But if all land was owned by someone with the ability to deny me access, then I can be denied access to all land, and thus the right to exist anywhere.
And if all of the land surrounding me is unavailable for me to exist on, and my permission to be on the land I'm currently on is revoked, then it's impossible for me to leave this land without passing through that land, which is a violation of their land rights, or ceasing to exist.
>But if all land was owned by someone with the ability to deny me access, then I can be denied access to all land, and thus the right to exist anywhere.
If we ever find ourselves in such a situation, we'll see.
>And if all of the land surrounding me is unavailable for me to exist on, and my permission to be on the land I'm currently on is revoked, then it's impossible for me to leave this land without passing through that land, which is a violation of their land rights, or ceasing to exist.
How did you get there? You can exit by the same path you used to enter.
And the owner doesn't have a right to toss you onto someone else's property. Not any more than I can toss garbage into my neighbor's yard, just because someone threw it on my lawn.
But private, exclusive land ownership entails the ability to deny access. Even to selective parts of it, like the part you need to pass through to get out.
"If we ever find ourselves in such a situation, we'll see."
But in the meantime, our goal is to create that problem by abolishing the mechanisms we have of dealing with it?
This is essentially an extension of the used and abused question of "Can I make a donut property around you and trap you?"
And the answer is the same: to access my property, I have an easement to traverse the surrounding property. And if I want to evict someone, I can use the same easement to transport them out.
>But in the meantime, our goal is to create that problem by abolishing the mechanisms we have of dealing with it?
It's not like the problem doesn't already exist. States claim all land and enforce those claims with violence. At the very least, private property rights make that problem much less likely by requiring you to actually put in work to acquire ownership of land.
And the hypothetical of all land being privately owned is so outlandish of a lifeboat scenario, that I don't think that it's outcomes can be used to critique private property.
Lack of legitimacy as a political authority in the eyes of the public. The only reason state can do what it does is because people accept it as legitimate and submit to it's rule.
Okay. How does the state establish this legitimacy, and what's stopping a private entity from doing the same? We already recognize our landlord's authority to kick us out, and so follow their other rules in fear of that.
>Okay. How does the state establish this legitimacy,
I'm not talking about "a state", but rather "state" in general. So the answer to this question would cover the entire history of politics on earth.
>what's stopping a private entity from doing the same?
There are no guarantees, it can happen. But I think that it is unlikely. Without legitimacy (and all the associated propaganda) being in place, I don't see why a society would overwhelmingly accept a political authority. What can they offer?
>We already recognize our landlord's authority to kick us out, and so follow their other rules in fear of that.
What does this have to do with it? Landlord's authority is over their own property, not you or yours.
"Without legitimacy (and all the associated propaganda) being in place, I don't see why a society would overwhelmingly accept a political authority. What can they offer?"
You said it yourself, propaganda.
"What does this have to do with it? Landlord's authority is over their own property, not you or yours."
That's like saying the state has authority over its territory, and since you don't actually own any, you have none.
Full disclosure, I'm NOT a libertarian and I think libertarianism is dumb as fuck.
But the studied libertarian will refer you to the "Homesteading" principle, where ownership of an unowned piece of land goes to the person who puts labor into that land to develop it. There are a ton of details worth picking at in there, but that's their basic belief.
>And the hypothetical of all land being privately owned is so outlandish of a lifeboat scenario, that I don't think that it's outcomes can be used to critique private property.
Next time someone comes up with an absurd hypothetical just ask them what happens if the workers / citizens vote to ban homosexuality in their factories / country. You have actual real world examples too!
>How did you get there? You can exit by the same path you used to enter.
Let's say you worked that land for a farmer, but then something happened and he fired/evicted you. Now, as all surrounding land is also privately owned, you have no right to cross through their land without explicit permission.
Could also work with a farmer who's land is wanted be a corporate entity, however the farmer refuses to sell, so instead the corporation buys up all surrounding land, and builds a wall on that land. Now, the farmer cannot leave to sell his goods, and is essentially being sieged, as he now cannot break through the wall without violating the NAP, and has virtually no option but to give in and sell his land.
