What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

If anything, Roy advocates the Statists' status quo.

That's an absurd lie, as any honest reader of this thread knows.

I answer Roy's points routinely,

Answering doesn't equate to responding, let alone refuting.

but, like Conza, he pretends they aren't valid because he doesn't like them. (see post 1372 for just one example)

Refuted in post #1377.

Roy acts like a childish troll, and I treat him accordingly.

No, I just don't let lies go unidentified, and you call it childish and trolling because you are one of the purveyors of those lies.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It is only the state that enables landowning in the first place.

Nice try.

That is only true if you consider each and every individual as a state. Go back far enough, and it should be self-evident that, from the beginning, squatting, remaining in one place, and defending a parcel of land or a territory (in the animal sense of territory), treating it as a possession to the exclusion of others, is all that was ever required to enable landowning. The only "state" required is an individual who behaves as a sovereign, and is capable of defending his claim of ownership. Get enough such sovereign-behaving people together, and they can form a larger state. But the larger "state" always came later. People did not arise from states - unless, and again of course, you correctly recognize that all individuals are essentially sovereign states - regardless of whether or not that sovereignty is recognized, acknowledged or respected.

 

[Roy L]

You claim to know Hoppe's arguments,

Lie. I make no claim to be a Hoppe scholar. I've just seen enough of his stupid garbage to know it is the kind of stupid garbage that only a practiced and constant purveyor of stupid garbage could produce.

but can't cite any "errors" in the aforementioned book-one of the most famous tomes on the subject?

Oh, please. The following is from Chapter 13 of "the Economics and Ethics of Private Property":

"First, it must be noted that the question of what is just or unjust—
or for that matter the even more general question of what is a valid
proposition and what is not—only arises insofar as I am, and others
are, capable of propositional exchanges, i.e., of argumentation."

That is a bald falsehood. Infants as young as three months have been shown to be averse to unjust acts, and infants as young as eight months have been shown to favor the punishment of those who commit unjust acts. Such young children are of course incapable of argumentation.

"The question does not arise vis-à-vis a stone or fish because they are incapable
of engaging in such exchanges and of producing validity claiming propositions."

And that is a blatant non sequitur. Hoppe's works are packed with that sort of garbage.

Your blatant lack of opposition research again indicates that your schooling was a waste of time.

Responding to economic ignorami who think Hans-Hermann Hoppe has anything of interest to say is how I have wasted my time.

 

[Roy L]

That is only true if you consider each and every individual as a state.

Wrong.

Go back far enough, and it should be self-evident that, from the beginning, squatting, remaining in one place, and defending a parcel of land or a territory (in the animal sense of territory), treating it as a possession to the exclusion of others, is all that was ever required to enable landowning.

Nope. Forcible animal possession is not property. For landowning to exist, the property status of the land must remain intact EVEN AFTER THE CLAIMANT LEAVES.

The only "state" required is an individual who behaves as a sovereign, and is capable of defending his claim of ownership.

No. Ownership requires recognition by others in the owner's absence. There is no such thing as a claim of ownership until that recognition can be expected.

Get enough such sovereign-behaving people together, and they can form a larger state.

That's not how states arose.

But the larger "state" always came later.

Nope. There is ample historical evidence that states arose before private landowning. Landowning always awaited a settled agricultural economy with significant fixed improvements. Nomadic herding societies have actually had states with no landowning.

People did not arise from states - unless, and again of course, you correctly recognize that all individuals are essentially sovereign states -

That is not correct. It is false and absurd.

regardless of whether or not that sovereignty is recognized, acknowledged or respected.

Such garbage goes well with "Corporations are people, my friend."

 

[Roy L]

And no one has presented any convincing evidence of this.

That is an outrageous lie. Henry George's most famous work, "Progress and Poverty," is ALL ABOUT how economic law -- the Law of Rent -- inexorably converts private landowner privilege into poverty and death. Have you read it? Of course not.

Roy L. has asserted it about a billion times.

No, perhaps 100 in this thread, and I have provided the evidence, such as the letter showing that the condition of "freed" slaves in the American South had not improved one whit in 20 years because the former slave owners still owned all the good land. You just found excuses to dismiss, ignore and ridicule that evidence.

But I still have utterly no reason to believe that millions upon millions of people die each year due to landownership.

Lie. Almost all those who die of poverty-related causes -- estimated at 18 million per year -- are poor primarily because they are landless: they have been stripped of their rights to liberty by the institution of private landowning without just compensation, and must consequently labor for the unearned profit of landowners before they can devote any of the fruits of their labor to their own welfare. I have posted this before:

How AID goes WRONG
A Cautionary Tale
A Quaker enterprise in the Ganges Delta

The much travelled author Karl Eskelund describes the effort made by a band of young American and English Quakers in trying to assist some of the Indian population, millions of whom live at starvation level.

The young idealists took up their task in 1946 at the village district of Pifa, which lies in the Ganges Delta. They were fully aware that their work would test their patience, for in India you can get no results 'at five minutes past twelve.' But after having outlined their plans to the peasants, the fishermen and the landowners - which met with general approval - they organised a co-operative enterprise for cultivating the land and marketing the produce. They set up day schools for the children, evening schools for adults, clinics et cetera.

After overcoming the initial difficulties, they saw signs of progress. Inspiration grew. Health conditions improved. Everyone took a greater interest in their work and their earnings increased. New ideas took shape - there was advance along the whole line - an advance, slow but sure.

Only the Landowners Grew Fatter

Five years after the experiment began, Karl Eskelund visited Pifa and, with one of the Quakers as his guide, went through the village to see how it was faring. The Quaker had lost more than two stone and was as thin and spare as the natives. But what was worse, he had lost heart because the experiment had proved a failure. The day school still existed, but only one-quarter of the children attended it. The evening school had closed. The clinic was hardly used. Agriculture, fishing and trade were back to the old methods. Eskelund asked for an explanation of this fiasco. The young Quaker offered quite a number of reasons, none of which Eskelund could accept. Finally, he got to the root of the matter. This is what he says:

"In the first year after beginning the experiment, both peasants and fishermen earned more than ever before. What was the result? The large landowners at once raised their rents and the smaller landowners followed suit. The peasants had to pay more for permission to cultivate the land. The fishermen had to pay more for permission to cast their nets on the flooded fields. In that way, practically the whole of the increased earnings passed into the landowners' pockets."

"The people of Pifa were unhappy at this. Nevertheless, next year they worked hard. Crops were plentiful, there was a rich catch of fish; good prices were paid for produce. At once, the landowners raised their rents still higher."

"The people then began to lose heart. What was the use if, for all their efforts, they got no benefit? Only the landowners waxed fatter. The peasants and fishermen did not become any thinner - they could not - otherwise they would die."

