Is it true that the Fed is privately owned

[Hawker]

...snip...
the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite-communist Rothschild-surrogate ex-gold Pharaohs ...snip...

Once again I see you are covering up the Freemason Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings.  They are every bit as big a threat as your Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite-communist Rothschild-surrogate ex-gold Pharaohs.

I worry what your real agenda is.

[houseofchill]

The Fed is privately owned because there's nothing federal about it.  The Fed chairman is not a paid by the federal government the way public servants are.  In fact, it's difficult to find out who pays his salary.

[myrkul]

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tragedy of the Commons got to do with this?

My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road.

As to your other two questions:
Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

[bonker]

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tragedy of the Commons got to do with this?

My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road.

As to your other two questions:
Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

There is a third way of acquiring land: aggression.

Kind of completes the loop really, libertarianism is a painfully naive, undergraduate "philosophy" that would collapse into mayhem withing minutes.

In reality, Libertarianism is just a cheap attempt by drug users and cock-suckers to legitimise their dismal lifestyle.

[Anon136]

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tragedy of the Commons got to do with this?

My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road.

As to your other two questions:
Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

There is a third way of acquiring land: aggression.

Kind of completes the loop really, libertarianism is a painfully naive, undergraduate "philosophy" that would collapse into mayhem withing minutes.

In reality, Libertarianism is just a cheap attempt by drug users and cock-suckers to legitimise their dismal lifestyle.

So you oppose the belief that people ought not initiate violence? why ought people initiate violence?

[myrkul]

That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

There is a third way of acquiring land: aggression.

Maybe you missed it:

That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale.

We don't recognize aggression as a valid means of acquiring land.

[bonker]

That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

There is a third way of acquiring land: aggression.

Maybe you missed it:

That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale.

We don't recognize aggression as a valid means of acquiring land.

Lol! and how do you plan to *enforce* the non-recognition of violence?

As I mentioned, your ridiculous system would collapse into mayhem within minutes.  Or perhaps you wouldn't recognise a bunch of crazed drug-addicts beating your empty skull in with baseball bats.

[AceCoin]

fed is a private institution governed by public citizen
or
a public institution governed by private citizens?

As I mentioned, your ridiculous system would collapse into mayhem within minutes.  Or perhaps you wouldn't recognise a bunch of crazed drug-addicts beating your empty skull in with baseball bats.

sorry for my bad english, but i would to tell you the same one thing.

perhaps is you that don't recognize anything

let me do ONLY 1 exaple:
there are Big Countries governed by AN ALTERNATION OF OPPOSITE PUPPET GOVERNMENTS where Joung FAT ASSES take FIREARMS AT SUPERMARKET and dressin MIMETICAL way to SHOOT WITHOUT A REASON other people in the streets, in the office, in the bus, at school,
because they are a-lot-of-different-drugs-addict with the brain full of pharmacy stuff and meth...
And this schizophrenic are without any control, and there is no way to prevent them. No government that can do anything.

there are big countries where, after death penality they discover the innocence of a men, that pollute the same soil they live, that make war in asia for OIL a and after they spit on their veterans with P.T.S.D, that make war for peace and be violent to prevent violence, big country that are THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS and go to others sayin' "you cannot develop nuclear technology".

Perhaps you want to tell this when you speak about of a system that will collapse in some minutes, (ALREADY BEGUN TO COLLAPSE IMHO).
and where their citizen detain firearms in almost each house killing themselves, their families, their friends,
instead to fight the powers that make they sick.

In these Big Countries the only law is the LAW OF THE JUNGLE: peoples that win are peoples that have more power/money.

From "neanderthal age" to now, the "system" is always the same. No progress. No civilization. No education.
Only technological progress in the hands of peoples that have the same brain of aggressive monkey.
The framework change, but in the world there is "anarchy" (in the way you think) from century ago to now.

