why aren't you an anarchist?

[BenTucker]

we simply disagree over whether or not the very act of occupying a specific location creates an obligation for those being excluded.

I say it does because all dominion over a specific territory involves force and you don't...

[ladyattis]

we simply disagree over whether or not the very act of occupying a specific location creates an obligation for those being excluded.

I simply disagree with your whole argument since it depends on other premises which follow from Kantian moral theory. I do not see my life as a duty to any other being. I do not owe you a duty to exist and nor do you owe me a duty either. Occupying a space does not confer rights. Social interactions confer rights. Rights are oughtbes, not willbes. And that is where your argument falls from, that rights are Will-Bes. Nothing guarantees the success or failure of a society's means to conceive rights. Individuals choose to operate with each other on their own terms. My landlady does not harm me by making me pay rent. She pays more taxes than I, and she is incorporated under LLC here in Kansas. According to your theory, she is harming me, but if that were so then I would not have a safe space to occupy. She provides that and more. Your theory fails to recognize this necessity of private land ownership, which is that individuals must be responsible for whatever space they occupy, not for others, but for themselves, and private land ownership confers that responsibility. It is a negative right with a causal responsibility[e.g. you do X to maintain Y, I eat to live. I live to eat...Get it? My landlady owns the apartment complex, so she leases it out and makes sure it's nice enough to attract renters, so she can live. So she lives to lease out property or to SHARE IT. Get that too?].

What you can't grasp is that Causality negates your belief of natural rights and of geolibism from the get go. You need to refute that point. If you cannot, admit it and move on. Admit that your theory is circular. Admit your [assumed] true premises lead to false conclusions. 

I say it does because all dominion over a specific territory involves force and you don't...

Also, all things require force. The fact that I eat meat, means someone forced an animal to slaughter. The fact that those that do this are paid less than me, forces them to take a small paycheck for work, which could be equally valuable to individuals on the whole. Force is the hallmark of existence. One thing moving another. One thing absorbing another. Humans do it well, and do it with more compassion, since we have the means to think and whole such concepts, than the other animals. To you, a land owner is an evil vile thing, even when they themselves are using it for industries they are in, whether it's a factory, a farm, or a housing landlord. To you these people are wrong, even though they are right in their acts and their ownership, and produce good things even when you say they are not. This is the rub that we have. You paint white as black, and black as white. Your whole philosophy is backwards.

Until you admit the flaws your in philosophy, we will never ever meet of minds.

-- Bridget

[BenTucker]

My landlady does not harm me by making me pay rent

do you or do you not have a choice to pay or be gifted economic rent somewhere?

if it is not a choice then you are not free from being economically disadvantaged.

Your theory fails to recognize this necessity of private land ownership, which is that individuals must be responsible for whatever space they occupy, not for others, but for themselves, and private land ownership confers that responsibility

my theory recognizes the necessity of private land ownership...

you fail to recognize that private land ownership creates an obligation on others...

My landlady owns the apartment complex

and I am not talking about the apartment complex (labor-based property) but rather the unimproved land value (economic rent)

[ladyattis]

do you or do you not have a choice to pay or be gifted economic rent somewhere?

I am not owed a gift of anything. My parents chose to let me live. Others chose to let me live since it is to their benefit. Also, do you have a choice in paying or not paying for a property you wish to have? If there was only one of that property, according to you, it is not a choice, yet it is if I choose not to buy it. The existence of other options does not negate choice. Choice depends on whether you can or cannot reject the proposition. If I can reject the proposition then I made a choice. If I reject to pay rent, I do not get the apartment, but my life is not harmed by my lack of occupation of it. Causality, sir, causality, not duty.

 According to your theory, rights pre-exist humans, yet they do not. And according to your theory rights must exist, even when there is no society present. Thus, your theory is Kantian all over. And from that, I reject it completely. Show me an ounce of rights, sir.

if it is not a choice then you are not free from being economically disadvantaged.

