family, or tribe. If they all left the cave, it would revert to common property -- not "still be" common property.
Nope. You're lying. The fact that it would "revert" to common property
proves it still is, and was never anything else but, common property.
But only for a time, until someone else claimed it and defended it as their own. This means that "common property" only really meant, in that case, "available for exclusive use as private property".
Nope. What it self-evidently and indisputably means is, "available for TEMPORARY exclusive use as COMMON property with NO option to appropriate as PRIVATE property."
Comes now another family. They come in peace, with lots of hides and other cool shit to trade with.
And safe in the knowledge that the cave's previous occupier is not a greedy, evil, parasitic land thief who will try to claim he owns the cave in order rob, enslave and murder them in a feeding frenzy of greed for unearned wealth.
The leader says, "I'll give you all my hides, horses and lots of other cool shit if you'll stop defending your cave and leave, so that my family can occupy and defend this cave instead of you."
Nope. He would never make such an offer, as he knows the terms of exclusive TEMPORARY occupancy and use do not permit treating caves as their occupants' private property. That scenario simply NEVER HAPPENED in the millions of years people occupied caves. Such a transaction has NEVER been recorded by anthropologists studying hunter-gatherer and nomadic-herding societies. Not once. And you know it.
The leader of the cave tribe says, "I can use this cool shit as we find another place I know about north of here. So an agreement is struck, and a land sale takes place. Between two states -- TWO FAMILIES.
Nope. Never happened, and never could have happened. Only the emergence of greedy, evil, parasitic land thieves, their lawyers, and their government thugs could make such a scenario even conceivable.
You're the only one who is self-contradicted.
Lie.
Labor and capital are not equal either, and yet the right to acquire both exist. Equally.
Because they are both produced by human effort, which earns ownership. Land is not, so there is no way to earn ownership of it.
Not to the right to the fucking amount!
Because the amount owned is exactly the amount produced. No land is produced, therefore none is owned.
Remove your idiotic, self-contradictory thought that THE ENTIRE EARTH is "common property",
There's nothing self-contradictory about it, as proved by the fact that THE ENTIRE EARTH was indisputably common property for millions of years before greedy, evil, parasitic land thieves' lawyers got everyone else's rights removed.
and you'll see that it applies equally to land, which is no more equal in parceled existence than capital and labor are.
Its existence isn't parceled, stop lying.
That would only be true if you made no distinction (and you don't --your fatal flaw), between privileged entities and/or privileged behavior (like that of a foreigners, corporations, and outright land speculators, foreign and domestic) and the actual rights of individual Citizens who are none of the foregoing.
Stupid, meaningless, dishonest garbage. Privileged entities like landowners engage in privileged behavior, like removing others' rights. If you engage in privileged behavior, you're a privileged entity. Privileged entity, privileged behavior. Privileged behavior, privileged entity. Not rocket science.
Buying up 4,000 acres of land for a land development project is privileged behavior. Buying a parcel of residential land upon which to live is not.
Yes, it is, it's purely a question of scale, not of kind.
Apply LVT (and anything else) exclusively to those privileged entities, and the rights of individuals to be secure in their ownership of land as a matter of right, and free of forced displacement, interference or foreign invasion, can be fully reconciled.
Not with rights to life and liberty, they can't, as already proved.
Your absurdities, like all leftist, collectivist, blanket absurdities, would enable unintended atrocities.
Nope. Never happened. Never can. You just lie that allowing the free market to signal people that they are using more good land than they can use productvely is an "atrocity."
You're the only one trying to reconcile an artificial absurdity (the whole Earth = Common Property).
That can't be absurd, as it was indisputably the case for millions of years.
When you say "it" you mean any part of THE WHOLE EARTH that is held exclusively as private property. I would not be so arrogant, so stupid, as to presume a right of access to the whole Earth,
You mean you would not be so honest and intelligent.
because I am wise enough to recognize, at the very least, that there are billions of people living here already, who have an unalienable right to be secure in their claim on at least enough land to live on.
But the landless don't?
There is at least SOME land on Earth which is NOT COMMON PROPERTY, for which I DO NOT, SHOULD NOT, HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT.
True. You don't, for example, have an equal right to access and use World Heritage Sites that need protection from indiscriminate use.
First, by a full-on rejection of your absurd, bizarre premise that the whole of the Earth is common property,
Stupid lie. It is neither absurd nor bizarre, because common property is the default condition that held for millions of years.
to which everyone has a perpetual ongoing equal liberty right of access -- even to land that is already exclusively in use and supporting life already. That eliminates all need to reconcile your self-contradictory "right" that does not, and should not, exist in the first place.
It certainly exists, and should, and did for millions of years. To remove it is the method of greedy, evil, thieving parasites.
That's your collectivist normative, based on a fatally flawed assumption. When you're home sleeping, that's not common property. When you're on the road traveling from city to city, that road is common property.
Nope. Only the time scale of the temporary exclusive use is different.
You can actually build a hut, and exclude everyone therefrom, including the land upon which it rests, without depriving anyone of ANYTHING beyond what someone else already had a right to for their life, their existence. Your neighbors can do likewise, without you suffering any deprivation, given that you don't need THEIR SPACE to live, and THEY DON'T REQUIRE YOURS. Only their own.
But they don't need to OWN it, as already proved, and owning it just means someone WILL be suffering a deprivation.
Replace "temporarily" with "exclusively", given that is the actual requirement, as a matter of right regardless how temporarily or fleeting it may be, and regardless how small that area might be. That exclusive occupancy of land space for living is a requirement for life, and therefore a matter of right, not privilege.