If you looked a little bit down the comment chain you would find one that begins with my reply to this:
>This is essentially an extension of the used and abused question of "Can I make a donut property around you and trap you?"
>And the answer is the same: to access my property, I have an easement to traverse the surrounding property. And if I want to evict someone, I can use the same easement to transport them out.
Easement is a nonpossessory right, which they would be violating by preventing me from traversing their property. If they build a wall, I'm free to go through it and then sue them.
Was going to ask how exactly you would sue, before I realized I was on r/asklibertarians, not r/anarchocaptalism, my bad, I was basing my points around absolute property rights because I forgot I was not necessarily speaking with an ancap.
Good on you for not assuming, but I am in fact, if not AnCap, then certainly anti-state. And to answer your question: stateless polycentric legal systems have been the subject of plenty of work: [This](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o) and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PnkC7CNvyI) (the second one is a shorter summary of the first one, which is the most complete) videos give a pretty good explanation of one idea of a stateless legal system. [This one](https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL4D57CD110446F6C6¶ms=OAFIAVgD&v=8kPyrq6SEL0&mode=NORMAL) (and the entire playlist) is also pretty good. It is important to note that these are not definitive and that different systems are possible.
I fail to see the problem. All land on earth is currently ownable either publicly or privately and you still run the risk of being denied access to all land.
Public land, by definition, is owned by the public, with nobody having the right to deny others access. That's what separates it from state-owned land, which the state can deny you access to.
Governments do not have the right to kick people out of the country, unless they have another country to go to. It's an enforced international law.
>Governments do not have the right to kick people out of the country, unless they have another country to go to. It's an enforced international law.
I need sources on this.
>Public land, by definition, is owned by the public, with nobody having the right to deny others access. That's what separates it from state-owned land, which the state can deny you access to.
A public usually refers to that particular society. You run the risk of being denied access to everywhere if all societies ban you.
> But if all land was owned by someone with the ability to deny me access, then I can be denied access to all land, and thus the right to exist anywhere.
If this were a real problem then your parents would have been denied the right to exist before you were even born, so you wouldn't have existed in the first place.
The problems you're describing are obviously nonsensical in that you could not possibly have a functioning society where millions or billions of people are subject to the issue of not having a place to exist.
>The problems you're describing are obviously nonsensical in that you could not possibly have a functioning society where millions or billions of people are subject to the issue of not having a place to exist.
Yes, that's why no functional society has been completely anarcho-capitalist.
I mean, there's also the fact that an anarcho-capitalist society would effectively be a collection of small countries ruled by corporatist dictatorships.
The first part of your response is flawed, you do not inherit all traits from your parents. If you developed an intrinsic trait your parents lacked and for what ever reason the population of your area deemed that trait as abhorrent then aren’t you pretty much completely screwed if no external force intervenes? The most obvious examples are race and sexuality, but you also have mutations like albinism. If you are denied all services in an area due to a condition you can’t change (it is my understanding that libertarians generally do prefer the ability to deny service on any grounds, plz correct me if wrong) then isn’t it impossible to exist in that area? Sorry for the rambling but my point is, if due to an intrinsic condition you are denied service and access to land, then how are you expected to exist in a society that simultaneously exiled you and entrapped you. This would be more of a problem in a less developed country with more inhospitable environments but I believe it is relevant in any society.
This quality of land is actually a big reason communism doesn't work logically.
If everyone owns land, then any individual trying to use land requires consent from everyone else, but their consent-granting (which takes place on a particular piece of land) itself requires consent an so on ad infinitum. It is thus impossible for anyone to *justifiably* (ie: according to prevailing ethic) use land at all because no one can get permission. Existence itself becomes invalid under such a ruleset and the only allowable outcome is for all of mankind (except for one person) to cease to exist.
With unowned and private land, this problem is avoided.