It is a choice since I am of free will to seek other means to live. I can take out urban housing loans and other such federal aide options. Your claim in this regard is refuted.

Your theory fails to recognize this necessity of private land ownership, which is that individuals must be responsible for whatever space they occupy, not for others, but for themselves, and private land ownership confers that responsibility

my theory recognizes the necessity of private land ownership...

Then why do you tax those that benefit individuals with their use of land? Would you tax an architect for his plans to build a school, factory, or office building? In your theory, he is taxed. You steal from his mind through the theft of his profits. Thus you discourage land development.

you fail to recognize that private land ownership creates an obligation on others...

There is no obligation beyond to that which you agree to. Do you not accept that contracts are binding promises, yes or no?

and I am not talking about the apartment complex (labor-based property) but rather the unimproved land value (economic rent)

There is no such rent, sir. All land is either used or not. If it is not occupied it is not being used. QED.

[BenTucker]

If I reject to pay rent, I do not get the apartment, but my life is not harmed by my lack of occupation of it.

you legally have no right to occupy any location if you have not paid or been gifted by someone thus no self-ownership is possible.

why do you tax those that benefit individuals with their use of land

why does a landowner tax those that don't benefit from the use of the land?

There is no obligation beyond to that which you agree to

if all land is legally claimed there is no choice in the matter...

There is no such rent, sir

are you claiming that economic rent is not a standard economic term?

[ladyattis]

you legally have no right to occupy any location

No and shit, Ben.

if you have not paid or been gifted by someone thus no self-ownership is possible.

I don't accept self-ownership. I don't own myself since my own body is not a property to be bought and sold. My body is not a work of labor, it is a process of Life. Things that can be owned must be exchangable. I can't exchange my body [Yet...], so it is not a property; period and end of story. Thus, no self-ownership.

why does a landowner tax those that don't benefit from the use of the land?

A land owner does not tax. Again, land owners tend to own the land for their use; factories, housing, retail, et al. Your claim is refuted again, sir. Accept that your claim is wrong and move on.

if all land is legally claimed there is no choice in the matter...

There is choice in whom you wish to contract with, so your claim is wrong.

are you claiming that economic rent is not a standard economic term?

I don't accept the economic rent at all as a concept since it claims a zero-sum model of economics. Most GeoLibs have rejected this concept already. I'm surprised you haven't, but that says much to your backward thinking. Show proof that economics is zero-sum, then I will accept the economic rent model, until then your claim is based on pseudo-science and sophistry.

-- Bridget

[BenTucker]

my own body is not a property to be bought and sold

self-ownership is inalienable

My body is not a work of labor

it was from your parents perspective

A land owner does not tax

economic rent is a tax in form but not name

There is choice in whom you wish to contract with

but not whether to contract at all...

I don't accept the economic rent at all as a concept

you don't accept the concept of:

1. rights
2. self-ownership
3. economic rent

what exactly would you call this philosophy that you could probably count the number of people on one hand that subscribe to?

[Laetitia]

Joy-

I appreciate your efforts but you still have not respond to my central thesis which is that if you as the landowner collect the economic rent rather than share it equally amongst your neighbors (and they with you) then it can only be done so at the expense of the absolute rights to the fruits of the labor of those you are excluding by your title backed by the state...

the reason why is because the collection of the economic rent by you (immediately from someone you are renting to and in the future from a buyer of your property) becomes a legal and monetary obligation that can only be satisfied via their wages.

Ben -
Who holds the land rights? If I hold the rights to my 1/2 acre of property, and each of my 9 neighbors hold the land rights to their 1/2 acre, then that is Individual Ownership. If my street is owned by all 10 of us in common, and economic rent is collected by a management company (or government body), then it is that body which holds the rights, and acts as landowner on behalf of the neighborhood as a whole.

