Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Use Of Land Is A Natural Right


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Land can exist independent of ownership which is why your definition doesn't fit with reality.

No, it can't. The ground is there, land never is.

"Land doesn't exist" is a deliberately provocative statement which you insist on backing up with unique and ususual definitions of language.

Of course it's deliberately provoctive. It's also completely true.

If your objections now result in nothing more than elaborate word games designed to confuse the oppostion then your missing the point entirely and wasting everyones time.

Word games?

That's all this is - concepts. Concepts which match the real world = good.

Concepts which don't match the real world = bad.

A simple enough concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442

Why only interpersonally? Why can't two people, or more, work together in the use of defensive force?

There are only individuals.

Two people are still acting interpersonally. You don't get a magic extra entity just by counting individuals up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444

Doesn't that make all action interpersonal? In which case we go back the question which asks, can the use of force be defensive?

You should now have the answer to your "defense" question.

Is defending your home interpersonal defence?

Edited by Injin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

No, it can't. The ground is there, land never is.

The term land doesn't imply ownership though. Its obvious why you choose to use the word land over other more suitable alternatives such as 'property' or 'boundaries'. Its because "land doesn't exist" is a trap designed to draw the conversation away from the substance and on to the semantic. You're filibustering.

Edited by chefdave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

You should now have the answer to your "defense" question.

Is defending your home interpersonal defence?

It can't be defended otherwise, unless it is interpersonal, so we either have interpersonal defence or the home belongs to no one. How else can we have property rights without interpersonal defence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

The term land doesn't imply ownership though. Its obvious why you choose to use the word land over other more suitable alternatives such as 'property' or 'boundaries'. Its because "land doesn't exist" is a trap designed to draw the conversation away from the substance and on to the semantic. You're filibustering.

No, really.

Check the OP and the title.

As they are meant in those land doesn't exist.

You've ******ed up your first reading, no worries. Just change.

Edited by Injin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

It can't be defended otherwise, unless it is interpersonal, so we either have interpersonal defence or the home belongs to no one. How else can we have property rights without interpersonal defence?

Inerpersonal defence is when one person attacks another and they defend themselves.

Is walking into your house a physical attack on you?

Or is it just one guy wandering around where you don't like and you want to see an attack at that point as justified because you feel anxiety?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

Inerpersonal defence is when one person attacks another and they defend themselves.

Wasn't your comment earlier designed to establish that all action, between however many people is, by nature interpersonal. I don't see why it isn't redundant to make a distinction between interpersonal and otherwise. Does interpersonal in this context mean anything other than involving multiple people? Why make the distinction?

Is walking into your house a physical attack on you?

Or is it just one guy wandering around where you don't like and you want to see an attack at that point as justified because you feel anxiety?

No, walking into my home is not a physical attack on me, I haven't said anything to suggest that it is. It's not that I want to see an attack as justified, it's that I want the right to lawfully exclude that person if I so wish. Is there anything wrong with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

Wasn't your comment earlier designed to establish that all action, between however many people is, by nature interpersonal. I don't see why it isn't redundant to make a distinction between interpersonal and otherwise. Does interpersonal in this context mean anything other than involving multiple people? Why make the distinction?

Yes, I wished to point out that you can't defend a house, only attack abnother human being.

No, walking into my home is not a physical attack on me, I haven't said anything to suggest that it is. It's not that I want to see an attack as justified, it's that I want the right to lawfully exclude that person if I so wish. Is there anything wrong with that?

Yes, you have now made your attack into "lawfully exclude"

It's still an attack.

What you are doing is dissociating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

Yes, I wished to point out that you can't defend a house, only attack abnother human being.

Yes, you have now made your attack into "lawfully exclude"

It's still an attack.

What you are doing is dissociating.

It's not an attack if it's justified, it's defensive. How else can we have property rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

No, really.

Check the OP and the title.

As they are meant in those land doesn't exist.

You've ******ed up your first reading, no worries. Just change.

There's nothing wrong with my reading, your use of the English language though is causing all sorts of problems.

Pointing at the ground and saying 'land doesn't exist' is the equilavent of pointing at the sun or a mountain and saying that they too don't exist. Its clumsy way of conveying the point that ownership of these objects is morally questionable, there is a language problem here but its not the one you're highlighting.

Land as property is a faulty concept, its amusing that you'll try every trick in the book just to avoid stating the obvious. (Don't worry, you're not alone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

It's not an attack if it's justified, it's defensive. How else can we have property rights?

Being able to justify an attack doesn't make it defence.

You cna have property rights by allowing others to own property and them doing the same for you in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414

There's nothing wrong with my reading, your use of the English language though is causing all sorts of problems.

Pointing at the ground and saying 'land doesn't exist' is the equilavent of pointing at the sun or a mountain and saying that they too don't exist. Its clumsy way of conveying the point that ownership of these objects is morally questionable, there is a language problem here but its not the one you're highlighting.

As I never said any such thing, why bring it up?

Land as property is a faulty concept, its amusing that you'll try every trick in the book just to avoid stating the obvious. (Don't worry, you're not alone).

You can't own land. The concept is pure 100% nonsense.

That's all I ever said. Hardly my fault if context eludes you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

Being able to justify an attack doesn't make it defence.

You cna have property rights by allowing others to own property and them doing the same for you in return.

Yes, but what we mean by allow others to have property is reliant on the threat of force. Property is that which will be defended with force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418
18
HOLA4419

What is it then?

Property rights cannot only exist because there is someone knocking about who is protecting them with superior force against all others - because that person must recognise property rights themselves without being subject to a higher force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420

You can't own land. The concept is pure 100% nonsense.

That's all I ever said. Hardly my fault if context eludes you.

No, you said 'land doesn't exist'.

This is a world away from claiming that ownership of the land is conceptual nonsense.

If you believed that ownership of the air was impossible you wouldn't state that 'air doesn't exist' because its not the air thats at fault, its the relationship that humans force upon each other which makes some more equal than others.

I'm just calling a spade a spade, insisting that the spade doesn't exist just leads us down a sematic cul de sac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

No, you said 'land doesn't exist'.

This is a world away from claiming that ownership of the land is conceptual nonsense.

Not in the context of the OP or the post I was responding to.

Je- sus.

If you believed that ownership of the air was impossible you wouldn't state that 'air doesn't exist' because its not the air thats at fault, its the relationship that humans force upon each other which makes some more equal than others.

If their was a concept called "Air" whuich meant that air was divided up into little segments instead of being one indivisible mass I certainly would say air doesn't exist.

I'm just calling a spade a spade, insisting that the spade doesn't exist just leads us down a sematic cul de sac.

Not at all.

It leads to clarity as the underlying assumption is brought into awareness, where it can then be properly debated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

Property rights cannot only exist because there is someone knocking about who is protecting them with superior force against all others - because that person must recognise property rights themselves without being subject to a higher force.

But property rights aren't designed for the good times, when we are all friends, it's there for when things turn ugly and we don't like each other any more. That's when we need to use force. Most of the time, I agree, we don't need the threat, but that is accepted and understood in all of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

But property rights aren't designed for the good times, when we are all friends, it's there for when things turn ugly and we don't like each other any more. That's when we need to use force. Most of the time, I agree, we don't need the threat, but that is accepted and understood in all of this.

So you agree property rights are not granted by virtue of force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
24
HOLA4425

I'm not sure what you mean by granted here, but I would say they are upheld by force, even if most of the time we don't need to exercise that action because merely requesting privacy is sufficient.

They can't be upheald by force because that requires that the person with the most force doesn't use it.

if they don't use it, then they must have some other reason for following property rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information