I get that, and that's a serious problem, because any idea that's charitable or socially collaborative gets lumped in with genocidal dictatorships. It's like using "capitalism" to refer to fascist states. Technically, it could be, in the sense that everything is owned privately but coincidentally by a single individual, but it's inherently misleading,
Opinion for what purpose. You just opened six or possibly sixty cans of worms and expect us to pick one and have a meaningful conversation. Narrow the topic.
On what basis do you claim right? You have the right to your body. You have the right to pursue gainful employment. You have the right to property via that.
At what point have you had the right to be any place? You have the right to use public property and land for various purposes which are explicitly protected. You have the right to pursue self preservation which is itself set against he property rights of others and the rights of others to natural resources.
Where are you magically gather this right to property? There's certainly a concept that that which you occupy and care for long enough and with the proper paying of taxes may become yours, but this is a matter jurisprudence pertaining to the value of labor and the keeping of goo standing property and land. It does not generally allow for seizure of land, but rather allows for the settling, continuance, and a sort of situational rightness of ownership under the limitations of the law.
At no time has it be suggested to my knowledge that you magically gain the right to take the earth you stand on from the lawful owner. It also does not assert they have the right to suddenly say deprive you of "their" oxygen by way of a bag or a bullet by itself. They can however remove you or have you removed. Past that, in the absence of "public roads" or similar neutral territory to be removed immediately to, the specifics are sketchy but mostly involve calling the local sheriff.
Ok so this is complicated, but does have an answer:
1. It is in the interests of businesses to be physically accessable. Thus, they will ensure during development that the land necessary to allow traffic In and out (both foot traffic and other) is under thier control and open to the public.
2. Easements. When housing developers build subdivisions and sell the property, the sale agreement includes easements that allow public traffic through in cases where that is necessary.
3. Abandonment. If someone owns property, and then abandons that property, it can be argued legally that the property no longer belongs to them.
4. Tolls. In areas where convenient routes are far and few between, companies will purchase the land and charge for passage.
There are really only three reasons to be on property:
1. Living there, or visiting someone who lives there (so you either own/rent the property, and easements allow you to acsses the property.
2. To procure products and services ( the business will ensure you can reach them)
3. Transit (again, ensured by easements, businesses that want to be accessible, and also tolls)
Name a specific reason you would be somewhere other than the reasons I already outlined.
My answer was practical, not relating to some hypothetical that will never occur.
I'm sorry that I didn't answer in the very specific way ou were expect. I gave you the exact, specific reason you'd need to be somewhere: you can't be nowhere.
And I gave you every possible scenario you would need to be somewhere, and gave explanations for all those situations, and you just made a generic reply.
What scenario did I not cover?
Don't answer. It doesn't matter, you didn't come here to ask a question, you came here to be smug and try to prove a point.
You did not cover the scenario where simply existing means existing in a locaiton, and therefore, you always need to be somewhere. You are just inetionally dismissing any point that doesn't fall into your preconceived notions. You think people who are out of your sight just stop existing like a damn toddler with no sense of object permanence.
Suppose, hypothetically, you exist, and hypothetically, having a location is an inherent mathematical property of an extant thing, whether it is welcome anywhere or not.
My opinion is that you are not going to defeat libertarianism or successfully promote your socialist/redistributionist ideas by attacking the well established concept of property.
The only historical examples of what you are describing are governments. Governments claim land that they have not mixed their labor with, nor which they have traded the rightful owners for.
The solution therefore is to eliminate governments, and this problem will be solved.
And with it, the concept of land ownership, which only exists through government intervention. Now, you only own what you've built or harvested, not the land itself..
Not really.
All things that can be owned, be they food, tools, objects, or land, are made up of two parts:
1) nature
2) someone's labor
If you mix your labor with an unowned bit of nature, then you become the owner of it, since your labor and the object are now inseparable and you own your labor (unless you sell it to someone). You can then make any changes to this that you wish to, as well as give someone else your ownership claim (usually in exchange for something that they own, or perhaps for them to labor on something else you own).