"Indians are ignorant, but they are not stupid. They can put two and two together. They had found themselves momentarily enriched by the new methods but, in the end, all the extra money went to the landowners. If one of the new ideas would not work, what faith could they put in any other novelties? Perhaps, after all, the old methods were the best."

This is the story as far as it goes. It would be difficult to find an example that more simply and clearly demonstrates the truth of what Henry George had taught. It is that, as long as the private right to the rent of land obtains, so long will every advance, crystallising in land rent, be gathered by the owner of land; while he who works, he who produces, must toil the day long without gaining more for his labour than is enough to avoid death from hunger.

This story reveals the problem in all its simplicity; cleared of all that in civilised society makes it more difficult to see the importance of land.

The need to remould the whole system

The young Quaker would not lay any blame on the landowners. There could be no objection against the landowners trying to gain as much as possible, and after all, there was nothing unlawful in owning land. The young Quaker admitted the immorality of the circumstances, but argued that it could be mended only by "remaking the law and remoulding the whole system."

Eskelund himself sees clearly the part the land question plays, and proposed the subdivision of land (by creating small-holdings). Yet he is not sure that subdivision will solve the problem. For he writes:

"Meanwhile, there is evidence that you don't get rid of landownership in that manner. Landownership is like the weed that always resprouts."

Conclusion

The story of Pifa reveals the evils of the private ownership of the rent of land. The comments of the Quaker and the author both go to prove the weakness of dealing with effects.

The author is honest enough to acknowledge that small-holding schemes are no remedy, and the Quaker, although unconsciously, tells the truth that things cannot be changed without "remaking the law and remoulding the whole system."

For the truth is that we cannot reach a solution of the social problem without "remoulding the whole system", without recognising the joint property right of the people to natural resources. This truth applies in our own country and the world over. We can offer all manner of foreign aid to underdeveloped countries, but so long as we fail to solve the land problem, all this will be in vain.

This repeated claim by Roy thus continues to appear ludicrous to everyone but himself, you, and Matt Butler, and perhaps Henry George Himself, looking down from the spirit world.

It is blatantly obvious to anyone willing to know facts, which apologists for landowner privilege never are.

If you are privy to proof of your claims of which the rest of us remain ignorant, perhaps you should de-ignorize us.

I have. Repeatedly. You just dismiss, ignore, refuse to know, ridicule, and lie about all facts that are presented.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Nope. Forcible animal possession is not property. For landowning to exist, the property status of the land must remain intact EVEN AFTER THE CLAIMANT LEAVES.

Wrong on both counts.

Big Lone Bear goes out to catch fish, and comes back to his cave, only to find another bear has challenged his ownership status. Other Bear chased out, prior claim of ownership defended. Or, Big Lone Bear comes back to find that Bigger Meaner She Bear and her cub have stolen his spot. She is willing to kill him for it, so he moves away. New ownership established by theft.

Man With Big Rifle builds a shack, goes out hunting (fully expecting that his claim of ownership will be recognized), and comes back only to find that Roy With Big Ideas has uncrossed his legs and gingerly helped himself to all that nature and missing Man With Big Rifle have provided. Man With Big Rifle returns with his kill, along with Different Ideas, as he defends his prior claim of exclusive ownership by sticking rifle barrel up Roy's Very Loose Butt. Prior Claim of Ownership defended and intact, threat to ownership eliminated.

Later, Roy With Friends With Even Bigger Ideas And Community Rifles comes across the shack of Man With Big Rifle, and steal his shack while he is gone and pluck a banjo string in celebration. They decide they are willing to pay each other more than what Man With Rifle is willing to pay them in extortion fee rents to all of them, including themselves, as they all swap units of equal value. New ownership established by theft, but so as not to not call it that, they give Man With Insufficiently Big Rifle an exemption for a neighboring spot with a ratty little tent, which they appraise and all agree as being of equivalent value to the shack itself, paid for out of their collective rent pool.

 

[Roy L]

Wrong on both counts.

No, don't be ridiculous. I am of course indisputably correct as a matter of objective fact.

Big Lone Bear goes out to catch fish, and comes back to his cave, only to find another bear has challenged his ownership status.

Wrong on all counts. It's not his cave, and his status is not that of an owner, only an occupier. There is no such thing as ownership among animals, only forcible animal possession. You know this, but are lying about it.

Other Bear chased out, prior claim of ownership defended. Or, Big Lone Bear comes back to find that Bigger Meaner She Bear and her cub have stolen his spot. She is willing to kill him for it, so he moves away. New ownership established by theft.

Thank you for proving yourself wrong. New ownership can NEVER be established by theft, because theft by definition violates the right of ownership. Theft can only overturn possession that was never ownership in the first place.

Man With Big Rifle builds a shack, goes out hunting (fully expecting that his claim of ownership will be recognized),

His claim of ownership of what, the shack? That would certainly be a reasonable thing to expect, as unlike property rights in land, property rights in products of labor are moral, justifiable, and actually exist.

and comes back only to find that Roy With Big Ideas has uncrossed his legs and gingerly helped himself to all that nature and missing Man With Big Rifle have provided.

Steven With No Idea continues makin' $#!+ up, as usual.

Man With Big Rifle returns with his kill, along with Different Ideas, as he defends his prior claim of exclusive ownership by sticking rifle barrel up Roy's Very Loose Butt. Prior Claim of Ownership defended and intact, threat to ownership eliminated.

No ownership of anything but the shack was ever at issue, as neither party could ever possibly make a rightful claim to own the land, as neither of them produced it and its ownership would inherently violate the rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

Later, Roy With Friends With Even Bigger Ideas And Community Rifles comes across the shack of Man With Big Rifle, and steal his shack while he is gone and pluck a banjo string in celebration.

Steven With No Idea Except Always To Lie About What Roy Has Plainly Written again lives up to his name, and lies about what Roy has plainly written. The shack is a product of labor, and I have not proposed stealing products of labor. You are simply lying again.

With utterly despicable dishonesty, you have repeatedly called me a liar, Steven. But it is YOU have relentlessly and consistently resorted to lying. Not me. YOU.

And you know it.

They decide they are willing to pay each other more than what Man With Rifle is willing to pay them in extortion fee rents to all of them, including themselves, as they all swap units of equal value. New ownership established by theft,

Self-contradiction, as proved above.

but so as not to not call it that, they give Man With Insufficiently Big Rifle an exemption for a neighboring spot with a ratty little tent, which they appraise and all agree as being of equivalent value to the shack itself, paid for out of their collective rent pool.

Beneath refutation.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It's not his cave, and his status is not that of an owner, only an occupier. There is no such thing as ownership among animals, only forcible animal possession.

