I'm going to skip over the fancy talk, and go straight into my simple thoughts (and gut feeling) about my views on property rights. I'm not trying to prove yours wrong. I understand that you are very firm in your views; I am just as firm (though less wordy) about mine.

On my property, I choose to build a house. I want to live in this house for the rest of my life, so I build a quality, beautiful house. I want to pass it down to my children. It is mine, I can do that.

If the community owns all property, I lease the use of the property. Whether it is 10, 20 or 50 years, it is leased access. If I build a house, there is no guarantee I can live in it more than 10 years, let alone pass it on to my family. Why would I put so much of my efforts into this house? If it is too nice, someone else in the community can wait for my lease to be up, outbid me and take my house.  You have used Hong Kong as an example of leased property before. I think this is misleading. They have more economic freedom than we do in the U.S. because of lower taxes & regulatory interference. We don't have any way to measure how much more prosperous they could be if individuals could own the rights to the land on which the buildings stand.

If someone else owns property, and I improve it, then those improvements are theirs. That is why my clients employ me; to provide extra value to their property. I am paid for the value I add. I take that payment with me to use as I see fit to purchase & improve my own property.

If own property, I am free to do as I choose with it. If I choose to improve it, those improvements are also mine.

If I own the property, but there are restrictions on what I can build or what improvements I can make, beyond what would be harmful to my neighbors, then do I really own the property?

I see our current county/state property tax system to be a form of the type of mutualist society you promote. My property taxes are what I pay the state in order to retain the privilege of use of my own land. If I make the land more valuable through improvements, I am charged more in property taxes if I want to stay on the land. If someone comes along who will pay the state more money for use of my land, then the state (through courts/eminent domain) can take my land for less than the value (labor & resources) I have put into it.

The basic difference I can see between your version and the version above is that you substitute "ownership in common" for "state/county".

I have to applaud you for finally saying something that makes sense. I still disagree with you in both principle & application, but it does make sense.

do you think I am a collectivist?

if not, do you think my views fall within libertarianism?

I do think you are a collectivist, though I'm still thinking about exactly how to explain the why.

Sometimes it's easy to say a person is or is not a Libertarian. (Harry Browne - YES; Hillary Clinton - NOT; George Bush - NOT) But then you have Ron Paul, who is technically a Republican. There are lots of independents who agree with with anywhere from 50-90% of the Libertarian platform, but are put off by purists who will shout down anyone who doesn't agree 100%.

I think that many of your views do fall within libertarianism. I just don't think your view on property rights and land is one of them. There is merit to the economic rents and land being common property, but it is a system that would only work in a utopian vacuum. Again, though, I'm still thinking about this one. The explanation of private property I use with my children doesn't apply, so I'm thinking through a grown-up version.

I have to applaud you for finally saying something that makes sense. I still disagree with you in both principle & application, but it does make sense.

in my humble opinion it occurs when the location in question develops a selling or rental price minus the improved value via labor.
------------
I am not the one arguing against property rights and a limited role for the state's use of force.

Huh? Almost everything you have done on this BBS since you joined has been to argue for property rights in common instead of individual property rights.

As for calling your opinion "humble" - you obviously feel your opinion is at least lofty enough to warrant all those damned words. I don't challenge your freedom to use your labor (and thesaurus) to express your common speech right, but I do get tired of having my brain tossed into the alphabet soup of individual anarchist, georgist, neo-libertarian, mutualist ideas.

If there is no government anywhere and I have a cabin in the woods that I built with my own hands and someone decides they want to to live there with me to be my roommate for a year, paying me a "rent" of a piece of gold a month for the rent, are you saying that suddenly the state pops back into existence?

a cabin in the woods built via your labor is improved land value.

the land value below it is unimproved and in your example the lease payment that you charge to someone who wants to live there does not include the economic rent because presumably if there were no "organized body" to enforce titles then there is no price to land and thus "enough and as good left in common for others" for others to freely homestead.

Okay then, exactly how many people need to be involved before there is a need for an organized body to handle homesteading & these ethereal economic rents? In the example above, two people have an agreement. What if there are three or more? What if Jetlag picked out a perfect spot, with good light, good soil and fresh water? Person number two walks up and wants to build in this same spot, because it is ideal. Without property rights, somebody will end up injured. Or dead.

Competing against friends & neighbors is no different than now. Global competition is nothing but natural competitiveness, enlarged to global scale (hence the name global competition). Granted, government interference causes problems, but doesn't make the competition. We do that ourselves.

Again, you can't change human nature.

Do mutualists also believe in not infringing on others' individual common equal access collectivist opportunity rights to the Shift key?

No, the Shift key is common opportunity access. The CAPS LOCK key is the one for which you will be charged economic rent - provided that mutually anarchist individuals see a value in your labors using said key.

once profits are gone people will naturally cooperate in mutual benefit rather than compete.

Human nature is such that we will still compete, even while naturally cooperating in mutual benefit.
My husband says this is called coopetition - swears it's a real word, coined by the founder of Novell.

You can't change human nature.

SHUT UP.

don't you believe that everyone has an equal access opportunity right to express themselves so long as they are not infringing on the equal access opportunity rights of others (an individual common right to freedom of speech)?

I'm sure bonerjoe does believe in free expression. He very thoughtfully takes time to add his opinions to most everything expressed here.
Surely you don't feel that his free expression infringes on your equal access opportunity to exercise your individual common right to fredom of speech? That would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.

too bad most folks get so horrible tripped up around the issue of land thinking you can have absolute property rights in land AND absolute property rights in labor...you can't.

you have to choose between one or the other...choose carefully though - making one conditional creates slavery and the other creates the greatest amount of equal freedom for the greatest number of people when done properly!

The ACLU doesn't seem to get tripped up by this. They will defend an individual on the issue of search and seizure of person & property by government at the same time that they will do and say nothing about the seizure of property from individuals when that which is seized goes to fund positive rights like "health care" and "fair wages."

One of the offending images used to incite rioting in Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with the cartoons or Islam.
It was a photo of the winner of a Pig Calling Contest in France, wearing a pig snout & ears.
He had a slightly darker complexion & beard, so they were engaging in stereotyping. How very insensitive of them.

NH is perfect place for BenTucker to purchase "property". Since he believes his "ownership" of the common land excludes someone else, he can contribute the appropriate amount to the NH coffers, for the benefit of those disadvantaged. Isn't NH the state where the governor set up the "Tax Me More" fund?

What is God = full (minus) truth?

Dog?

your rights to your landed property include a legal and monetary claim (backed by the state to enforce your title) on the wages of those you are excluding - how exactly is that libertarian?

This is the same collectivist - excuse me - common property argument you use elsewhere to say property is theft. If anyone wants to read through the very l-o-n-g diatribe anything I type will inspire, feel free to pop over to BenTucker's "Property is Theft" thread.

no those are from the social freedom side of the equation...I am specifically referring to the individualist anarchist tradition - the mutualists and georgists.

Not the georgists again. At least you included the mutualists this time. I followed the wikipedia recommended links at the bottom of the page, starting with Georgist. The choices become less & less attractive.
Georgist ---> Mutualist.
Mutualist ---> Socialist Economics.
Socialist Economics ---> Feminist Economics, Labour Economics, Marxist Economics.

well that is a utterly banal approach to a very important subject...

I could talk around it in an infinite spiral if you like. If the Georgist approach works for you, great. Set up your own system with like minded individuals - just don't expect me to agree that your mutual social club has any rights to my property.