Resolved yet? The immigration debate

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

There will be no towns owned entirely by single enterprenuers in the absence of the unanimous consent of everyone in that town deciding to sell or donate their own portion to them. Good luck finding such unanimous consent, getting literally everyone in the town to sell their land and property to the same person (hint: you can’t!). Otherwise, you’re stuck recognizing that the town as such is made up of multiple individual owners.

Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner. Of course if a single entrepreneur didn’t own the entire town people wouldn’t have any way of ensuring that their property values would not decline due to the neighbours use of their land. Hence the usefulness of the arrangement I pointed out.

Who in their right mind would just give up their home so that some single person can achieve more dominion over the city? Good luck doing that without something along the lines of imminent domain. Sorry, I’m going to keep my home, I like it. I’d prefer not to pass ownership of my home over to some man in an ivory tower, and as soon as he tries to claim ownership over my home I am going to resist him and view him as a criminal.

Are you genuinely argueing that it’d be most practical and sensible for everyone to become renters rather than home owners? I’d argue just the opposite, it’s better for me to own my home then rent it. Sorry, I don’t need to rely on what reduces to a monarch to ensure my property values. I’d rather have independant ownership over something then be reduced to the serf of some thug who claims ownership over the entire city.

[Juan]

@GS

Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur?

Because people are not stupid ?

The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner.

Where did you get that idea from ? You’ve dictated that people have no interest in owning land ? Actually the opposite is true. Why would people waste money renting land when they can simply own it ?

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

There will be no towns owned entirely by single enterprenuers in the absence of the unanimous consent of everyone in that town deciding to sell or donate their own portion to them. Good luck finding such unanimous consent, getting literally everyone in the town to sell their land and property to the same person (hint: you can’t!). Otherwise, you’re stuck recognizing that the town as such is made up of multiple individual owners.

Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner. Of course if a single entrepreneur didn’t own the entire town people wouldn’t have any way of ensuring that their property values would not decline due to the neighbours use of their land. Hence the usefulness of the arrangement I pointed out.

Who in their right mind would just give up their home so that some single person can achieve more dominion over the city? Good luck doing that without something along the lines of imminent domain. Sorry, I’m going to keep my home, I like it. I’d prefer not to pass ownership of my home over to some man in an ivory tower, and as soon as he tries to claim ownership over my home I am going to resist him and view him as a criminal.

Are you genuinely argueing that it’d be most practical and sensible for everyone to become renters rather than home owners? I’d argue just the opposite, it’s better for me to own my home then rent it. Sorry, I don’t need to rely on what reduces to a monarch to ensure my property values. I’d rather have independant ownership over something then be reduced to the serf of some thug who claims ownership over the entire city.

Now you’re done ranting you could actually try saying something.

[Stranger]

@Brainpolice

Are you genuinely argueing that it’d be most practical and sensible for everyone to become renters rather than home owners? I’d argue just the opposite, it’s better for me to own my home then rent it. Sorry, I don’t need to rely on what reduces to a monarch to ensure my property values. I’d rather have independant ownership over something then be reduced to the serf of some thug who claims ownership over the entire city.

Nobody is arguing that you should become a home renter. However, you can’t escape the fact that you are a land renter in order to live in the home you own, because you do not own the roads that you live from.

[Juan]

@GS

Now you’re done ranting you could actually try saying something.

Translation : GS knows he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

[Byzantine]

@Brainpolice

So please explain to me how you can manage to get an entire city, as one exists today, into the ownership of a single entreprenuer without effectively claiming ownership over other people’s property within the city. You simply can’t.

You need to get out of that little Rust Belt cow town. You see, there are these places called resorts. There are also gated communities where high property values are maintained by restricting access. They do allow immigration, but when your job spreading pine straw or mopping the floors is done, you have to leave.

[Juan]

@Stranger

However, you can’t escape the fact that you are a land renter in order to live in the home you own, because you do not own the roads that you live from.

That doesn’t even make sense, does it ? What roads are you talking about ? Who owns them ?

[Stranger]

@Juan

@Stranger

However, you can’t escape the fact that you are a land renter in order to live in the home you own, because you do not own the roads that you live from.

That doesn’t even make sense, does it ? What roads are you talking about ? Who owns them ?

I’m assuming I am arguing with people who actually leave their house. If that does not apply to you, please move on.

[Juan]

Translation : Stranger knows he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

edit:

If that does not apply to you, please move on.

But it does. So now tell me – what roads are you talking about and who owns them ?

