What is the problem with that?
then I must pay a tribute to someone else simply by existing and thus no self-ownership is possible.
So, you don't accept that where you rent a home from is someone that is providing a service? LOL, whatever n00b.
Libertarianism is prefaced on the non-initiation of force
and I am telling you in the natural world all dominion over a territory is either initiate or upheld by force.
Only force to defend, not initiated force.
beyond a certain point exclusive use forces a legal and monetary obligation on others.
I have no obligation to any other human being. If want to walk away from all that I do, I can. Simple as that. Idiots like you don't acknowledge that fact.
By your logic, any restaurant that charges you for the food you eat, has excluded you from self-ownership.
in your example - food is labor-based property and outside of the scope of my inquiry.
Nope, food is property like land, no different, and as such it comes under the same equal access clause.
When I rent my apartment, I am not renting the space, I am renting the time to use that space
and while you are "renting the time to use the space" you are also defacto either legally or physically occupying the space denying others the ability to occupy that same space.
And it is my right to exclude you from my place. I paid for it. Are you saying you own my body? If so, what army you got to back that up, pal?
That means she gives me services plus time to use a given space. Are you saying that is not a valid service or payment? If so, provide a reason that it is not
service presumes labor and outside the scope of my inquiry as it is labor-based property.
Idiot, all property is the same, sorry. Take your bundle of rights theory and natural rights theory, and stuff it up your arse. You must prove that these theories stand in Nature before asserting them. You don't get it, do you?
The first human born was literally born. One cannot infer the other. One can only infer this. If P then Q
fine...if the first person is born then there is no other human around thus only the natural world to interact with in a perfect state of freedom (sans any other humans).
No, there is no perfect state of freedom. No state of nature. And etc. The first human couldn't live forever. The first human couldn't eat everything. And the first human could not occupy all spaces and all times. Ergo, your logical FAILS for two reasons. One, you have not asserted what is perfect. Two, you have not applied those qualities to the argument. When you produce the definition of perfect freedom, then you can discuss further, but until then you are blowing smoke up our asses.
I am not equal to you
I am suggesting we will then have equal opportunity access to nature's benefits...nothing more nothing less.
I don't have equal access to be pregnant. I don't have equal access to fly an airplane. I don't have equal access to all knowledge in the world. I don't hav equal access to all places and times since I am temporally and spatially limited. Your argument is BULL since you assert intrinsic rights that do not exist apart of human interaction aka MORAL THEORY.
Provide proof, THEN we discuss how that proof validates your theory. NOT YOUR THEORY THEN MAYBE PROOF. You're like a Christian fundie that says Jesus exists because the Bible says so. Even after I ask you how do you know the Bible is true. The same is for Georgism. How do you know Georgism is true? PROOF? EVIDENCE? FALSIFICATION OF OTHER THEORIES?
-- Bridget