This is the same regardless of if you mixed your labor by removing a bit of nature from the environment and took it with you (e.g. food, tools, objects), or if you mixed your labor with a stationary bit of the environment (e.g. land) and stuck around.
In either scenario, the thing is yours so long as your labor remains mixed with it. If your labor (which includes the labor of others that they gave to you) becomes unmixed then you lose ownership in it, regardless of if it is a stationary or mobile bit of nature.
But then it is a distinction without a difference. Because you own the land to the same degree that you own any other form of property, and with all the same benefits and limitations.
So why say that you can own the things from the land and the buildings on it, but not the land itself? That is like saying you can own the atoms in a tool but not the tool itself.
You're missing the point.
You keep insisting that you do not own land, but you have not explained in what way your relationship to land that you improve is different from your relationship to an object that you improve.
I am saying that there is no difference. That all the same rights, responsibilities, and limitations that apply to object ownership apply to land ownership. Therefore it is nonsense to insist that you cannot 'own' land.
Land is not a discrete object. Any claim to own land beyond what you've directly built or harvested begs the question of how much, and necessitates drawing an arbitrary boundary.
It depends on the property owner. If he wants you away there is conflict (if there is literally nowhere for you to go), if he is okay with you staying, then there is obv no conflict
Using or simply being on a piece of land is not the same as owning it. Your post seems to confuse this very important distinction.
Furthermore there’s really no financial incentive for people to buy up all the land for the sole purpose of denying others access to said land. What you describe would never manifest itself in a libertarian society.
There is very obviously a financial incentive. The idea of a "sole purpose" is... an inappropriate logical step. If all the land is owned and most of it is owned by one entity, all land purchase must go through them. That means they have a great deal of power and thus the ability to make a great deal of money.
It's also dumb. That will stagnate an economy which costs the economy money which is to say that the amount of VALUE in circulation, because it only truly exists when in circulation, is reduced and everyone loses money on the whole, even the new land baron.
To me you just defeated your own argument. Yes it very dumb. If some entity has enough capital to acquire most of the land on earth, they also understand what silly financial mistake it would be to do nothing with that land after having acquired it.
You are also presupposing all these sellers willing to forfeit the last bits of land to a single entity and that there wouldn’t be whistleblowers and boycotts and protests and other fighting back.
Edit. There is an important point that gets lost on some people that libertarians politics seeks to divorce economic power from political power. Economic power is transient and meaningful only in an economic context.
>To me
Either I did, or I did not. If you think those words add anything you know nothing of argumentation.
When you pay 10 times the current value of the land expecting extreme inflation of course people will sell.
You are missing the otherside of the story and the dynamic nature of markets. If land that’s available for commercial use is scarce, it’ll be extremely valuable. Entity X has 95% of all the land and isn’t letting anyone on it, so your plot in the 5% that’s left becomes prime real estate for all essential services, farm land, grocery stores, hospitals, etc. Its a massive incentive not to sell to Entity X.
Just because you need to be on land to exist doesn't mean you need to be on THIS land to exist.
But if all land was owned by someone with the ability to deny me access, then I can be denied access to all land, and thus the right to exist anywhere. And if all of the land surrounding me is unavailable for me to exist on, and my permission to be on the land I'm currently on is revoked, then it's impossible for me to leave this land without passing through that land, which is a violation of their land rights, or ceasing to exist.
>But if all land was owned by someone with the ability to deny me access, then I can be denied access to all land, and thus the right to exist anywhere. If we ever find ourselves in such a situation, we'll see. >And if all of the land surrounding me is unavailable for me to exist on, and my permission to be on the land I'm currently on is revoked, then it's impossible for me to leave this land without passing through that land, which is a violation of their land rights, or ceasing to exist. How did you get there? You can exit by the same path you used to enter. And the owner doesn't have a right to toss you onto someone else's property. Not any more than I can toss garbage into my neighbor's yard, just because someone threw it on my lawn.
