It seems funny that Hoppean now just means Giles Stratton said it.
You have to root out the enemies of the revolution comrade!
What you’re doing is conflating two very different issues. It needn’t be the case that a entrepreneurial city, or other forms of multi tenant property land holdings, arises because of government intervention. And they may arise through means of indirect homesteading (e.g. voluntary trade).
You’re too kind.
ditto, im confused about what brainpolice is against, is he against
-
landlords setting rules for tenants, set down clearly on the terms of contract when the deal is brokered?
-
landlords owning more than some percentage of some territory,? i.e. that landlordism gets bad, the more land someone owns, and the more tenants they contract with?
These forums are just about as representative of LvMI as the Ron Paul forums are of Ron Paul. You get the point.
Am I the only one tired of the constant flame wars going on here?
No, the flame wars are in some ways silly. But I want to have a good debate with someone.
Again the fact that you reference the thoughts of teenagers as being representative in any way of cogent arguments is in and of itself ludicrous - what happened to scholarly and published literature as being the standard to debate? Carson and Kinsella even argued this stuff in the comments.
As someone who has gone through the tedious and painstaking process of scholarly publishing, only to see peers win out in economic journals, it is anathema to even think that there is debate stemming from tertiary comments and ignorant bloviation on forums. Talk about Hoppe specifically if you want to criticize - that is how scholarly journals and things, ya know, with credibility, work.
No, you’re not.
I’m also fed-up with the idiotic dichotomies & collectivist waring of social authority (aka forum politics as usual, and I’ve been on my fair share of forums since I first logged onto ye olde Internet).
I am realizing though that the net is not the place to do this - even with the intelligencia involved.
We need to organize a debate in a physical location between the left-libs and the right-libs. Get Carson, Kinsella, Hoppe, Rockwell et al to come bring their brains and duke it out.
If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you, do I own the land? I guess not.
If you hire me to homestead a piece of land for you that will later be part of your city and which I may live on under certain conditions, do I own the land? I guess not.
If you’re a rich Hoppean with monarchic ambitions who hires poor people to homestead land for his future city and who allows these hired homesteaders to live on the homesteaded ground under certain conditions (e.g., not insulting His Majesty), do these poor people then own the land? I guess not.
But see, we now have a private city with its own king, founded and maintained in a completely libertarian fashion. Of course, it’s silly to assume that selling government to a private contractor will make it libertarian. However, that is not at all the point. The point is that restrictive covenants and private monarchies can arise voluntarily on the market using the very system of property acquisition that you are championing here.
You’re against restrictive covenants per se, regardless of how they were founded. That you have quite clearly expressed in your arguments with Stodles.
+1.
Fine Print: Representation may vary…
But voluntary monarchism / voluntary socialism / voluntary feudalism isn’t the moral thing to support, so we must force morals onto others via a synthesis of morals & libertarianism to ensure evil never happens!
Ad… ad-h… ad-ho…
Nearly had it, guess it slipped away from my teenage mind.
I have a feeling it would be a very boring debate as they would realize that they disagree on less than they think, and end the debate before it started.
Haha, lmao!
I’ll go ahead, be hypocritical and say no.
I’ll go ahead, be hypocritical and say no.
I’m opposed to the state-determined legal title to land property, and the institutional serfdom associated with fuedalism, which either is a pretext for a state or already involves one. I’m opposed to claims on land that clearly are divorced from homesteading, and I’m opposed to perpetual land ownership claims over clearly abandoned land. In essence, it’s mostly about the complications of abandonment. In either case, that has nothing (directly) to do with the original compilation in question.