In the past, the more physical strongest peoples makes the rules. Now, rich peoples makes the rules.
That's anarchy intended by mainstream media, political puppet, an ignorant peoples.    

regards

 

[AlgoSwan]

Once again I see you are covering up the Freemason Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings.

Can you be more specific? Who are they?

[Hawker]

Once again I see you are covering up the Freemason Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings.

Can you be more specific? Who are they?

Take a look at that I was replying to:

...snip...
the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite-communist Rothschild-surrogate ex-gold Pharaohs ...snip...

[Alpaca John]

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tragedy of the Commons got to do with this?

My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road.

I used to live in a student dorm. I did my best to keep the common room clean, because I felt it was a social obligation to do so. A social obligation to the community, so to say. My own room, however, I'd treat however the fuck I felt like. Sometimes that meant it was a uge mess. But I don't really think either your road/front lawn example nor my public/private room examples are the best examples in regards to the tradegy of the commons.

See, the funny thing is that you seem to use the tragedy of the commons in the exact opposite way as I would. To me, the tragedy of the commons proves that we need regulation. How else are we gonna stop the seas from being overfished? How else are we gonna stop global warming? How else are we gonna stop the rainforrests from being cut down? All of these things are perfect examples of the tragedy of the commons; it's perfectly rational economic behaviour for anyone to fish for fish, fly a plain or cut some wood, but if everyone starts doing it, it would end in disaster. That's why we need regulation.

As to your other two questions:
Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

Ok, who should I buy the land from, then? From the guy who ownes the land right now? How did he get to own it? By buying it from someone else? How did that guy get to own it then? If we go back far enough, someone must have just claimed the land at some point. Land was always there, nobody created it, so at some point somebody must have just declared the land to be his, almost certainly by using force upon those who disagreed. And now we have to pay for it to get it back? No. Fuck that. Somebody used force to get it in the first place, we can use force to take it back.

Land was always there, it was created by no one. It should therefore be owned by either no one, or by everyone. You shouldn't be able to claim it anymore than you should be able to claim the air we all breathe, or the water in all of the rivers and all of the oceans in the world.

Now, how do we get to decide who lives on the Champs-Élysées? I propose we let the market decide, BUT without any indiviual profiting from it. Whoever is willing to pay most gets to live there, but WE THE PEOPLE get to spend the money on something WE THE PEOPLE want to spend it on. This could be schools, hospitals, bridges, a policeforce, or whatever we decide it to be.

Also, I got to agree with bonker, just because you don't want violence to exist or even won't use any violence yourself (ever), that does not mean nobody else won't either. If you believe that, that to me seems like a very naïve worldview to be honest.

[AlgoSwan]

Take a look at that I was replying to:

...snip...
the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite-communist Rothschild-surrogate ex-gold Pharaohs ...snip...

Yeah I know what you wrote there. I was just wondering how the following dots vitally connected each other:

wahhabis and salafis , Freemason Jihadis, almost all world fiat money

[AceCoin]

Also, I got to agree with bonker, just because you don't want violence to exist or even won't use any violence yourself (ever), that does not mean nobody else won't either. If you believe that, that to me seems like a very naïve worldview to be honest.

i agree with you. but the fact that someone use violence, it's not a justification at all, for who accept this bad thing like a normal and civil thing.

[Alpaca John]

Also, I got to agree with bonker, just because you don't want violence to exist or even won't use any violence yourself (ever), that does not mean nobody else won't either. If you believe that, that to me seems like a very naïve worldview to be honest.

i agree with you. but the fact that someone use violence, it's not a justification at all, for who accept this bad thing like a normal and civil thing.

I like tit-for-tat as a moral standard myself, in part because "[it] is [] a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

I would not hit anybody on the head, but if somebody hits me on the head, I will hit that guy on the head as well. I will not do it harder, I will not do it twice, but I will hit the dude on the head.

[AceCoin]

I like tit-for-tat as a moral standard myself, in part because "[it] is [] a highly effective strategy in game theory for the iterated prisoner's dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

I would not hit anybody on the head, but if somebody hits me on the head, I will hit that guy on the head as well. I will not do it harder, I will not do it twice, but I will hit the dude on the head.