The mutualist system sets up a layer between the individual and the property. If the layer of bureaucracy is put between the individual and the property, then there is the potential for abuse, corruption and control. I would much rather remove that extra layer, handle the management of my own property rights, and only call the bureaucrats when I need to have a violator of my property hauled away.

Again, I realize that we do not agree on this, and are unlikely to anytime in the future. You asked why I thought your views were collectivist, and I have now explained it. I have managed to do so twice now without any name calling, and I think that deserves a beer. But, while I'm waiting for my glass to chill, I will leave you with this tidbit from Leon Trotsky, who once said where there is no private ownership individuals can be easily bent to the will of the state under threat of starvation or worse. Only ghosts can survive without property, human beings cannot.

[BenTucker]

If my street is owned by all 10 of us in common, and economic rent is collected by a management company (or government body), then it is that body which holds the rights, and acts as landowner on behalf of the neighborhood as a whole.

only if said economic rent is collected AND spent by the management company or government body.

if this body does collect and spend the money then the street is not owned in common it is owned collectively...

You asked why I thought your views were collectivist, and I have now explained it.

once again wrong...

where there is no private ownership individuals can be easily bent to the will of the state under threat of starvation or worse. Only ghosts can survive without property, human beings cannot.

Leo Tolstoy or Leon Trotsky?

[Laetitia]

If my street is owned by all 10 of us in common, and economic rent is collected by a management company (or government body), then it is that body which holds the rights, and acts as landowner on behalf of the neighborhood as a whole.

only if said economic rent is collected AND spent by the management company or government body.

if this body does collect and spend the money then the street is not owned in common it is owned collectively...

You asked why I thought your views were collectivist, and I have now explained it.

once again wrong...

where there is no private ownership individuals can be easily bent to the will of the state under threat of starvation or worse. Only ghosts can survive without property, human beings cannot.

Leo Tolstoy or Leon Trotsky?

First:
If the management company collects it and spends it, that's government - kind of like our property taxes.
If the management company collects the rent and distributes it back at a rate to equal each persons "disadvantaged opportunity" - that's communism.
If the management company collects it and then distributes it all back to us, minus a management "fee" - that's just a silly waste of money.


Second:
That you do not agree with my reasons does not mean I have not explained why I think mutualism is collectivist.

Third:
LeoN Trotsky. Looked it up, just to be sure before correcting my typo. It was used in an great speech on individual property rights given by Peter Cresswell in support of the Libertarianz party in New Zealand. Will add the link in a few mins. after I dig it back up.

http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/08/northland-campaigning-property-rights.html

[BenTucker]

If the management company collects it and then distributes it all back to us, minus a management "fee" - that's just a silly waste of money.

and if the neighbors just share it equally between themselves?

That you do not agree with my reasons does not mean I have not explained why I think mutualism is collectivist.

do you or do you not agree that collective ownership is based on group rights and common ownership is based on individual rights?

[Laetitia]

do you or do you not agree that collective ownership is based on group rights and common ownership is based on individual rights?

I agree that you think it is.

[BenTucker]

do you or do you not agree that collective ownership is based on group rights and common ownership is based on individual rights?

I agree that you think it is.

what do you think?

is freedom of speech a right in common to all?

[Laetitia]

I think that I could reword every bit of what I think ten times over, and you will still insist that I must agree with you. The great thing about the freedom of speech is that I am perfectly free to hold a different view than yours, and to talk about it. Or in this case, not talk about it, and go fix dinner for my family.

I'll be adding value to the property on which my kitchen sits by mixing together ingredients & getting them onto the table for common good of my little group of individuals.

[BenTucker]

The great thing about the freedom of speech is that I am perfectly free to hold a different view than yours

great then you do believe freedom of speech is an individual right...

 

mixing together ingredients & getting them onto the table for common good of my little group of individuals.

me too...cod fish, organic french fries w/ ketchup, & corn.

at least you seem to believe in the fundamental tenet of the right to self-ownership