Yes, the bear is the possessor and exclusive controller, or owner, by virtue of forcible animal possession, which is the very essence and core of ALL ownership, Roy - even when it is delegated to others in a "save my spot for me, k?" kind of way. I know you would like to appeal to a strictly legal definition, as that would necessarily allow you to argue from your own narrowed premise, by invoking the state (and you can scroll to the bottom for why not even a legal definition will help you) -- but we are arguing ownership in a much broader and far more universal sense, as I am about to school you.

own
v. owned, own·ing, owns
v.tr.

a. To have or possess as property
b. To have control over



Two dung beetles fight over a rolling ball of rhino dung. The winner a) possesses as property, and b) has control over, and is therefore c) the owner of - that ball of dung. By sheer forcible animal possession. No state involvement, no moralizing to it.

New ownership can NEVER be established by theft, because theft by definition violates the right of ownership.

Incorrect. Of course it can be. Ownership can be established by theft, murder, duplicity, act of God, or any number of other causal mechanisms. Don't confuse "rightful owner/ownership" or "title" (e.g., "state or third party recognized right of ownership" and/or "moral right of ownership"), with the essence of what ownership is - universally and as a matter of self-evident fact, apart from any kind of third party recognition or normative presumption.

Even if you confuse "legal right of ownership" with whatever you feel is a "moral right of ownership", recognize that both are always based on normatives (oughts), which may or may not conflict with a fact of ownership.

Consider the following concepts:

a) factual ownership by virtue of possession and control,
b) right of ownership, title, or third-party recognition, without regard to possession and/or control, and
c) moral right of ownership, regardless of possession and control, or legal entitlement (third party recognition)

These are three entirely different animals, any and all three of which can exist in any combination.

Thieves, both public and private, individually and collectively, can, and do indeed establish "ownership" (long term possession and control) of both things and land, which includes whatever was gained in the commission of a crime (read=by violating someone's rights). A state may have mechanisms, right or wrong, to resolve conflicting claims of ownership, but that does not mean that a state is required to establish a fact of ownership (forcible animal possession). Furthermore, a state can recognize a fact of ownership through ownership title, or evidence of a right of ownership, where no moral right of ownership exists, to wit:

Theft can only overturn possession that was never ownership in the first place.

That is where your argument falls to pieces, Roy - in an area where we both happen to agree on the normatives, while acknowledging the historical facts, or positives:

Slave owners, in both our opinions, had ZERO moral right of ownership (forcible animal possession) of human beings. We both would agree that taking human beings against their will is a form of THEFT -- a deprivation of what you and I might call a human's "inalienable" rights. I think we are in 100% agreement on at least that much.

However, only the most daft would ever deny that slave owners ever owned slaves in the past. On the contrary, they most definitely established both a) ownership (possession and control) and b) title, or a "right of ownership" -- regardless of our c) contemporary normative feelings or moralizing on the matter.

Thus, your assertion that "New ownership can NEVER be established by theft" is FALSE IN THE ABSOLUTE (unless, again, you are simply moralizing). History shows otherwise. Ownership can indeed be established, first as a "fact of ownership" (someone is actually enslaved, regardless of whether it is considered legal or not), then, possibly recognized as a "legal right of ownership" (in the past, at least), despite completely divided opinions, even then, on whether there was a moral right (abolitionists versus "other moralists") to such ownership. But the fact of the ownership itself - even as a product of theft - is a matter of historical record, and truly indisputable.

 

[Roy L]

Yes, the bear is the possessor and exclusive controller, or owner, by virtue of forcible animal possession, which is the very essence and core of ALL ownership, Roy

No, of course it isn't, Stupen, because if that were true, thieves would instantly become the owners of whatever they stole. Your claim is absurd and self-contradictory.

- even when it is delegated to others in a "save my spot for me, k?" kind of way.

Stupid garbage with no basis in fact.

I know you would like to appeal to a strictly legal definition,

Stop lying about what I have plainly written, Stevid.

as that would necessarily allow you to argue from your own narrowed premise, by invoking the state (and you can scroll to the bottom for why not even a legal definition will help you) -- but we are arguing ownership in a much broader and far more universal sense, as I am about to school you.

ROTFL!! I have been schooling you since you first posted in this thread, Stuvid, and that is not going to change now.

own
v. owned, own·ing, owns
v.tr.

<yawn> Source?

a. To have or possess as property

Which proves you wrong. Your source is drawing the distinction between having or possessing as property and having or possessing but NOT as property. YOUR OWN SOURCE proves you wrong.

You have now been schooled, Stepid. Again.

b. To have control over

Wrong. A thief has control over what he has stolen, but doesn't own it. Either your source is wrong, or you are quoting it incorrectly or incompletely.

Two dung beetles fight over a rolling ball of rhino dung. The winner a) possesses as property, and b) has control over, and is therefore c) the owner of - that ball of dung. By sheer forcible animal possession. No state involvement, no moralizing to it.

Nope. Forcible animal possession is not property. That is why human beings have a concept of theft, while animals do not.

Incorrect.

Why are you always telling lies, Stupin? I am of course correct by definition, and as a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality.

Of course it can be.

Nope. Never. By definition.

Ownership can be established by theft, murder, duplicity, act of God, or any number of other causal mechanisms.

Nope. The fact that it must be socially recognized is what makes ownership ownership, and not mere forcible animal possession.

Or should I just take you at your cretinous word, and observe that if government simply expropriates all privately owned land by force, ownership would pass to the government, the erstwhile "owners'" rights to it would cease to exist, and they would have no grounds for complaint?

Don't confuse "rightful owner/ownership" or "title" (e.g., "state recognized ownership" and/or "moral right of ownership"), with the essence of what ownership is - universally and as a matter of self-evident fact, apart from any kind of third party recognition or normative presumption.

The self-evident fact is that theft does not alter ownership BY DEFINITION.

Even if you confuse "legal right of ownership" with whatever you feel is a "moral right of ownership", recognize that both are always based on normatives (oughts), which may or may not conflict with a fact of ownership.

More stupid garbage from you. The only fact of ownership other than a legal fact -- which I have already proved is irrelevant to this discussion -- is its societal recognition.

The concepts of a) factual ownership by virtue of possession and control,

That is not factual ownership, as already proved, because theft effects a transfer of possession and control but not of ownership. You know this. Of course you do. You are just lying about it because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

b) title, or a third-party recognition of a right of ownership, without regard to possession and control, and c) moral right of ownership, are three entirely different animals, any and all three of which can exist in any combination.

Nope. The three cases of ownership are the legal, societal, and moral cases. There is no form of ownership based on possession and control, as proved above.

Thieves, both public and private, can, and do indeed establish "ownership" (long term possession and control) of both things and land, which includes whatever was gained in the commission of a crime (read=by violating someone's rights).

No, that's just another stupid lie from you.