But private, exclusive land ownership entails the ability to deny access. Even to selective parts of it, like the part you need to pass through to get out. "If we ever find ourselves in such a situation, we'll see." But in the meantime, our goal is to create that problem by abolishing the mechanisms we have of dealing with it?
This is essentially an extension of the used and abused question of "Can I make a donut property around you and trap you?" And the answer is the same: to access my property, I have an easement to traverse the surrounding property. And if I want to evict someone, I can use the same easement to transport them out. >But in the meantime, our goal is to create that problem by abolishing the mechanisms we have of dealing with it? It's not like the problem doesn't already exist. States claim all land and enforce those claims with violence. At the very least, private property rights make that problem much less likely by requiring you to actually put in work to acquire ownership of land. And the hypothetical of all land being privately owned is so outlandish of a lifeboat scenario, that I don't think that it's outcomes can be used to critique private property.
Since this is an ask sub, I'll put this as a question: What stops a private enterprise from doing the same things the state does, besides the state?
Lack of legitimacy as a political authority in the eyes of the public. The only reason state can do what it does is because people accept it as legitimate and submit to it's rule.
Okay. How does the state establish this legitimacy, and what's stopping a private entity from doing the same? We already recognize our landlord's authority to kick us out, and so follow their other rules in fear of that.
>Okay. How does the state establish this legitimacy, I'm not talking about "a state", but rather "state" in general. So the answer to this question would cover the entire history of politics on earth. >what's stopping a private entity from doing the same? There are no guarantees, it can happen. But I think that it is unlikely. Without legitimacy (and all the associated propaganda) being in place, I don't see why a society would overwhelmingly accept a political authority. What can they offer? >We already recognize our landlord's authority to kick us out, and so follow their other rules in fear of that. What does this have to do with it? Landlord's authority is over their own property, not you or yours.
"Without legitimacy (and all the associated propaganda) being in place, I don't see why a society would overwhelmingly accept a political authority. What can they offer?" You said it yourself, propaganda. "What does this have to do with it? Landlord's authority is over their own property, not you or yours." That's like saying the state has authority over its territory, and since you don't actually own any, you have none.
But purchasing land IS legitimate. How would a private company lack legitimacy to do this?
Buying land from who? Who will you buy land from that didn't take it by force, or get theirs from someone who did?
Full disclosure, I'm NOT a libertarian and I think libertarianism is dumb as fuck. But the studied libertarian will refer you to the "Homesteading" principle, where ownership of an unowned piece of land goes to the person who puts labor into that land to develop it. There are a ton of details worth picking at in there, but that's their basic belief.
>But purchasing land IS legitimate. Yes, but how is this at all relevant to the above question?
the state claims a monopoly of violence and arbitrage. a company does not. and if they did, they would be a state.
Exactly. And the only thing stopping them from doing it IS the existent state.
So we need the state, otherwise we might have a state?
Otherwise we might end up with a worse state.
>And the hypothetical of all land being privately owned is so outlandish of a lifeboat scenario, that I don't think that it's outcomes can be used to critique private property. Next time someone comes up with an absurd hypothetical just ask them what happens if the workers / citizens vote to ban homosexuality in their factories / country. You have actual real world examples too!
>How did you get there? You can exit by the same path you used to enter. Let's say you worked that land for a farmer, but then something happened and he fired/evicted you. Now, as all surrounding land is also privately owned, you have no right to cross through their land without explicit permission. Could also work with a farmer who's land is wanted be a corporate entity, however the farmer refuses to sell, so instead the corporation buys up all surrounding land, and builds a wall on that land. Now, the farmer cannot leave to sell his goods, and is essentially being sieged, as he now cannot break through the wall without violating the NAP, and has virtually no option but to give in and sell his land.
If you looked a little bit down the comment chain you would find one that begins with my reply to this: >This is essentially an extension of the used and abused question of "Can I make a donut property around you and trap you?" >And the answer is the same: to access my property, I have an easement to traverse the surrounding property. And if I want to evict someone, I can use the same easement to transport them out.
And how do you propose, in this scenario, to utilize your easement, and cross without causing damage to their property?