This approach to interactions can be seen as a parallel to the eye for an eye approach from Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, where the penalty for taking someone's eye is to lose one's own (cit from tit for tat wikipedia).

one thing is the self-defense, but...
what you say is an illusion for yourself but IS NOT TRUE,
because if someone hit you on the head, probably you are dead and you can't do anything.
So, is better to avoid all violent situations because you have not any control on when, where and what bad can happen to you.
Pro-Violence or not, it's the same.
I want to live without any paranoia.
And when i will die, i will die without having lived in paranoia or without doing any violence on nobody.
I know that this is only my opinion... an opinion from my very limited point of view.
regards

[myrkul]

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tragedy of the Commons got to do with this?

My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road.

I used to live in a student dorm. I did my best to keep the common room clean, because I felt it was a social obligation to do so. A social obligation to the community, so to say. My own room, however, I'd treat however the fuck I felt like. Sometimes that meant it was a huge mess. But I don't really think either your road/front lawn example nor my public/private room examples are the best examples in regards to the tragedy of the commons.

As is common with people who espouse communist views, you have a social view of the world, and act socially. I have a sad (from your point of view) fact to relate: You're a rarity. Any system which relies on your view being in the majority will fail, and fail horribly. This is not theory. This is established, historical fact. But there is a ray of home in all this: In a system of private ownership, people who wish to act socially, can, and may aid others as they see fit. You just can't force others to do so.

See, the funny thing is that you seem to use the tragedy of the commons in the exact opposite way as I would. To me, the tragedy of the commons proves that we need regulation. How else are we gonna stop the seas from being overfished? How else are we gonna stop global warming? How else are we gonna stop the rainforests from being cut down? All of these things are perfect examples of the tragedy of the commons; it's perfectly rational economic behaviour for anyone to fish for fish, fly a plain or cut some wood, but if everyone starts doing it, it would end in disaster. That's why we need regulation.

The answer to that is the same in all cases: Overfishing? Private ownership of the seas will allow (and encourage) the owners to prevent overfishing, as that will cut into the future profitability. Rainforests? Private ownership of the land will allow people who wish to, to conserve that land in it's natural state. Global warming is a much larger issue, and deserves it's own conversation. Suffice it to say that if we're going to change anything about the global climate, it needs the full cooperation of the entire planet, not just a few governments.

As to your other two questions:
Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

Ok, who should I buy the land from, then? From the guy who ownes the land right now? How did he get to own it? By buying it from someone else? How did that guy get to own it then? If we go back far enough, someone must have just claimed the land at some point. Land was always there, nobody created it, so at some point somebody must have just declared the land to be his, almost certainly by using force upon those who disagreed. And now we have to pay for it to get it back? No. Fuck that. Somebody used force to get it in the first place, we can use force to take it back.

As I said, there are two legitimate ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation (Declaring, by occupying first, that land to be his), or voluntary sale. Allowing people to come along and take land by force equates to no property rights at all, and war of all against all.

Land was always there, it was created by no one. It should therefore be owned by either no one, or by everyone. You shouldn't be able to claim it anymore than you should be able to claim the air we all breathe, or the water in all of the rivers and all of the oceans in the world.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but land belonging to nobody causes strife, and land belong to "everybody" causes strife. Only when land belongs to "somebody," can there be peace.

Now, how do we get to decide who lives on the Champs-Élysées? I propose we let the market decide, BUT without any indiviual profiting from it. Whoever is willing to pay most gets to live there, but WE THE PEOPLE get to spend the money on something WE THE PEOPLE want to spend it on. This could be schools, hospitals, bridges, a policeforce, or whatever we decide it to be.

Sounds nice on paper. What happens if 50% of the people want to spend the money on a hospital, and 50% on a school? Which half is right? And, to make matters worse, where are you going to put it?

