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.
My mistake, that should read “…your statements indicated that you define land as the abstract area itself…”
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]
Indeed, hence I say your system necessarily involves a conflict of rights - which destroys the entire meaning of rights. The owner of the contents is within his rights to exclude others from the use of his property, and at the same time not within his rights to do so and therefore owes compensation. It is self-contradictory.
Bob and Susan have the right to use the area, but Joe is using it,
Because Joe has a right to use his property. Again, conflicting rights.
and Bob and Susan are physically unable to use the area because it contains Joe’s property
They are physically unable to use the area because it is impossible to physically use a non-physical thing such as area in the abstract. Joe is not using it either. No one is using it.
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.
Again, conflict of rights. Joe owns the contents, which means (by definition) he has the right to exclude others from their use. And when Joe actually does exclude others from their use, then according to you he violated their rights, and has to pay them compensation. That is, Joe has to pay compensation for acting within his rights. Self-contradictory.
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).
Let’s consider the mechanics of this proposed “land” tax:
Firstly, you conceded that what goes for abstract area also goes for abstract volume. So not only does Joe owe “the community” for using the area which his farm occupies, but he also owes them for the volume which his tractor occupies, and his house, and his table and chairs, and his coffee mug, and - indeed - even his own body. After all, by being wherever he is, he is preventing others from being in that same place. Taken to its logical conclusion, your system ends up with everyone paying taxes for all of their property, and even for their very existence.
Secondly, how exactly is this tax supposed to be assessed? How does one come up with a non-arbitrary figure for what each person owes?
Thirdly, why does a central authority have the right to this compensation money, rather than the individual victims?