A state may have mechanisms, right or wrong, to resolve conflicting claims of ownership, but that does not mean that a state is required to establish a fact of ownership (forcible animal possession).

Forcible animal possession is not ownership, as already proved.

Furthermore, a state can recognize a fact of ownership through ownership title, or evidence of a right of ownership, where no moral right of ownership exists,

True, but irrelevant to your claim.

to wit:

That is where your argument falls to pieces, Roy

Don't be stupid. My argument is unassailable, while yours is self-contradictory garbage.

- in an area where we both happen to agree on the normatives, while acknowledging the historical facts, or positives:

Slave owners, in both our opinions, had ZERO moral right of ownership (forcible animal possession) of human beings. We both would agree that taking human beings against their will is a form of THEFT -- a deprivation of what you and I might call a human's "inalienable" rights. I think we are in 100% agreement on at least that much.

Nope. You believe that forcible possession and control confers ownership.

However, only the most daft would ever deny that slave owners ever owned slaves in the past. On the contrary, they most definitely established both ownership (possession and control) and title, or a "right of ownership" -- regardless of our contemporary normative feelings or moralizing on the matter.

Ownership of slaves was never a matter of forcible possession and control, but always of societal recognition of title.

Thus, your assertion that "New ownership can NEVER be established by theft" is FALSE IN THE ABSOLUTE (unless, again, you are simply moralizing). History shows otherwise.

Nope. History shows that ownership is never established by anything other than societal recognition of title, whether formal or not.

Ownership can indeed be established, first as a "fact of ownership" (someone is actually enslaved, regardless of whether it is considered legal or not),

Nope. Enslavement requires a societal recognition and enforcement of the slave's status. That is why slaves cannot free themselves by just leaving their owners' possession and control. They have to leave the SOCIETY that considers them property.

then, possibly recognized as a "legal right of ownership" (in the past, at least), despite completely divided opinions, even then, on whether there was a moral right (abolitionists versus "other moralists") to such ownership.

No, opinions were not completely divided. There was broad societal agreement that slaves were owned, even if a (usually small) minority disagreed. Legal recognition of property in slaves has ALWAYS been based on societal agreement.

But the fact of the ownership itself - even as a product of theft - is a matter of historical record, and truly indisputable.

Nope. Flat false, as proved, repeat, PROVED above.

 

[eduardo89]

No, of course it isn't, Stupen, because if that were true, thieves would instantly become the owners of whatever they stole. Your claim is absurd and self-contradictory.

You have now been schooled, Stepid. Again.

Roy has realized that he can't win so now he resorts to personal insults of Stephen's name.

It's the first obvious sign that even he realizes that his arguments are so baseless.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Roy has realized that he can't win so now he resorts to personal insults of Stephen's name.

It's the first obvious sign that even he realizes that his arguments are so baseless.

This^^

 

[Zippyjuan]

WOw- over 1400 replies on this thread so far! Who is winning?

 

[eduardo89]

WOw- over 1400 replies on this thread so far! Who is winning?

Roy. Obviously.

 

[Roy L]

WOw- over 1400 replies on this thread so far! Who is winning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2f7-JiBfXs&feature=related

 

[Steven Douglas]

Roy recognizes ownership only in terms of third party (state/societal) recognition, and even enforcement, which he believes are required for "ownership" to exist. He sees only one legal definition of ownership, while ignoring the very object of that definition, as having any bearing whatsoever on what it actually means, by common root definition, to actually "own" something.

own
v. owned, own·ing, owns
v.tr.
1.
a. To have or possess as property: owns a chain of restaurants.
b. To have control over: For a time, enemy planes owned the skies.

transitive verb
1
a : to have or hold as property : possess
b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

ownership
verb (used with object)
3. to have or hold as one's own; possess: They own several homes.

ownership
1: the state, relation, or fact of being an owner

So while the common and well understood root definitions of "own" and "ownership" are quite clear, in Roy's mind these are irrelevant, since he is arguing ownership only as it relates to its legal definition, and only how that relates to state and societal recognition - as if that was the only definition, and therefore rule. In other words, ownership is not possible without there first being a "right" of ownership, which is in turn always based on societal recognition.

Thus, the lack of state or societal involvement is why a dung beetle, cannot be considered an "owner" of a piece of dung, but only a "possessor" or "controller" -- even though these are the precise definitions of "own" and "owner"!

Or should I just take you at your cretinous word, and observe that if government simply expropriates all privately owned land by force, ownership would pass to the government, the erstwhile "owners'" rights to it would cease to exist, and they would have no grounds for complaint?

Very slippery of Roy here. Roy is left with a logical conundrum, because now that he is trapped within a narrow legal definition ownership, there is the inconvenient fact that in the past, slavery, or "right of ownership of people" was indeed "recognized" by society (and by a large majority, no less). But did that constitute a "theft"?

If government expropriated all privately owned land by force, ownership by definition WOULD pass to the government. The erstwhile private ownership "legal rights" would indeed cease to exist, but not necessarily their claims to the those rights, or grounds THEY FELT they had for reclaiming them - which is to say their "moral" rights, as each individual saw and held them, which would exist separately. (e.g., do Irish, Native Americans and Nepalese feel they have still have claims on what they consider their own lands, their own sovereignty?)

Furthermore, if abolitionists had in fact proposed a transfer of title, or "right of possession and control" of slaves to the state, whereby the state took over control of slaves, and became the beneficiary of slave labor, that would indeed have entailed a "transfer of ownership". However, this was never the abolitionists' aim. For them it was not question of whether title, or right of ownership (possession and control) of people should be publicly or privately retained. For them it was that such a right should not exist at all for any entity, public or private, individually or collectively. Thus, slaves were simply set free, as all rights of ownership were eventually and completely abolished.

That is actually where Roy's version of LVT falls apart. He wants "legal control" of lands to evolve to the state without calling it "ownership" - logical impossibility.

Despite the above, one mechanism that was available for ending slavery was for the state, or the people themselves, to simply buy slaves - which would have entailed a transfer of legal ownership, publicly and/or privately, without any challenge to the moral legitimacy of ownership or any title transfers - and then simply set them free. In fact, Lincoln could have done this with his precious Greenbacks, at a far lesser cost of lives and wealth lost as a result of the Civil War, and possibly avoided war altogether. Future "new" ownership could have been normatively prohibited without attacking the value of present ownership extant, which had been tolerated and recognized to date.

The only fact of ownership other than a legal fact -- which I have already proved is irrelevant to this discussion -- is its societal recognition.