Correct. As therefore implemented through the UIE. What people don't and can't have as a matter of right is OWNERSHIP of land, as that removes others' rights to use it even when no one is using it.
You want the emphasis placed on "temporarily", not exclusively, because your "The Whole Earth Is Common Property" means that even a poor bastard taking up sleeping space, however small, is automatically depriving EVERYONE, in that moment, of their "equal right" to that very space. That's not only false, it's fucking insane.
It is indisputably true as a matter of self-evident physical fact: he is there, so they can't be.
We're not hunter-gatherers, nomads and vagabonds.
That is what we evolved to be, and is therefore the basis of our moral reasoning.
When you occupy land for the purpose of simply sleeping and eating, you do so exclusively. Everyone can fuck off from your sleeping quarters, which you and your family occupy EXCLUSIVELY, as a matter of right, because no matter how temporary the need (read=every night of your life), EXCLUSIVITY is an absolute physical requirement.
But not ownership after you leave. That's pure privilege.
Private property in land (to those who actually have unalienable rights to exclusive occupancy, and therefore possession) ensures that we are not nomads and vagabonds, whose right to exclusive occupancy of land, however temporary, can be alienated and abrogated by others -- all because of superior payment to the state.
You're lying. It is precisely private property in land that forcibly
removes the individual right to occupy and use land even
non-exclusively, even
temporarily, unless one makes superior payment to a
private landowner, and agrees to be "voluntarily" robbed and enslaved.
Stop telling such stupid lies.
Under equally and unconditionally applied LVT, not only can the right of exclusive occupancy FOR THAT SPACE be obtained by superior payment to the state, it can be obtained even by a foreigner, corporate, or other privileged entity, which has NO SUCH RIGHT.
The privileged entity is the landowner. It is that
privilege that is obtained by payment to the public treasury, not a
right.
So you're not reconciling unalienable rights at all.
Of course I am, stop lying.
You're converting rights to privileges and renting them out to all paying entities, foreign and domestic, individual and collective, regardless of privileges or rights status under the law.
It's true that the law is irrelevant, as it is merely an attempt to implement the sort of principles that are under discussion. But there was never any right to exclude others from the land, so the privilege to do so is not a "converted right." It's a privilege that arises to reconcile the right to property in fixed improvements with the right to liberty.
You don't give a shit, everyone is tossed into the mix as if they were all created equal.
They are equal in their moral capacity (with few exceptions that are handled in other ways).
Whichever entity pays the state the most is entitled to all the best. That's not just statism, that's fascism;
LOL! No, it's the
market solution. The character of fascism is quite the opposite: the privileged government and private elites get all the best WITHOUT paying for it.
whatever is best for the state (which you in turn think will do whatever is best for the people).
I don't know what the state will do. I do know that it needs to be held accountable by knowledgeable people capable of critical thinking, and that stupid, evil, lying, anti-LVT filth can never qualify. I also know that without the state, we would end up like Somalia.
Your UIE proposal is one of the few geoist acknowledgements that LVT, in and of itself, does not reconcile the problem of the landless, and their so-called equal liberty rights to access and use of any land on Earth. The only thing you secured was funding for the state, and a rule by which ANY PAYING ENTITY (including those acting as a matter of privilege only) can legally displace the poor. Enter your UIE "exemption amount/credit" -- the reconciliation bone you want thrown out to everyone, as if that somehow "reconciled" everything.
It does. It's the key element missing from earlier LVT proposals (though some had flawed versions of it).
But that brings us full circle to the original problem. Party A enjoys exclusive access to a "SUPERIOR" parcel of land, which parcel you claim all other persons have an equal right of access. You didn't secure OR reconcile their fucking access to that parcel of land -- not through LVT, and not through the UIE. They still don't have access to that land!
But they get
compensation. We know that people living together in society are not going to be able to have all their rights secured all the time. That is the point of reconciling and compensating them when they are violated.
Which makes perfect sense, due to the absurdity of your original and self-contradictory claim of "equal right of access", because everybody cannot physically access the same land at the same time!
Strawman fallacy. That's not what the right of equal access means.
Therefore a MANY-TO-ONE "COMMON PROPERTY" CLAIM cannot be considered a right, and cannot be reconciled as such.
Refuted above.
Idiotic "All Earth Is Common Property" notion rejected, of course.
You have to deny all facts, of course, but it is indisputable that the earth has been common property for millions of years.
But you go quite beyond that, because you don't even acknowledge that while they are there, their exclusive occupancy of THAT SPACE, regardless how temporary, is a matter of right, as it is a requirement of life itself. For you ALL SPACE is "common property" AT ALL TIMES - even while they are there, even as they sleep, and long before they "leave".
That is HOW they have a right to use and occupy it. Because they are among the everyone who does. Duh.
Thus, contrary to your bullshit assertion, which you do not believe, that "we all have rights to occupy land temporarily with our dwellings" (add "exclusively", because that's what it also requires, and which I agree is an actual right), in your mind they are not there as a matter of right EVEN WHILE THEY ARE TEMPORARILY THERE.
They are there as a matter of right, but cannot exclude others as a matter of right.
It's ALL privileged behavior in your mind - for all land, at all times. There are no rights to it, because even if you displace someone (like Granny) from her current living space, and she uses her UIE to obtain other land, she is STILL there, even on that other land as a matter of privilege, and not right, because it, too, is "common property", to which EVERYONE ELSE is said to have a right of access that needs to be reconciled.
And is, by LVT + UIE.
