Dominoes - Pay a little more

[SpontaneousOrder]

So if I move onto your garden will you use violence to remove me?

I'd use violence against you, if you refused to leave, either directly or via a proxy such as the police.

While the land that my garden occupies has likely been stolen at some point in history, that was such a long time ago that I have no reason to believe that you (or anyone else) have a better claim to it than I do.

When you consider why we even need property rights (or morality at all) in the first place, then it would be easy, typically, to determine who has the best claim. If there is a dispute then someone like a judge can arbitrate (although it shouldn't be a judge that has a violent monopoly on arbitration - the market can provide).

[Old Greg]

I'd use violence against you, if you refused to leave, either directly or via a proxy such as the police.

While the land that my garden occupies has likely been stolen at some point in history, that was such a long time ago that I have no reason to believe that you (or anyone else) have a better claim to it than I do.

When you consider why we even need property rights (or morality at all) in the first place, then it would be easy, typically, to determine who has the best claim. If there is a dispute then someone like a judge can arbitrate (although it shouldn't be a judge that has a violent monopoly on arbitration - the market can provide).

The land is rightfully common and your claim to it arises ultimately from state sanctioned theft. Why shouldn't I be free to move onto it?

But you've admitted you will use violence. If I am better armed than you, will you engage the agents of the state (paid by taxation taken under treat of violence) to remove me violently?

[Zero Liability]

Rightfully "common" according to whom? There is no god to gift it to anyone. It is there to be taken and belongs to no one before that point. Certainly not to everyone.

I mean really, is this it? If someone tries to mug me, will I engage the agents of the state to protect me? Yeah, I will, because they have a) already taxed me (far beyond what direct taxation will reveal when credit expansion co-ordinated by the central banks is accounted for) and b) they monopolise the provision of this service as it is. So what? If the gulag prisoner accepts a meal, have they consented to being imprisoned in the gulag? The thing is, the state is engaged in the incredible arrogance of monopolising services and then blaming you for not being satisfied with them. Just not patriotic enough.

I guess Hobbes said we need the state, and we can't possibly advance beyond what some deluded "Enlightenment" crackpot thought.

[Old Greg]

Rightfully "common" according to whom? There is no god to gift it to anyone. It is there to be taken and belongs to no one before that point. Certainly not to everyone.

Is this objectively true or your opinion?

[Cliphead]

Domino's pizzas are still overpriced tulipe

[Zero Liability]

Is this objectively true or your opinion?

Is what true? That the land isn't common to everyone? On what basis is it? To say it is the case that it is owned by everyone implies some sort of relationship between it and the owner, beyond mere existence.

[Old Greg]

Is what true? That the land isn't common to everyone? On what basis is it? To say it is the case that it is owned by everyone implies some sort of relationship between it and the owner, beyond mere existence.

The relationship between common land (and other commons such as air) has a relationship which can be seen through right of access for example. Would you see the commons seized? On a first come first serve basis?

[d000hg]

Domino's pizzas are still overpriced tulipe

Not at £5.99. And glad to see someone is focusing on the important issues.

[Zero Liability]

The relationship between common land (and other commons such as air) has a relationship which can be seen through right of access for example. Would you see the commons seized? On a first come first serve basis?

What you are referring to, with respect to air, are commonly referred to as easements. Air is also a super-abundant resource, for which economisation is unimportant, as is the case with sunlight. If someone were to obstruct the sun or drain all the air out of the world by some magic device, that could be argued to be a violation of an easement, because usage was actually being made of that resource. How would such an easement arise with respect to land that has never even been tread upon? I mean, the logical leap here is to go from the fact that easements can arise, to the view that such an easement has arisen with respect to land, even when it is in an untouched state.

The fact is, the 'commons' have already been seized even when no such pre-existing relationship can be shown to exist.

[AtW]

The fact is, the 'commons' have already been seized even when no such pre-existing relationship can be shown to exist.