Here, once again, Roy wants everything trapped into circular reasoning, as he attempts to confine the arguments to only one narrow legal definition of "ownership", or "right of" possession and control" (rather than mere possession and control, which is all that is required to "own"). This makes his preferred (and only) definition based on societal recognition, as the sole basis of ownership. Thus, it is not possible, in Roy's mind, for anyone on Earth to have had "ownership" of ANYTHING - EVER - without the prior existence of a state. Indeed, once the words "owner" or "ownership" are invoked, Roy will instantly pounce on it as meaningless outside the bounds of his preferred (legal) definition, to wit:

That is not factual ownership, as already proved, because theft effects a transfer of possession and control but not of ownership.

...possession and control. aka "own", according to standard dictionary definitions.

With this convenient but fallacious play on semantics, it is not until a "state" develops that "ownership" can even come into being - as "factual ownership" (which Roy sees as synonymous with "legal right of ownership" only) can ONLY be established by a combination of state enforcement and societal recognition -- by Roy's preferred definition. Thus, anyone who might have exercised mere "possession and control" of anything in the past - animal, vegetable or mineral - were possessors, controllers and/or occupiers only. Never "owners", without state enforcement and societal recognition.

There is no form of ownership based on possession and control, as proved above.

Thoroughly refuted, and proved otherwise.

Forcible animal possession is not ownership, as already proved.

Also thoroughly refuted and proved otherwise.

You believe that forcible possession and control confers ownership.

Correct. It certainly does, by definition. What it does not necessarily confer is a "right of ownership", legally or morally speaking - those are abstract normative constructs that relate to ultimate "rights" of possession and control - not possession and control itself, which is ownership, otherwise defined as:

"The state, relation, or fact of having, or having possession or control over, or power or mastery over..." (combining definitions of own, owns, owner, and ownership)

Ownership of slaves was never a matter of forcible possession and control, but always of societal recognition of title.

Ah, then the slaves were free to walk away, but didn't know it. Silly slaves, they could have ignored the meaningless "societal recognition of title" and simply walked away - since "ownership" of them was never a matter of forcible possession and control.

Nope. Enslavement requires a societal recognition and enforcement of the slave's status. That is why slaves cannot free themselves by just leaving their owners' possession and control. They have to leave the SOCIETY that considers them property.

Ah, you finally got it. The "enforcement" part, so critical and at the core of ALL ownership, which is always based on "forcible animal control", even when delegated to others in a "save my spot for me, k?" kind of way.

I know you can't face the fact that your arguments have been thoroughly destroyed, Roy, but others can see it plainly enough. Is that because they're all lying evil apologists? Perhaps. I doubt it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak9juZMO0A4

Sorry, Roy L. Achilles. Limp away.

 

[Roy L]

Roy has realized that he can't win so now he resorts to personal insults of Stephen's name.

It's the first obvious sign that even he realizes that his arguments are so baseless.

Typical non sequitur.

 

[Roy L]

Roy recognizes ownership only in terms of third party (state/societal) recognition, and even enforcement, which he believes are required for "ownership" to exist. He sees only one legal definition of ownership, while ignoring the very object of that definition, as having any bearing whatsoever on what it actually means, by common root definition, to actually "own" something.

Gibberish.

So while the common and well understood root definitions of "own" and "ownership" are quite clear,

But not to Steven, who believes that theft transfers ownership.

in Roy's mind these are irrelevant, since he is arguing ownership only as it relates to its legal definition,

Lie.

and only how that relates to state and societal recognition - as if that was the only definition, and therefore rule.

It is the RELEVANT definition, the one that does not set up an equivocation fallacy.

In other words, ownership is not possible without there first being a "right" of ownership, which is in turn always based on societal recognition.

Or the logic of natural right.

Thus, the lack of state or societal involvement is why a dung beetle, cannot be considered an "owner" of a piece of dung, but only a "possessor" or "controller" -- even though these are the precise definitions of "own" and "owner"!

No, they are not.

Very slippery of Roy here.

No, just logically correct and indisputable.

Roy is left with a logical conundrum, because now that he is trapped within a narrow legal definition ownership,

I specifically stated that the legal definition was irrelevant to this discussion.

there is the inconvenient fact that in the past, slavery, or "right of ownership of people" was indeed "recognized" by society (and by a large majority, no less). But did that constitute a "theft"?

It constituted ownership. Try to keep your eye on the ball.

If government expropriated all privately owned land by force, ownership by definition WOULD pass to the government. The erstwhile private ownership "legal rights" would indeed cease to exist, but not necessarily their claims to the those rights, or grounds THEY FELT they had for reclaiming them - which is to say their "moral" rights, as each individual saw and held them, which would exist separately. (e.g., do Irish, Native Americans and Nepalese feel they have still have claims on what they consider their own lands, their own sovereignty?)

Wrong. By your "logic" they HAVE no moral right, as ownership is defined solely by possession and control.

Furthermore, if abolitionists had in fact proposed a transfer of title, or "right of possession and control" of slaves to the state, whereby the state took over control of slaves, and became the beneficiary of slave labor, that would indeed have entailed a "transfer of ownership". However, this was never the abolitionists' aim. For them it was not question of whether title, or right of ownership (possession and control) of people should be publicly or privately retained. For them it was that such a right should not exist at all for any entity, public or private, individually or collectively. Thus, slaves were simply set free, as all rights of ownership were eventually and completely abolished.

That is actually where Roy's version of LVT falls apart. He wants "legal control" of lands to evolve to the state without calling it "ownership" - logical impossibility.

No, that's false. States indisputably ALREADY HAVE legal control of land without owning it. They just exercise that control to provide a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners rather than to secure and reconcile the equal rights of all their citizens.

Ownership is a bundle of four rights: control, benefit, exclusion, and disposition. The state is only rightly a trustee administering possession and use of land, not its owner, as it cannot rightly dispose of land by, e.g., selling it. That would violate the rights of all the future generations who would otherwise be at liberty to use it, contradicting the state's raison d'etre.

Despite the above, one mechanism that was available for ending slavery was for the state, or the people themselves, to simply buy slaves - which would have entailed a transfer of legal ownership, publicly and/or privately, without any challenge to the moral legitimacy of ownership or any title transfers - and then simply set them free. In fact, Lincoln could have done this with his precious Greenbacks, at a far lesser cost of lives and wealth lost as a result of the Civil War, and possibly avoided war altogether.

Funny how apologists for privilege and injustice think the responsibility for avoiding the Civil War rested with those who sought to end a massive atrocity, and not with those who were committing it.

Future "new" ownership could have been normatively prohibited without attacking the value of present ownership extant, which had been tolerated and recognized to date.

I long ago ceased to be surprised when propertarian apologists for landowner privilege propose that slavery would more rightly have been ended by someone paying slave owners market value for their slaves' rights to liberty than by simply voiding all deeds of slave ownership. I am still appalled and disgusted, but no longer surprised. By that "logic," government should not simply void taxi medallions -- privileges that IT CREATED for the unearned profit of medallion holders, remember -- but pay all the medallion holders market value for them, as compensation for declining to continue giving them that subsidy!