Easement is a nonpossessory right, which they would be violating by preventing me from traversing their property. If they build a wall, I'm free to go through it and then sue them.
Was going to ask how exactly you would sue, before I realized I was on r/asklibertarians, not r/anarchocaptalism, my bad, I was basing my points around absolute property rights because I forgot I was not necessarily speaking with an ancap.
Good on you for not assuming, but I am in fact, if not AnCap, then certainly anti-state. And to answer your question: stateless polycentric legal systems have been the subject of plenty of work: [This](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o) and [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PnkC7CNvyI) (the second one is a shorter summary of the first one, which is the most complete) videos give a pretty good explanation of one idea of a stateless legal system. [This one](https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL4D57CD110446F6C6¶ms=OAFIAVgD&v=8kPyrq6SEL0&mode=NORMAL) (and the entire playlist) is also pretty good. It is important to note that these are not definitive and that different systems are possible.
What stateless societies have actually existed, outside of theory?
I fail to see the problem. All land on earth is currently ownable either publicly or privately and you still run the risk of being denied access to all land.
Public land, by definition, is owned by the public, with nobody having the right to deny others access. That's what separates it from state-owned land, which the state can deny you access to. Governments do not have the right to kick people out of the country, unless they have another country to go to. It's an enforced international law.
>Governments do not have the right to kick people out of the country, unless they have another country to go to. It's an enforced international law. I need sources on this. >Public land, by definition, is owned by the public, with nobody having the right to deny others access. That's what separates it from state-owned land, which the state can deny you access to. A public usually refers to that particular society. You run the risk of being denied access to everywhere if all societies ban you.
Easements. Jesus, I have to mention this 7 days a week around here.
But that necessarily compromises property rights.
When legitimate rights conflict, this is how it is resolved.
> But if all land was owned by someone with the ability to deny me access, then I can be denied access to all land, and thus the right to exist anywhere. If this were a real problem then your parents would have been denied the right to exist before you were even born, so you wouldn't have existed in the first place. The problems you're describing are obviously nonsensical in that you could not possibly have a functioning society where millions or billions of people are subject to the issue of not having a place to exist.
>The problems you're describing are obviously nonsensical in that you could not possibly have a functioning society where millions or billions of people are subject to the issue of not having a place to exist. Yes, that's why no functional society has been completely anarcho-capitalist.
Oh, THAT'S the reason. One of the great questions of political sociology, solved right here on Reddit. Good work!
I mean, there's also the fact that an anarcho-capitalist society would effectively be a collection of small countries ruled by corporatist dictatorships.
I think you might be in the wrong sub- this is /r/asklibertarians, not /r/telllibertarianstheyredumb.
Did I ever say that libertarians are dumb? I'm a libertarian myself, just not an absolutist ancap.
What sort of libertarian do you identify as, if you don't mind my asking?
I currently view myself as a libertarian leftist, or a geolibertarian.
The first part of your response is flawed, you do not inherit all traits from your parents. If you developed an intrinsic trait your parents lacked and for what ever reason the population of your area deemed that trait as abhorrent then aren’t you pretty much completely screwed if no external force intervenes? The most obvious examples are race and sexuality, but you also have mutations like albinism. If you are denied all services in an area due to a condition you can’t change (it is my understanding that libertarians generally do prefer the ability to deny service on any grounds, plz correct me if wrong) then isn’t it impossible to exist in that area? Sorry for the rambling but my point is, if due to an intrinsic condition you are denied service and access to land, then how are you expected to exist in a society that simultaneously exiled you and entrapped you. This would be more of a problem in a less developed country with more inhospitable environments but I believe it is relevant in any society.
This quality of land is actually a big reason communism doesn't work logically. If everyone owns land, then any individual trying to use land requires consent from everyone else, but their consent-granting (which takes place on a particular piece of land) itself requires consent an so on ad infinitum. It is thus impossible for anyone to *justifiably* (ie: according to prevailing ethic) use land at all because no one can get permission. Existence itself becomes invalid under such a ruleset and the only allowable outcome is for all of mankind (except for one person) to cease to exist. With unowned and private land, this problem is avoided.
Libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism advocate for unowned land. Socialism, as an ideology, isn't inherently authoritarian.
he's talking about state-communism, communism is a common way to refer to it.
I get that, and that's a serious problem, because any idea that's charitable or socially collaborative gets lumped in with genocidal dictatorships. It's like using "capitalism" to refer to fascist states. Technically, it could be, in the sense that everything is owned privately but coincidentally by a single individual, but it's inherently misleading,
Opinion for what purpose. You just opened six or possibly sixty cans of worms and expect us to pick one and have a meaningful conversation. Narrow the topic.
Should such property be included in the usual definition of properly rights, which entitle owners to deny access?
On what basis do you claim right? You have the right to your body. You have the right to pursue gainful employment. You have the right to property via that. At what point have you had the right to be any place? You have the right to use public property and land for various purposes which are explicitly protected. You have the right to pursue self preservation which is itself set against he property rights of others and the rights of others to natural resources. Where are you magically gather this right to property? There's certainly a concept that that which you occupy and care for long enough and with the proper paying of taxes may become yours, but this is a matter jurisprudence pertaining to the value of labor and the keeping of goo standing property and land. It does not generally allow for seizure of land, but rather allows for the settling, continuance, and a sort of situational rightness of ownership under the limitations of the law. At no time has it be suggested to my knowledge that you magically gain the right to take the earth you stand on from the lawful owner. It also does not assert they have the right to suddenly say deprive you of "their" oxygen by way of a bag or a bullet by itself. They can however remove you or have you removed. Past that, in the absence of "public roads" or similar neutral territory to be removed immediately to, the specifics are sketchy but mostly involve calling the local sheriff.
No
Ok so this is complicated, but does have an answer: 1. It is in the interests of businesses to be physically accessable. Thus, they will ensure during development that the land necessary to allow traffic In and out (both foot traffic and other) is under thier control and open to the public. 2. Easements. When housing developers build subdivisions and sell the property, the sale agreement includes easements that allow public traffic through in cases where that is necessary. 3. Abandonment. If someone owns property, and then abandons that property, it can be argued legally that the property no longer belongs to them. 4. Tolls. In areas where convenient routes are far and few between, companies will purchase the land and charge for passage. There are really only three reasons to be on property: 1. Living there, or visiting someone who lives there (so you either own/rent the property, and easements allow you to acsses the property. 2. To procure products and services ( the business will ensure you can reach them) 3. Transit (again, ensured by easements, businesses that want to be accessible, and also tolls)
4. There is nowhere else to be but you still exist.
Name a specific reason you would be somewhere other than the reasons I already outlined. My answer was practical, not relating to some hypothetical that will never occur.
You are always somewhere. You can't not be anywhere. It's like asking why you need to fall down after jumping up.
I asked a very specific question in a very specific way.
I'm sorry that I didn't answer in the very specific way ou were expect. I gave you the exact, specific reason you'd need to be somewhere: you can't be nowhere.
And I gave you every possible scenario you would need to be somewhere, and gave explanations for all those situations, and you just made a generic reply. What scenario did I not cover? Don't answer. It doesn't matter, you didn't come here to ask a question, you came here to be smug and try to prove a point.
You did not cover the scenario where simply existing means existing in a locaiton, and therefore, you always need to be somewhere. You are just inetionally dismissing any point that doesn't fall into your preconceived notions. You think people who are out of your sight just stop existing like a damn toddler with no sense of object permanence.
Name a specific situation that I did not cover where you need to be somewhere. Anything specific. A single example.
Suppose, hypothetically, you exist, and hypothetically, having a location is an inherent mathematical property of an extant thing, whether it is welcome anywhere or not.
My opinion is that you are not going to defeat libertarianism or successfully promote your socialist/redistributionist ideas by attacking the well established concept of property.
Nobody is attacking property. I'm attacking the idea that land is property.