Also, I got to agree with bonker, just because you don't want violence to exist or even won't use any violence yourself (ever), that does not mean nobody else won't either. If you believe that, that to me seems like a very naïve worldview to be honest.

Tsk... Just because I don't consider violence a legitimate means to gain property doesn't mean it won't happen. Just that it is legitimate to resist violence with violence. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

[Alpaca John]

As is common with people who espouse communist views, you have a social view of the world, and act socially. I have a sad (from your point of view) fact to relate: You're a rarity. Any system which relies on your view being in the majority will fail, and fail horribly. This is not theory. This is established, historical fact. But there is a ray of home in all this: In a system of private ownership, people who wish to act socially, can, and may aid others as they see fit. You just can't force others to do so.

I don't hold communist views, thank you. Neither do I hold a social view of the world really. I do, however, think that almost all people have a social aspect to them. Likewise, I think almost all people have an individualistic side. Therefore, I think socialists and liberals are both right, and both wrong.

The answer to that is the same in all cases: Overfishing? Private ownership of the seas will allow (and encourage) the owners to prevent overfishing, as that will cut into the future profitability. Rainforests? Private ownership of the land will allow people who wish to, to conserve that land in it's natural state. Global warming is a much larger issue, and deserves it's own conversation. Suffice it to say that if we're going to change anything about the global climate, it needs the full cooperation of the entire planet, not just a few governments.

If we're gonna privatize the seas, are we gonna stop the fish from swimming to each others parts of it? If not, you might as well catch all the fish in your area, your 'neighbours' fish will come swim to you, and you'll just catch that the next day. And why do you think the rainforrests are being cut down right now? Its because that's the profitable thing to do. It will make you more money to tear it down and grow or build something else. And why does global change deserve a whole other conversation? The whole point of the tragedy of the commons is that it's supposed to be bigger than any individual.

Sorry, but all of this seems to me like the tragedy of the commons 101.

As I said, there are two legitimate ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation (Declaring, by occupying first, that land to be his), or voluntary sale. Allowing people to come along and take land by force equates to no property rights at all, and war of all against all.

Well, all land seems to be taken by now. I was only born a couple decades ago, and it was all taken by then. How is that fair? It is not, so yeah, I'll take a war of all against all over one sides suppression. Even better would be to agree that 'land' can not be privately owned at all of course.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but land belonging to nobody causes strife, and land belong to "everybody" causes strife. Only when land belongs to "somebody," can there be peace.

I honestly don't see how privately owning land would bring peace. This sounds like something somebody who owns land would say. Like telling your slaves that freedom would only lead to war, it's best they just keep working peacefully and adhere to the rules that benefit the owner.

Sounds nice on paper. What happens if 50% of the people want to spend the money on a hospital, and 50% on a school? Which half is right? And, to make matters worse, where are you going to put it?

Is this your counterargument against democracy? If it's EXACTLY 50/50 we'll vote again. This seems like such a rare occurrence it doesn't even matter at all though... What happens if a presidential campaign ends EXACTLY 50/50? I don't even know. Doesn't even matter, since it realisticly impossible.

Where are we going to put it? Wherever we (the people) want to...

There are absolutely arguments to be held against democracy, but I don't think these are it.

Tsk... Just because I don't consider violence a legitimate means to gain property doesn't mean it won't happen. Just that it is legitimate to resist violence with violence. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

Ah, I think we thought that you said that Libertarianism was able to prevent conflict. But what I think you meant to say is that Libertarianism would prevent conflict if EVERYBODY would be a Libertarian, including those that don't benefit from it.

See that's the same with every ideology. If EVERYBODY was a communist, communism would work just swell. If EVERYBODY was a fascist, fascism would be jolly good. I could go on, but you probably get my drift. If you ask me, every ideology has a one-sided worldview - including Libertarianism. There are different types of people, different worldviews, and different conceptions of freedom that are all perfectly coherent. I don't think imposing yours on others provides any more freedom or peace than them imposing theirs on yours.

[myrkul]

I don't hold communist views, thank you.

