Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 You're confusing land with boundaries. Land exists, boundaries are entirely arbitrary. I have no idea why you think land doesn't exist. Land in this discussion is the shorthand for "legally protected boundaries. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Anyone who can. What if I want to plant crops in the land underneath someone's house, can I knock down their house to plant the seeds, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Land in this discussion is the shorthand for "legally protected boundaries. " Then you're talking about ownership, not the presence of physical land itself. Land exists, ownership doesn't; its a legal construct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Your premise was that the state protects property rights. It doesn't it, it only violates them. Does this answer your question? Yes it violates property rights, but it also upholds them to some degree, if you have a squatter, or a burglar in your house, they will remove them by force. Surely doing this is upholding property rights, is it not? This was a more helpful explanation, thank you. No. What about areas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 What if I want to plant crops in the land underneath someone's house, can I knock down their house to plant the seeds, why not? Ypu'd need to pay them for replacement to be fair, but sure, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Then you're talking about ownership, not the presence of physical land itself. Land exists, ownership doesn't; its a legal construct. No really, in this discussion land means "legally protected boundaries." Obviously the ground is there. Jesus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Yes it violates property rights, but it also upholds them to some degree, if you have a squatter, or a burglar in your house, they will remove them by force. Surely doing this is upholding property rights, is it not? No. This was a more helpful explanation, thank you. Np. What about areas? The universe is an enourmous indivisible, constantly moving singularity. So no, areas don't exist either. They are useful and handy ways of dividing stuff up for us. Why on earth we let ourselves be ruled by simple concepts I have no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 How do you direct it whilst simultaneously leaving it to market forces? It still seems wrong to force people into a 'bumpy ride'. Land management may not be my forte. Well, if we just look at the Land Value Tax, that could be imposed on properties existing only in the most expensive bracket, the top 20% or so. The person with the big charge from the tax office doesn't need to sell their entire house, they can sell a portion of it to the bank or a property company... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Ypu'd need to pay them for replacement to be fair, but sure, why not? Because it denies their right to the house, which they have built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 No. If we have a right to the house, do we not have a right to remove unwanted people from the house. And to do so must be defending property rights, no? Which bit is wrong? The universe is an enourmous indivisible, constantly moving singularity. So no, areas don't exist either. They are useful and handy ways of dividing stuff up for us. Why on earth we let ourselves be ruled by simple concepts I have no idea. But we can take this attitude to all crime, nothing is a problem, just forget you got punched in the face. Is there such as thing as crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Because it denies their right to the house, which they have built. They'd determine what a fair payment was, ofc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 If we have a right to the house, do we not have a right to remove unwanted people from the house. And to do so must be defending property rights, no? Which bit is wrong? You've got the right to your stuff you made. I don't see how you have any right to the space around it. But we can take this attitude to all crime, nothing is a problem, just forget you got punched in the face. Is there such as thing as crime? Being punched in he face is a real event, it's not a concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) View Postnik21, on 31 January 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:So who has the right to plant crops in the field? Anyone who can. So what if the land's been done to death and 'needs' to be fallow for a couple of years, But thod comes along and cultivates it with cheap nitrate an' stuff? Edited January 31, 2010 by nixy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 So what if the land's been done to death and 'needs' to be fallow for a couple of years, But thod comes along and cultivates it with cheap nitrate an' stuff? So what if he does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 You've got the right to your stuff you made. I don't see how you have any right to the space around it. It seems reasonable to me for people to be able to remove unwanted people from their house. Do you object to the removal of persons from houses? Being punched in he face is a real event, it's not a concept. There is an advantage to what might be seen as tribal behaviour, in that we each are allocated a piece of territory that others respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parkwell Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Well, if we just look at the Land Value Tax, that could be imposed on properties existing only in the most expensive bracket, the top 20% or so. The person with the big charge from the tax office doesn't need to sell their entire house, they can sell a portion of it to the bank or a property company... That's a possibility, although I'll have to put thought to the possible implications. Also I'd imagine that figure would really be the opposite - 20% exempt. The forced ownership is still an issue though. For the record I'm in favour of trialling a form of land tax, but am skeptical about some of the details and possibilities for corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 It seems reasonable to me for people to be able to remove unwanted people from their house. Do you object to the removal of persons from houses? I object to all interpersona, violence, yes. If you think someone should be attacked, I suspect the case shoudl be made from scratch rather than assumed as a baseline. There is an advantage to what might be seen as tribal behaviour, in that we each are allocated a piece of territory that others respect. Never happens. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) No really, in this discussion land means "legally protected boundaries." Obviously the ground is there. Jesus. I don't have a copy of the Injin dictionary so you'll have to define your terms clearly. If you mean legal ownership then say legal ownership not 'land'. Your conflation of the two appears to be a deliberate obfuscation used to derail the debate, its quite annoying. Edited January 31, 2010 by chefdave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I don't have a copy of the Injin dictionary so you'll have to define your terms clearly. If you mean legal ownership then say legal ownership not 'land'. Your conflation of the two appears to be a deliberate obfusaction used to derail the debate, its quite annoying. Land in these discussions means legal ownership. it's blindingly obvious from the OP and subsequent argumentation this is what is meant. If you didn't know that, no worries. Now you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 I object to all interpersona, violence, yes. If you think someone should be attacked, I suspect the case shoudl be made from scratch rather than assumed as a baseline. But you use the word attack. I only said remove. You interpret this as an attack whereas the homeowner would of course see it as a defensive action. Can the use of force be defensive? Never happens. Sorry. It doesn't, but it might, otherwise what are we all doing on here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Land in these discussions means legal ownership. it's blindingly obvious from the OP and subsequent argumentation this is what is meant. If you didn't know that, no worries. Now you do. You're skewing the definition slightly to draw attention to the fuss you're causing. Its quite childish. The word you're looking for is 'property'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 But you use the word attack. I only said remove. You interpret this as an attack whereas the homeowner would of course see it as a defensive action. Yes I agree that is the way thwe homenowner would see matters. I think that has more to do with their anxiety than any facts though. Can the use of force be defensive? Only interpersonally. It doesn't, but it might, otherwise what are we all doing on here? Me, I'm learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) You're skewing the definition slightly to draw attention to the fuss you're causing. Its quite childish. The word you're looking for is 'property'. No, it isn't. Property is those real world things which have been made by people. land is the arbitary, imaginary division of the earth into little blocks according to maps, political will, whatever. It also means the ground. There is no chance whatsoever that you understood me saying "there is no land" as me saying "there is nothing to stand on." None. Knock it off already. Edited January 31, 2010 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Only interpersonally. Why only interpersonally? Why can't two people, or more, work together in the use of defensive force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) No, it isn't. Property is those real world things which have been made by people. land is the arbitary, imaginary division of the earth into little blocks according to maps, political will, whatever. It also means the ground. There is no chance whatsoever that you understood me saying "there is no land" as me saying "there is nothing to stand on." None. Knock it off already. Land can exist independent of ownership which is why your definition doesn't fit with reality. "Land doesn't exist" is a deliberately provocative statement which you insist on backing up with unique and unusual definitions of language. If your objections now result in nothing more than elaborate word games designed to confuse the oppostion then you're missing the point entirely and wasting everyones time. Edited January 31, 2010 by chefdave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.