[Brainpolice]

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

Are you genuinely argueing that it’d be most practical and sensible for everyone to become renters rather than home owners? I’d argue just the opposite, it’s better for me to own my home then rent it. Sorry, I don’t need to rely on what reduces to a monarch to ensure my property values. I’d rather have independant ownership over something then be reduced to the serf of some thug who claims ownership over the entire city.

Nobody is arguing that you should become a home renter. However, you can’t escape the fact that you are a land renter in order to live in the home you own, because you do not own the roads that you live from.

That’s in the context of a state that illegitimately claims the land to begin with. But we’re supposed to be anti-state, so there should be no issue.

[Stranger]

@Brainpolice

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

Are you genuinely argueing that it’d be most practical and sensible for everyone to become renters rather than home owners? I’d argue just the opposite, it’s better for me to own my home then rent it. Sorry, I don’t need to rely on what reduces to a monarch to ensure my property values. I’d rather have independant ownership over something then be reduced to the serf of some thug who claims ownership over the entire city.

Nobody is arguing that you should become a home renter. However, you can’t escape the fact that you are a land renter in order to live in the home you own, because you do not own the roads that you live from.

That’s in the context of a state that illegitimately claims the land to begin with. But we’re supposed to be anti-state, so there should be no issue.

Unless you can teleport yourself from one building to another, there is an issue. Who owns the land you use to move from one place to another?

[Juan]

@Stranger

Who owns the land you use to move from one place to another?

Here we go again. That land is usurped by the state.

[Brainpolice]

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

Are you genuinely argueing that it’d be most practical and sensible for everyone to become renters rather than home owners? I’d argue just the opposite, it’s better for me to own my home then rent it. Sorry, I don’t need to rely on what reduces to a monarch to ensure my property values. I’d rather have independant ownership over something then be reduced to the serf of some thug who claims ownership over the entire city.

Nobody is arguing that you should become a home renter. However, you can’t escape the fact that you are a land renter in order to live in the home you own, because you do not own the roads that you live from.

That’s in the context of a state that illegitimately claims the land to begin with. But we’re supposed to be anti-state, so there should be no issue.

Unless you can teleport yourself from one building to another, there is an issue. Who owns the land you use to move from one place to another?

In terms of legal title or jurisdiction, the state does. In terms of legitimacy, currently noone does.

[Stranger]

@Brainpolice

In terms of legal title or jurisdiction, the state does. In terms of legitimacy, currently noone does.

So who should it be?

[Juan]

Why don’t you take the trouble to read the previous posts in this thread ?

[Stranger]

I don’t care about who or what is legitimate. What I want to know is how the ownership of land is to be organized. Brainpolice seems to be under the delusion that house ownership is the end of the line.

[Brainpolice]

I don’t care about who or what is legitimate.

I do, because such a question is fundamental to a libertarian analysis of anything. This whole discussion is meaningless without a definition of legitimacy or illegitimacy. In the absence of questioning legitimacy, one may as well endorse the state.

What I want to know is how the ownership of land is to be organized.

There is no specific answer to that. In the context of libertarianism, all that can be said is “whatever the result is of people freely associating”. That being said, I don’t think it’s beyond reason to ponder what the likely and unlikely results are, and I find individual ownership of entire cities to be virtually impossible to do in any purely voluntary way.

Brainpolice seems to be under the delusion that house ownership is the end of the line.

I never stated that. I only used the clash between individual home ownership and a claim of individual ownership over an entire city as an example.

[Juan]

@Stranger

What I want to know is how the ownership of land is to be organized.

Well, I’m afraid it’s not clear how roads can/are going to be privatized. And given that you say

I don’t care about who or what is legitimate.

I don’t see how we can even start discussing the problem.

[Stranger]

@Brainpolice

I never stated that. I only used the clash between individual home ownership and a claim of individual ownership over an entire city as an example.

There is no such clash, no more than there is a clash between owners of bank deposits and owners of banks.

@Brainpolice

There is no specific answer to that. In the context of libertarianism, all that can be said is “whatever the result is of people freely associating”. That being said, I don’t think it’s beyond reason to ponder what the likely and unlikely results are, and I find individual ownership of entire cities to be virtually impossible to do in any purely voluntary way.

Then how are cities to be owned?

[Stranger]

@Juan

@Stranger

What I want to know is how the ownership of land is to be organized.

Well, I’m afraid it’s not clear how roads can/are going to be privatized. And given that you say

I don’t care about who or what is legitimate.

I don’t see how we can even start discussing the problem.

If you have no idea how land is to be owned, you have no idea how to respond to the problem of immigration and who has the right to live on the land.