Oh, but you do. You want all land held in common. Georgeism is just eco-communism.

If we're gonna privatize the seas, are we gonna stop the fish from swimming to each others parts of it? If not, you might as well catch all the fish in your area, your 'neighbours' fish will come swim to you, and you'll just catch that the next day. And why do you think the rainforrests are being cut down right now? Its because that's the profitable thing to do. It will make you more money to tear it down and grow or build something else. And why does global change deserve a whole other conversation? The whole point of the tragedy of the commons is that it's supposed to be bigger than any individual.

Sorry, but all of this seems to me like the tragedy of the commons 101.

Well, first: Sea plots would likely be much larger, entire "fishing grounds," for just that reason. It's much harder, and much more disruptive, to fence off the seas.
Second: The rainforests are being cut down now because politicians are cheaper to buy than private landowners.
Third: Global climate change deserves it's own conversation because it is a much more complex subject.

Well, all land seems to be taken by now.

And anyone born after 2140 will have to earn their bitcoins by providing a service to the community. In fact, that's the only way to get them now.

I honestly don't see how privately owning land would bring peace.

Let me explain. If land is owned by nobody, anyone can come and take it at any time. I could justifiably force you off your land. I'd say that's "strife." If land is owned by "everybody" and some organization is going to come around and collect rent, they'll have to force me to pay, because I won't want to. That also qualifies as "strife." On the other hand, if someone wants to buy my land, they need only offer me enough money to convince me to sell it. Voluntarily. Peacefully.

There are absolutely arguments to be held against democracy, but I don't think these are it.

Well, any other result means that the majority has enforced their will on the minority. That's just might makes right. So when you say "WE THE PEOPLE," what you actually mean is "WE THE STRONGEST."

I don't think imposing yours on others provides any more freedom or peace than them imposing theirs on yours.

I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Merely resisting their attempts to impose theirs on me.

[Alpaca John]

I don't hold communist views, thank you.

Oh, but you do. You want all land held in common. Georgeism is just eco-communism.

Hmm, if you put it like that I guess I do hold some communist views. I do think capital should be privately owned though, so I'm far from a communist. I think a balance of power is probably best.

Capital property: liberal (individual ownership)
Property of land: social (public ownership)
Intellectual property: anarchy (information should be free)

If we're gonna privatize the seas, are we gonna stop the fish from swimming to each others parts of it? If not, you might as well catch all the fish in your area, your 'neighbours' fish will come swim to you, and you'll just catch that the next day. And why do you think the rainforrests are being cut down right now? Its because that's the profitable thing to do. It will make you more money to tear it down and grow or build something else. And why does global change deserve a whole other conversation? The whole point of the tragedy of the commons is that it's supposed to be bigger than any individual.

Sorry, but all of this seems to me like the tragedy of the commons 101.

Well, first: Sea plots would likely be much larger, entire "fishing grounds," for just that reason. It's much harder, and much more disruptive, to fence off the seas.
Second: The rainforests are being cut down now because politicians are cheaper to buy than private landowners.
Third: Global climate change deserves it's own conversation because it is a much more complex subject.

1. Ok. Lets for a second pretend I think this is a good and realistic idea. How are we gonna decide who gets to have the North Sea. I'd like to have it? Can I just claim it? I call North Sea! Just like that?
2. So apparently it's more profitable to cut that shit down, right? Apparently cutting it down will make you more money than leaving it in tact! Why else would anyone want to bribe a politician? They're not gonna bribe him to do something that will lose them money? It's clearly more profitable for any individual to cut down the rainforrest, while it is potentially devastating for humanity. Be honest for a second: how is this NOT a tradegy of the commons?
3. Ok lets "hypothetically" presume for a second that it is indeed the burning of fossil fuels that ruins the environment. Would that mean it qualifies as a tragedy of the commons, and thus requires regulation?

Well, all land seems to be taken by now.

And anyone born after 2140 will have to earn their bitcoins by providing a service to the community. In fact, that's the only way to get them now.