Here, once again, Roy wants everything trapped into circular reasoning, as he attempts to confine the arguments to only one narrow legal definition of "ownership", or "right of" possession and control" (rather than mere possession and control, which is all that is required to "own").

Lie, as already proved: theft transfers possession and control. It does not transfer ownership. Steven is proved wrong.

This makes his preferred (and only) definition based on societal recognition, as the sole basis of ownership. Thus, it is not possible, in Roy's mind, for anyone on Earth to have had "ownership" of ANYTHING - EVER - without the prior existence of a state.

Bait and switch, Steven, very dishonest. Society existed before states, and the state is not society. You just dishonestly substituted "state" for "societal."

Indeed, once the words "owner" or "ownership" are invoked, Roy will instantly pounce on it as meaningless outside the bounds of his preferred (legal) definition, to wit:
...possession and control. aka "own", according to standard dictionary definitions.

You still haven't provided a source for your definitions, and even if you had you would be equivocating. Why can't you ever remember that theft does not transfer ownership, and that fact PROVES YOU WRONG?

With this convenient but fallacious play on semantics,

It is indisputable fact and logic, not semantics. It is not a matter of semantics that theft does not effect a transfer of ownership. It is a fact of objective reality. And it proves you wrong.

it is not until a "state" develops that "ownership" can even come into being

Lie. States arise largely to defend ownership of products of labor.

- as "factual ownership" (which Roy sees as synonymous with "legal right of ownership" only)

Lie.

can ONLY be established by a combination of state enforcement and societal recognition -- by Roy's preferred definition.

State enforcement is the formal codification of societal recognition. The latter has priority.

Thus, anyone who might have exercised mere "possession and control" of anything in the past - animal, vegetable or mineral - were possessors, controllers and/or occupiers only. Never "owners", without state enforcement and societal recognition.

You again lie about what I have plainly written.

Thoroughly refuted, and proved otherwise.
Also thoroughly refuted and proved otherwise.

<yawn> No.

Correct. It certainly does, by definition.

Refuted above. Theft does not effect a transfer of ownership, and that fact indisputably proves you wrong.

What it does not necessarily confer is a "right of ownership", legally or morally speaking - those are abstract normative constructs that relate to ultimate "rights" of possession and control - not possession and control itself, which is ownership, otherwise defined as:

Self-contradictory gibberish.

"The state, relation, or fact of having, or having possession or control over, or power or mastery over..." (combining definitions of own, owns, owner, and ownership)

Equivocation fallacy.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN A SOURCE.

Ah, then the slaves were free to walk away, but didn't know it.

They would have been, if your definition of ownership were correct.

Silly slaves, they could have ignored the meaningless "societal recognition of title"

HUH?? I am the one who understands that societal recognition is key to ownership, remember? YOU are the one who claims it is meaningless.

and simply walked away - since "ownership" of them was never a matter of forcible possession and control.

Right. Their capture and transportation was a matter of forcible possession and control, but once they were under deeds of ownership, the fetters came off and they were PHYSICALLY pretty much at liberty. They just couldn't get away, because law enforcement was on their owners' side.

Ah, you finally got it.

But you didn't.

The "enforcement" part, so critical and at the core of ALL ownership, which is always based on "forcible animal control", even when delegated to others in a "save my spot for me, k?" kind of way.

Nope. It clearly isn't, as theft transfers forcible animal possession, but not ownership. That fact proves you wrong.

I know you can't face the fact that your arguments have been thoroughly destroyed, Roy, but others can see it plainly enough.

Silliness.

Is that because they're all lying evil apologists? Perhaps. I doubt it.

I don't, any more than I doubt that slave owners thought the abolitionists' arguments had been thoroughly destroyed. Those slave owners were in fact lying, evil apologists for the privilege and injustice of slavery, just as those who contrive fallacious, absurd, dishonest and STUPID arguments against LVT are in fact lying, evil apologists for landowner privilege. The main difference is that slave owners were actually benefiting from slavery, while almost all of those who rationalize landowner privilege are themselves being harmed by it, almost certainly including you.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Roy, merely stating things like "gibberish, lie, logically incorrect, indisputable, etc.," -- those don't actually count as arguments or refutations.

I specifically stated that the legal definition was irrelevant to this discussion.

But you didn't state why. I not only state that they are relevant, I present arguments as to why - as it goes to the heart of "ownership" as distinguished from the expanded normative concept of "rights of ownership".

You still haven't provided a source for your definitions, and even if you had you would be equivocating.

Go back and read the post again, Roy. The one that destroyed your arguments. Every definition had a link to its source. Just click on each word. And I am willing and able to provide more - MUCH MORE - upon request.

Merely asserting that I am equivocating is absolutely meaningless without an actual argument, or explanation, Roy. You have to actually argue WHY you believe it is an equivocation, or else it is completely meaningless. Make your arguments, Roy. Don't expect anyone to read your mind. It is difficult enough to decipher your meaning, even when you actually make the attempt, but it is virtually impossible otherwise.

Why can't you ever remember that theft does not transfer ownership, and that fact PROVES YOU WRONG?

No, as I clearly wrote, using common [sourced] definitions, theft transfers "possession and control", and therefore ultimate ownership, should that theft never be resolved (i.e., society or the state cannot effect recovery via a forcible animal control and possession based on moral or legal claims to the contrary).

Theft is a forcible animal transfer of possession and control from one entity to another which conflicts with a legal or moral right, or "claim", on possession and control. What a theft does not necessarily confer or transfer is a "right of ownership", legally or morally speaking (although sometimes it does, as will be shown below).

A legal or moral "right of ownership" is different from mere possession and control. It is an abstract normative construct that relates to the ultimate "moral or legal claim" to possession and control, regardless of immediate possession and control by anyone else. That is why I can own a backhoe, but allow you to borrow or rent it from me for a fee, and still retain legal ownership of it. Although you possess and control it for a time, my title, or "legal claim to possession and control", along with our contract, is what assures me that your mere possession and control does not confer "legal ownership", since I have the ultimate legal right to forcibly possess and control it (e.g., you keep it longer than we agreed, or fail to make payment).

Wrong. By your "logic" they HAVE no moral right, as ownership is defined solely by possession and control.

Here is where your lack of logic kicks in, as you fail to distinguish and understand entirely different concepts related to the same thing. There are three concepts here:

• A fact of ownership - absent any legal right to the contrary, it is defined as mere possession and control
• A legal right of ownership - state recognition of an ultimate right of (claim on) possession and control (regardless of actual possession and control)
• A moral right of ownership - an internal (sometimes societal) sense of entitlement or claim to an ultimate right of possession and control. A moral right of ownership can be based on mere possession and control and/or a legal right of possession and control.

