You’ve got it backwards. You do not have the “right” to go through unowned land, rather, it is other individuals who do NOT have the right to use force to stop you.
Tometo tomato. When I say I have the right to go whenever I want, that’s not a positive right, it just other’s don’t have the right to stop me.
When someone else begins to use an unused area of land for some other purpose, it then becomes YOU who does not have the right to interrupt them or their plans.
Yes, but a problem appears. I don’t have to right to go into your house because it is your property, but the land-area your house is in not, and therefore I do have the right to go there. I have the right, but you are making it impossible by using it to build a house, and therefore, you have to pay recompensation for impairing on my right to freedom.
You are justifying the land tax by implying that people’s positive liberties are being infringed by other people taking up available resources that they are free to use.
Right to go whenever I want without anyone stopping me isn’t a positive right.
However, again using the same justification, you imply that by consuming goods or removing them from the market via purchase, a purchaser is reducing the available options for individuals, and thus decreasing thier capacity for positive liberties.
Like I said, it’s not about any positive right, and second, I don’t have the right to goods, because they are owned. I have the right to go wherever I want precisely because territory is not owned.
In the other thread your statements indicated that you define property as the abstract area itself, as distinct from the content of that area (e.g. plowed soil)
Illegitimate property, i.e. it (area itself) cannot be legitimate property.
Is it possible to use the area without using its contents? …
No, it is not. That’s why used areas impair other people’s freedom (of movement), because, being that content of an area is someone’s property, the area itself, which is not (and is thus under others’ right to freedom to go there), becomes physically inaccessible (because if they would try to gain access to it, they would violate someone’s property rights). [Same with volume]
Either Bob and Susan have the right to use the area, or Farmer Joe owns the contents of the area. It cannot be both.
Bob and Susan have the right to use the area, but Joe is using it, and Bob and Susan are physically unable to use the area because it contains Joe’s property (they cannot use that area because they would violate Joe’s property right). Being that Joe’s owns that property, but not the area itself (because the property is the product of his labor and the area is not), and being that everyone has the right to unonwned stuff, Joe impairs Bob’s and Susan’s right to freedom (of movement), and needs to recompensate them. Also Bob and Susan need to recompensate him too for their use of another area which they are using, makin everyone in a community owe a recompensation to others in the community, making land value tax legitimate (in a direct democracy where everyone agrees upon how is the tax used).