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.
ownership in common
IS an individual property right...
I have the right as a citizen of the state of NH (as an individual) to go onto any lake over 20 acres so long as my access right does not infringe on anyone else's equal right to the same.
I have stated over and over again that land ownership is not a single solitary right but rather a bundle of rights that include:
1. use
2. possession
3. exclusion
4. transferability
5. economic rent
I have argued vigorously that I believe that the first four property rights to land ownership
SHOULD remain in private hands but that only the economic rent needs to remain owned in common (as an individual
not group right which equals collectivism) inorder to uphold the
ABSOLUTE individual property right we all have to our wages.
I want to strengthen labor-based property rights while you and others want to make it conditional by allowing landowner via state privilege to force a monetary and legal obligation on those being excluded by private enclosure.
do you not see this - that I am promoting a system that will deliver a greater amount of equal freedom for a greater number of people than what is possible by neo-libertarians?