Each of these are separate concepts. None are necessarily inclusive or mutually exclusive of the others. Any combination can exist together. I can have ownership, or possession and control, without a legal or a moral right. I can have a legal right of possession and control, but no moral right, and no ability to have possession or control. I can have a moral right of possession and control without possession and control or a legal right to such.

A moral right of ownership is a normative claim -- an internal claim of entitlement to ultimate possession and control, without regard to whether there is a legal claim, or whether possession and control actually exists, or can even be realized.

EXAMPLE: The Silver Rush at MF Global
The trustee overseeing the liquidation of the failed brokerage has proposed dumping all remaining customer assets—gold, silver, cash, options, futures and commodities—into a single pool that would pay customers only 72% of the value of their holdings. In other words, while traders already may have paid the full price for delivery of specific bars of gold or silver—and hold "warehouse receipts" to prove it—they'll have to forfeit 28% of the value.

That has investors fuming. "Warehouse receipts, like gold bars, are our property, 100%," contends John Roe, a partner in BTR Trading, a Chicago futures-trading firm. He personally lost several hundred thousand dollars in investments via MF Global; his clients lost even more. "We are a unique class, and instead, the trustee is doing a radical redistribution of property," he says.

Roe and others point out that, unlike other MF Global customers, who held paper assets, those with warehouse receipts have claims on assets that still exist and can be readily identified.

In the above example, even though the trustees may indeed have the power to effectively override a legal title of ownership (a proven prior existing legal right of possession and control), exercising this power will do nothing to override the completely separate moral right of ownership upon which that legal title can be proved and was based - nor will that moral right of ownership have anything to do with whether actual possession and control is ultimately achieved by those who actually do have both a legal and a moral right.

The trustees who do take possession and control of allocated assets may indeed exercise the power, regardless of legal authority, to effect a transfer of ownership (forcible animal possession and control) by virtue of THEFT - without a moral OR a legal right.

States indisputably ALREADY HAVE legal control of land without owning it.

OR THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES - in the case of the US Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Disputably. There are enumerated federal powers, and prohibition limits on state powers, or so-called "legal control", which extend even to land. And even in the absence of a state, and state recognition, people exercised power and control - ownership, whether later recognized by the state or not - or even "society" - over lands.

This makes his preferred (and only) definition based on societal recognition, as the sole basis of ownership. Thus, it is not possible, in Roy's mind, for anyone on Earth to have had "ownership" of ANYTHING - EVER - without the prior existence of a state.

Bait and switch, Steven, very dishonest. Society existed before states, and the state is not society. You just dishonestly substituted "state" for "societal."

You are the one who stated that "...societal recognition is key to ownership" and that "State enforcement is the formal codification of societal recognition." Substitute state for society and it makes no difference, as I am the one who proved, by common (sourced) definition, that ownership does not require EITHER. The essence of ownership in its most fundamental form REQUIRES NO RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT - only possession and control - the "rights of" which only pertain thereto as "claims" on the same.

A lone man walking in a desert finds an oasis with a wellspring and fills his canteen with water. That man possesses, controls, and therefore "owns" that water. That is fundamental ownership, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with society, states, rights, claims, recognition, morals, privileges, or anything else. That state, or fact of ownership, exists without regard to a single other human being, and would exist even if he was the only human being on the face of the Earth. And he could just as easily "disown", or "dispossess" himself of that same water by pouring it out into the sand.

Likewise, that same man could steal a canteen full of water from a fellow desert traveler while he slept, and would thereby become the new owner. Not the "rightful owner", as right has nothing to do with it. Just the new owner. As quickly as the theft occurred and was successful, ownership - by theft alone - would transfer.

States arise largely to defend ownership of products of labor.

Now that really is some blithering gibberish (and note that I don't just assert such a thing, as that would also be gibberish - I also state why). States arise largely for any number of reasons - often to defend ownership of "the state", which is to say possession and control of everything desired by those who establish the state. See that, Roy? States can be brutal dictatorships or anything else, which arise largely to defend their own interests. Furthermore, states that arise to defend ownership of anything at all can MUTATE into entities which do nothing but defend the interests of the state (i.e., those who benefit most from the state) alone.

Theft does not effect a transfer of ownership, and that fact indisputably proves you wrong.

Tell that to MF Global and the trustees. Tell that to Congress, who transferred ownership (absolute mastery and unlimited control) of the public currency to the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve. Tell that to Roosevelt, who allowed, facilitated, and later even committed theft on untold wealth from American citizens, while allowing the title, or right of ownership of what was once their gold to transfer to the Treasury, Fed banks, foreigners, and foreign interests, all of whom retained their right to own gold -- which he fully acknowledged. Tell it to the Irish, the Native Americans and the Nepalese. There is no equivocation there. These are all examples of what many consider THEFTS which indeed effected a transfer of ownership.

Now go back to my sources and refute them. Or, ask for more sources and I will provide them.

Definitions are the long way of saying a word. Everywhere you see "ownership" substitute "possession and control" (or whatever, using your own sourced definition). Thus a "right of ownership" is a tautology for "right of possession and control". You can expand this tautology with an expansion of the word "right":

Legal Rights
Rights are perfect and imperfect. When the things which we have a right to possess or the actions we have a right to do, are or may be fixed and determinate, the right is a perfect one; but when the thing or the actions are vague and indeterminate, the right is an imperfect one. If a man demand his property, which is withheld from him, the right that supports his demand is a perfect one; because the thing demanded is, or may be fixed and determinate.

Thus, in the case of a title, a right of ownership, as a [very relevant] legal definition, is a "perfect right of possession and control". Not "possession and control" but the "perfect right of" possession and control (aka "claim to" possession and control).

 

[Steven Douglas]

Primary definitions only:

own·er·ship - noun

1. the state or fact of being an owner
2. legal right of possession; lawful title (to something); proprietorship

own·er - noun

• possessor

own - transitive verb

• to possess
• to hold as personal property
• to have

SOURCE: Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

own·er·ship - noun

1. the state or fact of being an owner.
2. legal right of possession; proprietorship.

own·er - noun

• a person who owns
• possessor
• proprietor

own - verb (used with object)

• to have or hold as one's own
• possess

SOURCE: Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

 

[redbluepill]

Because to me, society is the sum of human interaction, minus aggression. A group stealing someone's land is a mob of barbarians, not a society.

If someone is using a piece of land and a mob comes along and forces that individual off of that land then I agree it’s barbaric. But that is exactly what many of the large landholders have done throughout the world for centuries. Where the landgrabbing has been the most disproportionate you see the greatest gaps in wealth. This is why that article I posted several pages back on Robinson Crusoe and Friday is important. It illustrates what has gone on.
We can end poverty. Not through welfare, government housing, etc. But by ensuring land (which was never created by anyone nor can be rightfully declared property) is not possessed by a small minority of the population.

