I do think you are a collectivist, though I'm still thinking about exactly how to explain the why.
do you agree that collectivism is based on
group rights and ownership is common is based on
individual rights?
in other words, in a collectivist system in order to access/use the collective property
you must ask each of the individual owners in the collective permission and they must
each give their consent to your use (consensus)
PRIOR to access/use and
they can dictate they manner and extent of use.and if this collectivist system has formed a state as the delegated authority then
you must get permission from them first PRIOR to use...
whereas ownership in common
you need not ask ANYONE prior to use and are only judged afterwards whether or not your use infringes on any other
INDIVIDUALS equal access right...
and that the
sole LEGITIMATE role of the state is to
protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of those who are being infringed upon...
do you not see & acknowledge the material difference between collective and common ownership?
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
how can you pass judgement on whether I am a collectivist or not when you keep misrepresenting my position?
my view on property rights is that
only absolute property rights to LABOR can be the logical extension of ownership right to yourself - as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.
do you agree or disagree?
yes, philosophically all land as part of the natural commons starts out as common property but that it is
LEGITIMATE and
JUST that private individuals enclose the commons "so long as they leave enough and as good in common for others" (Locke's proviso) so that we bring land under cultivation and the surplus can sustain many, many more people then if we had remained as wandering, nomadic tribes of hunters and gatherers.
so up until Locke's proviso - the bundled private property rights to land ownership of use, possession, exclusion, transferability are
LEGITIMATE and
JUST but with the appearance of the economic rent, which
ONLY occurs beyond Locke's proviso, the economic rent -
and only the economic rent - needs to remain owned in common so as to uphold the
ABSOLUTE property rights we all possess to our labor as the logical extension of our
ABSOLUTE right of self-ownership.