Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Yeah, me neither, as there is no way for any land ever rightly to become owned.

 

You're selling feudalism, right? You want to be legally entitled to take everything other people produce by making them pay you for permission to live, right?

 

Nope. Not selling feudalism. I just don't think the state should own all the property. I like decentralization not monopolies.

 

I'm not buying your feudalism plan to legally steal everything from other people by owning their rights to liberty and making them pay you for permission to work, shop, and live. I'm not a fan of slavery, or of starving people to death by legally stripping them of their rights to sustain themselves, as you would prefer to do.

I prefer to tell the truth about what other people have plainly written. I don't agree with you that some people should have private ownership of other people's rights to liberty. I prefer everyone having their own individual right to liberty that can't be legally stripped from them and made into other people's private property.

 

So who should own all the land? The state?

 

So who owns your clothing that you wear? The food you consume?

To believe that land 'ownership' is infringing on other people's freedoms is based in the idea that everybody owns everything (or nothing as the case may be) and people have no right to material goods.

Hmmm, I wonder what the name of that train of thinking is called......

 

I don't agree with your plan to force feudalism on everyone and own their rights to liberty. I prefer everyone having their own individual rights to liberty, not rich landowners owning everyone else's rights to liberty and making them pay for permission to live.

I prefer each individual to have a right to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, and don't agree with your preferred system where the state forcibly strips everyone of their rights and makes them into landowners' private property. I'm not a fan of slavery.

I like everyone having their own individual rights, not your idea of landowners having a monopoly on people's rights and being legally entitled to charge everyone else for permission to live.

 

Who owned it 10,000 years ago? How could anyone come to own everyone else's liberty rights to use it?

 

They were initially owned by the people who produced them, and I then acquired them as a result of a series of consensual exchanges that conserved everyone's rights.

No, that's just puerile nonsense from you. All people have equal individual rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. All rightful property is therefore founded in the act of production. As land is never the fruit of anyone's labor, never produced by anyone, there is no rightful basis for making it into anyone's property. That is why all private titles to land have always been based on nothing but forcible dispossession of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it.

You'll think of an incorrect name to call it, I'm sure.

 

Yeah, I prefer telling the truth about Hong Kong's market-based system of leasing public land to private users, which does not resemble the Soviet system of politically determined allocation of land to state-owned collectives.

I'm not a fan of your preferred system of feudalism, where everyone has to pay landowners just for permission to live.

 

I'm simply not a fan of your preferred system of feudalism. I prefer to tell the truth about market-based allocation of land to profit-seeking private users being completely different from political allocation of land to state-owned collective enterprises. But that's just me. It's just a personal preference for the truth over lies when it comes to discussion of important issues. I'm not saying I would force other people to tell the truth, too. I absolutely support everyone's right to believe and tell lies. I'm for freedom of speech.

I prefer individual ownership of the fixed improvements those individuals produce, not your preferred system of making them pay greedy, idle private landowners just for permission to make such improvements. It's just a personal preference I have for justice over injustice: people getting to keep what they produce, and not being legally entitled to take what other people produce in return for nothing by owning their rights to liberty. I'm not a fan of slavery.

 

I'm not sure why you keep saying I'm in favor of feudalism when I have explicitly said that i'm not in favor of that.

I prefer that individuals own land rather than the state owning all the land.

 

As in all societies above the hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding levels. State-administered market allocation of land to profit-seeking private users in a democratically accountable political system is not Stalinism. Stalinism is political allocation of land to state-owned collectives in a dictatorship. Under your preferred system of feudalism, landowners own everyone else's rights to use land, and answer to no one.

I'm not a fan of your suggestion that it is better for people's rights to be owned by other people. I'm not a fan of slavery. I prefer a system where each individual gets to keep their own rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, not your preferred system where their rights are forcibly stripped from them by the state and given to landowners as their private property.

I'd prefer we each own what we produce, not others' rights to liberty. Not a fan of your feudalism suggestion.

Not into the whole feudalism thing, where the privileged own everyone else's rights to liberty. I don't buy your whole argument that slavery is better than liberty.

 

You're advocating that the state own all the land?

 

What is the difference between me saying you are in favor of feudalism and you saying I am in favor of Stalinism?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: democratically accountable state administration of market allocation of land to profit-seeking private users, as I advocate, has nothing to do with Stalinism, which is an unaccountable dictatorship administering political allocation of land to state-owned collectives; whereas the system of sovereign private landowning not administered by any state, as you advocate, is feudalism.

So, feudalism then.

 

So you prefer that the state own all the land rather than individuals?

 

I'm identifying the fact that land can never rightly be owned, but the state administers possession and use of land in any case because that is what the state is: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. The alternatives are either a pre-agricultural economy with no secure, exclusive land tenure, or unaccountable private landowning not administered by any state (i.e., feudalism), which is what you advocate.

I'm just not a fan of your preferred feudal system where landowners own everyone else's rights to liberty. It doesn't appeal to me. Not buying your whole argument for private ownership of other people's rights by owning land. Sounds too much like slavery.

 

I would rather that millions of people control access to their own land rather than the state.

 

As you know, but pretend not to, administration in trust is not ownership. It doesn't matter how many times you falsely claim that it is. Even if you repeat that false claim a hundred times -- and it looks like you are most of the way there -- it will not make it true.

So you prefer to own other people's rights to liberty, so that you can make them pay you for permission to live? You want to have the option of forcibly starving people to death if they don't do whatever you tell them to do, and call that your right to own property? Sorry, not for me. Sounds too much like slavery, or at best, feudalism.

 

I already proved to you that that is unsustainable because of landowning's inherent positive feedback: those who own the most land collect the most rent, and can thus buy up the most land.

So, feudalism then. Sorry, not for me. I prefer everyone having their individual rights. Not a fan of your plan to own other people's rights and make them pay you for permission to live. Sounds too much like slavery.

 

How is administration in trust different from ownership?

 

So you are saying you want private ownership of other people's rights to liberty, so you can make them pay you for permission to live, or have the option of starving them to death if they don't do whatever you tell them to do. You don't want the state to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all, because that would spoil your plan to own others' rights.

So in your preferred system, you would own a monopoly over other people's rights to liberty, and be legally entitled to starve them to death if they didn't do whatever you told them to do, and the state would only step in to stop them from defending themselves against your attacks. Sorry, I don't agree with your plan to legally enslave people so you can rob and brutalize them. Just not a fan of feudalism or slavery.

 

How is administration in trust different from ownership?

 

Ownership by definition requires four rights: control, exclusion, benefit and disposition. A trustee is not permitted to benefit from the trust assets he administers, and therefore does not own them. I have explained this to you multiple times. In the case of land, the proposed state land administration can neither rightly dispose of land, as that would mean disposing of future generations' rights to liberty, nor can it benefit from it, as it is democratically accountable to the people whose equal individual rights to use the land it is the state's function to secure and reconcile, and remits its land revenue to the public treasury to be allocated according to the people's democratically expressed will.

 

If it doesn't benefit, then why does it administer?