I don't see seceding from your neighbors' chosen defense and justice vendor as removing yourself from the community, any more than choosing a different grocery or gasoline vendor. Buy a big tank for your back yard and order a truck delivery of 10,000 gallons of gas once a year, instead of buying it from the local station like a normal person. You're different, but you're still part of the community of whomever you associate and trade with.

I have no problem with a voluntaryist society.

Excellent!! And I'm all for as many neighborhoods adopting ground rent as wish to. I think that ultimately the insurance companies from the Rothbardian territories will drive all non-Rothbardian governments out of business by offering insurance against various oppressions and predations, such as asset seizures, arrests, and land value taxation. But I could be wrong.

Well Roy and I have presented evidence of societies that have successfully used a geoist or geoist-like system. Do you have examples of Rothbardian systems?

The key thing in shopping malls, condos, gated communities, etc., is that their rules and their funding is voluntary. So if that's all you meant by your form of georgism, that people be allowed to coagulate and form contractual communities, we're in total agreement and in fact this writer is confused because having contractual communities is totally Rothbardian (aka anarcho-capitalist). We're on board with it. See the book The Voluntary City. Now these contractual communities need not be geographically-based -- see, for example, the novel The Diamond Age. But, they could be. Some man or men buys up 20 square miles of land and makes it a jurisdiction of "Amish law" or "Greenwich Village law" or "geoist law". There's stipulations written into the deeds that everyone must pay land value "tax", or must never play loud rock music, or whatever the man thinks will make for a successful and pleasant community. Then, the land value "tax" is contractual, and thus voluntary, and thus really not a tax and I will love it to pieces! Voluntary=good, initiation-of-force=bad.

Ever heard of Arden, Delaware? It is a Georgist community where land is not “owned” and it cannot be sold. Instead it is leased. Whatever land you occupy you are free to improve it however you wish. Residents pay only a land value tax for that community. It’s been around since 1900 and, as far as I know, is still successful.

What about if you want to fence off a nature preserve, keeping it in its pristine natural condition?

Some geoist communities may vary on this but a landholder would still pay LVT whether it’s a nature preserve, golf course, airport, or whatever. I would imagine many geoists would promote tax credits for nature preserves.

According to this, anyone would be free to tramp in and labor it away from you at any time. I think this would be unjust, and I think Murray might agree.

Well Rothbard believes there are two invalid types of land titles: “feudalism” (his quotes not mine) and land-engrossing. In order to be a legitimate holder of land you must be a “transformer” or heir to the transformer. But I see flaws in his transformer argument. For example, if I settle on a piece of land and build a garden I can legitimately claim the garden as my own since I am the source of its creation. But what about the land? Does the garden entitle me to an acre of land? 2? 3? Maybe ten square miles of land? It is completely arbitrary. So while I applaud Rothbard for recognizing a land monopoly problem, especially in the poorest nations, he does not give a satisfactory explanation on how land becomes property from a philosophical view.

In the particular example he gave, he is right: if the land is claimed but then ignored, never used, never transformed, and forgotten, it's fair game again at some point. But I don't agree with some of the implications of using use and transformation as the sole homesteading criteria. Philosophically, the essential element which brings about ownership is the act of making the claim, and then there is a continuum of certainty in the justice of the claim determined by any factor you can think of: the size of the area claimed, the extent of the transformation the claimant has done, etc. As a practical matter, using and transforming the land are probably the two biggest things you can do to solidify your claim to the land. Without that, your claim is much, much, more precarious, although it is possible, as in the case of the nature preserve. Once you've plowed your farm or built your cabin, your claim is probably set in stone, nobody's going to contest the justice of your ownership (well, except the Georgists/geoists ).

And as I mentioned above, how much transformation must take place? How much land can be claimed if I morally can claim it? Could I climb to the top of a mountain peak and declare everything I see as mine? Could I dig a hole or plant a tree and claim hundreds of surrounding miles as “mine”? (Of course, we’re talking as if this land is not already “claimed”). Its all completely arbitrary.

Libertarianism is not about being arbitrary. Everything is concrete. Rights. (True) property. Etc. Georgism is clear. Land is not property. It is the source of property.That is why I believe geolibertarianism makes so much sense.

Anyway, there's no apodictically perfect and true way to determine the exact requirements to homestead land. Do exactly one hour of labor per 10 sq. yards of land, or make transformations increasing the land's value by at least 10%, or... you see? Conventions will arise. The market, including the arbitrators, will decide what constitutes a just claim and what doesn't.

But of course you have no problem with government stepping in for you to enforce your privilege. ;-)

"Yes, you filed your claim to this 20 sq. miles and marked the corners with stakes, but that was a year ago and you haven't done anything since; I think it's a bogus claim and call foul", says Smith. The arbitrator is probably going to side with Smith. "But it's a nature preserve!!" Well, how big a nature preserve can you fence off? As I say, it's not an exact science, but I'm confident a free-market justice system will come up with something reasonable and workable and somewhat fair-seeming.

And if that “free market justice system” decides that the landlord holds too much land then who is morally right; the landlord or the judge?

What I mean is, isn't your system really not abolishing land ownership at all, but merely giving us thousands of landowners in the form of political entities? Wouldn't these political entities act as the ultimate owners of their territories, or "plots"?

Whoever works the land and pays the tax is the “owner” or possessor as I prefer to call it. Government has no claim to it. It acts only to give back to the other citizens what they create (the land value).

Most voluntary of them all... assuming that land should not be owned. I do not share that assumption, thus in my view voluntariness is increased by respecting property rights in land.

It wasn’t very voluntary in South America where anyone who didn’t own a ranch was essentially forced to work for the landlord. In US history class you learn the conditions of the ex-slaves did not necessarily improve. According to the Constitution they were free, but they had no other choice but to work for their former masters under similar work conditions.

You didn't. I was just saying that for all practical purposes, your political entities are landowners.Yes, they are supposedly acting for The Public Good and The Welfare of All, with naught but wisdom and selfless love in their hearts, but that is of course a laughable bunk.

It is laughable bunk which is why a true geolibertarian society would not give government the power to take land. It just denies them the power to enforce privilege. That seems pretty dang libertarian to me.

They cannot be said to "represent" the people in any real way unless the people give their unanimous consent. So the managers of the political entity are the ones in control of the territory they control. Your system has landowners, my system has landowners. My landowners get their land by homesteading it; your landowners get it by... what? Elections, wars, and other bogus political means. So, seizing it, as far as I can tell.

Very misleading statements here. Lots of private land was taken through force, and it remains private through force. In South America natives were forced off their land so ranchers could use it. In the US homesteading was successful because the government and private entities forced Native Americans off of the land. This is what you have defended. There is no force in my proposal.