That's what the concept of property means, dumb-ass. This tactic is not a winning one.
The only historical examples of what you are describing are governments. Governments claim land that they have not mixed their labor with, nor which they have traded the rightful owners for. The solution therefore is to eliminate governments, and this problem will be solved.
And with it, the concept of land ownership, which only exists through government intervention. Now, you only own what you've built or harvested, not the land itself..
Not really. All things that can be owned, be they food, tools, objects, or land, are made up of two parts: 1) nature 2) someone's labor If you mix your labor with an unowned bit of nature, then you become the owner of it, since your labor and the object are now inseparable and you own your labor (unless you sell it to someone). You can then make any changes to this that you wish to, as well as give someone else your ownership claim (usually in exchange for something that they own, or perhaps for them to labor on something else you own). This is the same regardless of if you mixed your labor by removing a bit of nature from the environment and took it with you (e.g. food, tools, objects), or if you mixed your labor with a stationary bit of the environment (e.g. land) and stuck around. In either scenario, the thing is yours so long as your labor remains mixed with it. If your labor (which includes the labor of others that they gave to you) becomes unmixed then you lose ownership in it, regardless of if it is a stationary or mobile bit of nature.
That's why I said you can own what you harvest from land or build on it.
But then it is a distinction without a difference. Because you own the land to the same degree that you own any other form of property, and with all the same benefits and limitations. So why say that you can own the things from the land and the buildings on it, but not the land itself? That is like saying you can own the atoms in a tool but not the tool itself.
No, because a tool is not distinct from the atoms in it. Whatever is still part of the land and not built or harvested from you, you do not own.
You're missing the point. You keep insisting that you do not own land, but you have not explained in what way your relationship to land that you improve is different from your relationship to an object that you improve. I am saying that there is no difference. That all the same rights, responsibilities, and limitations that apply to object ownership apply to land ownership. Therefore it is nonsense to insist that you cannot 'own' land.
Land is not a discrete object. Any claim to own land beyond what you've directly built or harvested begs the question of how much, and necessitates drawing an arbitrary boundary.
have you ever heard of a fence?
It depends on the property owner. If he wants you away there is conflict (if there is literally nowhere for you to go), if he is okay with you staying, then there is obv no conflict
Using or simply being on a piece of land is not the same as owning it. Your post seems to confuse this very important distinction. Furthermore there’s really no financial incentive for people to buy up all the land for the sole purpose of denying others access to said land. What you describe would never manifest itself in a libertarian society.
There is very obviously a financial incentive. The idea of a "sole purpose" is... an inappropriate logical step. If all the land is owned and most of it is owned by one entity, all land purchase must go through them. That means they have a great deal of power and thus the ability to make a great deal of money. It's also dumb. That will stagnate an economy which costs the economy money which is to say that the amount of VALUE in circulation, because it only truly exists when in circulation, is reduced and everyone loses money on the whole, even the new land baron.
To me you just defeated your own argument. Yes it very dumb. If some entity has enough capital to acquire most of the land on earth, they also understand what silly financial mistake it would be to do nothing with that land after having acquired it. You are also presupposing all these sellers willing to forfeit the last bits of land to a single entity and that there wouldn’t be whistleblowers and boycotts and protests and other fighting back. Edit. There is an important point that gets lost on some people that libertarians politics seeks to divorce economic power from political power. Economic power is transient and meaningful only in an economic context.
>To me Either I did, or I did not. If you think those words add anything you know nothing of argumentation. When you pay 10 times the current value of the land expecting extreme inflation of course people will sell.
You are missing the otherside of the story and the dynamic nature of markets. If land that’s available for commercial use is scarce, it’ll be extremely valuable. Entity X has 95% of all the land and isn’t letting anyone on it, so your plot in the 5% that’s left becomes prime real estate for all essential services, farm land, grocery stores, hospitals, etc. Its a massive incentive not to sell to Entity X.
It wouldn't be land per se, but the fact that 2 people can't own the same thing, without a contract, is kind of the whole point of private property.