DO RIGHTS EXIST?

Yes, they are self evident.

No, they're a fantasy.

Once we claim them, they come into existence.

Only as far as we defend them.

Only as far as others respect them.

[Santiago Johimbe]

why wouldn't people willingly share the economic rent with their neighbors if they new it would strengthen their own property rights to their labor when their neighbors shared with them?

Well, if you can con them into willingly handing over their money, that's one thing. Good luck with that!

In reality, it is done with guns and bloodshed.

"But. but. but. If you want property you enslave me! You are a monopoly (which means you own ALL the land) and I am excluded. Now where's my check, bitch? I gotta go load up on lotto tickets and cheap booze."
--BTucker

[Dylboz]

why wouldn't people willingly share the economic rent with their neighbors if they new it would strengthen their own property rights to their labor when their neighbors shared with them?

Well, if you can con them into willingly handing over their money, that's one thing. Good luck with that!

In reality, it is done with guns and bloodshed.

"But. but. but. If you want property you enslave me! You are a monopoly (which means you own ALL the land) and I am excluded. Now where's my check, bitch? I gotta go load up on lotto tickets and cheap booze."
--BTucker

HA HA!  You rock Santiago. Karma for that!

My turn...

Your exclusion OBLIGATES ME to demand money from you for the economic rent that derives from your enclosure of scarce and valuable land. Now hurry up with that check, Lisa Lipps is gonna be occupying 3D space at the peep show, and when I say 3D I mean THREE FUCKIN' D'S, BABY!

[Santiago Johimbe]

I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.

[velojym]

I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.

You have learned much, Asshopper, yet there is still much to learn.
 

[BenTucker]

I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.

not "plenty of land" but rather land on the margins...

the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).

[Santiago Johimbe]

I noticed that he says in his system there will be plenty of land that is not occupied if you want to homestead, but
in no other system will land be unoccupied.
What happens if all land is occupied and people didn't have to pay for it, but are paying economic rent. Ben still has no
right to exist in any given place, but he does have money. I guess if thats what makes him happy.
So, he is selling his right to exist, and in the meantime forcing other people to do the same (the 'excluded') as they
are being paid for the land they can no longer occupy.
Life would suck bad.

not "plenty of land" but rather land on the margins...

the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).

And do-si-do. Spin yer pardner round and round, dance aroudn the issue so you never have to give a straight answer.

[theodorelogan]

the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).

No, I think I'll just shoot your tax collectors if they come on my property.  As producers, my fellows and I will be far better armed than your army of hobos, and we will have the advantage of defense.  I like my odds.

[BenTucker]

the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).

No, I think I'll just shoot your tax collectors if they come on my property.  As producers, my fellows and I will be far better armed than your army of hobos, and we will have the advantage of defense.  I like my odds.

odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...

[velojym]

the best we can do is this - no matter where anyone else chooses to exist those being excluded (whether they legally occupy land or not) will not economically disadvantage me (tax my labor).

No, I think I'll just shoot your tax collectors if they come on my property.  As producers, my fellows and I will be far better armed than your army of hobos, and we will have the advantage of defense.  I like my odds.

odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...

So?

[rollins100]

odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...

So what you're advocating is the forcible redistribution of wealth by a collective body.  Are you going to lead the Communist uprising yourself, or would you just be one of the asses?  Er--masses?

[BenTucker]

odds are that as population continue to increase with the supply of land fixed, the "hobos" will have the numbers on their side...

So what you're advocating is the forcible redistribution of wealth by a collective body. 

my argument actually is that the collective body forcible redistributing wealth (wealth can only occur with labor employing capital on land) are those that exclude and have a monopoly on the economic rent (landowners) at the expense of the self-ownership rights of those excluded who in paying the economic rent to the landowner collective are in essence being subjected to an illegal tax backed by the enforcement of the state.

to put it in Albert J. Nock's words:

the monopoly of economic rent is made possible when the State grants land-titles to a fraction of the population, thereby giving that fraction devices with which to levy tolls on the fruits of everyone else's labor. Since these tolls are levied in exchange for a "service" (access to valuable land) that said fraction did nothing to provide, the collection of economic rent is literally an entitlement scheme, i.e., a State-sanctioned transfer payment from those who produce to those who do not produce. In his essay, "The God's Lookout," Albert Jay Nock (author of  Our Enemy, the State) explains how this particular form of welfare conflicts with the principles of laissez faire capitalism:

    "This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.

    "But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble.  The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus."  [Emphasis Nock's]

this is why merely reducing the size of government is not enough...in the late 19th century we had virtually everything that most libertarians of today claim they are fighting for -- a tax and regulatory burden much lower than what we have now.

yet despite that fact, there was still an alarming rate of poverty amidst vast concentrations of wealth and privilege and as Nock pointed out, this was due not to natural causes, but to the concentrated ownership of "economic rent." 

thus, to secure a truly an equally free and prosperous society, we must recognize and uphold both the exclusive right of each individual to the fruits of his or her labor, and the equal right of all individuals to the use of land as expressed via the direct and equal sharing of economic rent between neighbors in a community.

[rollins100]

thus, to secure a truly an equally free and prosperous society, we must recognize and uphold both the exclusive right of each individual to the fruits of his or her labor, and the equal right of all individuals to the use of land as expressed via the direct and equal sharing of economic rent between neighbors in a community.

(definitions from dictionary.com)

socialism:  n.
1.  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.  (emphasis added)

communism: n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

So, based on these definitions, how is what you just wrote not communism?

[BenTucker]

So, based on these definitions, how is what you just wrote not communism?

communism is based on the collective (joint) ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)

where you are restricted in use by having to get prior permission from all the other owners or their delegated authority.

what I argue for is private ownership of capital and the return on capital (economic profits)
the private ownership of labor and the return on labor (wages)
the private ownership of land.

the common ownership of the return on land (economic rent) as an individual righty to uphold your absolute ownership to the fruits of your labor.

[rollins100]

the common ownership of the return on land (economic rent) as an individual righty to uphold your absolute ownership to the fruits of your labor.

What is the point of owning land if you get the same return on it as everyone else who works it?  Isn't the "return" on land the whole draw of actually owning it?  What would you get from owning the land in this case then?  Not only that, but you are only entitled to what you and your employer agree upon--even in our current system.  If you don't like how much you make, you can always find a new job or create your own business. 

So if you convince your employer to give you every cent of profit gleaned by him or her for what you do, then you are a damn fine negotiator.  On the other hand, he or she (the owner of the business) does own all of the resources and space and (most likely) spent money training you in some capacity to do your job, so why should he or she give you all of the profit from it?

Your argument makes no damned sense.

[theodorelogan]

communism is based on the collective (joint) ownership of the means of production (land, labor, capital)

where you are restricted in use by having to get prior permission from all the other owners or their delegated authority.

what I argue for is private ownership of capital and the return on capital (economic profits)

Same thing, since the government owns the land, the government necessarily controls what is on the land.

There is no practical difference between collective ownership and individual ownership HELD collectively.  Either way the gubmint controls it all.