Yes, but anybody can choose to not use bitcoin, or make another cryptocurrency. Plus, nobody just claimed bitcoin. People put actual time and effort in making them. That's the difference.

You cannot choose to not use land, or make new land. Nobody actually ever made the land most people own nowadays. It was claimed/stolen from the public domain, almost certainly by using violence.

Let me ask you something. Are you either a white American or a white Canadian? If you really believe what you say, you should probably move back to Europe. Because your ancestors clearly stole a shitload of land from the Natives. Using violence. Either that or they bought it from someone who did. In any way, according to your own ideology, you shouldn't be there, since you got it unrightfully, no? At the very, very least you should be ok with the Natives taking it back violently. You can't seriously think you can just take land (or anything else) using violence, or buy it from someone who did, and afterwards denounce everybody else from using violence because it's morally wrong.

Just to be clear: I'm arguing that this isn't only true for Americans. Almost certainly ALL land was violently claimed at some point in history. So, those who own it now still don't rightfully own it; it did not start out rightfully.

I honestly don't see how privately owning land would bring peace.

Let me explain. If land is owned by nobody, anyone can come and take it at any time. I could justifiably force you off your land. I'd say that's "strife." If land is owned by "everybody" and some organization is going to come around and collect rent, they'll have to force me to pay, because I won't want to. That also qualifies as "strife." On the other hand, if someone wants to buy my land, they need only offer me enough money to convince me to sell it. Voluntarily. Peacefully.

You must see what is wrong with that first sentence yourself. For the rest: the peace you speak of is like the peace slave-owners liked to have. There might not be any fighting but there's not exactly freedom either.

There are absolutely arguments to be held against democracy, but I don't think these are it.

Well, any other result means that the majority has enforced their will on the minority. That's just might makes right. So when you say "WE THE PEOPLE," what you actually mean is "WE THE STRONGEST."

WE THE MAJORITY would be a better way to put it, yeah. But I also think that a true democracy can only function if the rights of the minority are protected, much like the constitution seeks to do.

edit: In fact, I take this back. We the people is just right, if you take the social contract and popular sovereignty into account, along with the constitutional process in a democratic republic.

I don't think imposing yours on others provides any more freedom or peace than them imposing theirs on yours.

I'm not imposing my views on anyone. Merely resisting their attempts to impose theirs on me.

Right. But if I don't believe land can be anybodies private property, you'll probably still violently get rid of me if I step on the land you call 'yours'. Where's my freedom to believe what I want to believe, and act accordingly? You are imposing your views on me, namely, the believe that land can be private property.

Like I said, there are different worldviews, and different conceptions of freedom that are all perfectly coherent. And every ideology thinks it proposes the one and only true version (just like religions by the way).

[bonker]

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tragedy of the Commons got to do with this?

My point: If all land is held "in common," the people who use that land have less care for it. Think about it: Would you throw a Styrofoam cup onto your front lawn? Yet, many people litter while driving down the road.

I used to live in a student dorm. I did my best to keep the common room clean, because I felt it was a social obligation to do so. A social obligation to the community, so to say. My own room, however, I'd treat however the fuck I felt like. Sometimes that meant it was a huge mess. But I don't really think either your road/front lawn example nor my public/private room examples are the best examples in regards to the tragedy of the commons.

As is common with people who espouse communist views, you have a social view of the world, and act socially. I have a sad (from your point of view) fact to relate: You're a rarity. Any system which relies on your view being in the majority will fail, and fail horribly. This is not theory. This is established, historical fact. But there is a ray of home in all this: In a system of private ownership, people who wish to act socially, can, and may aid others as they see fit. You just can't force others to do so.

See, the funny thing is that you seem to use the tragedy of the commons in the exact opposite way as I would. To me, the tragedy of the commons proves that we need regulation. How else are we gonna stop the seas from being overfished? How else are we gonna stop global warming? How else are we gonna stop the rainforests from being cut down? All of these things are perfect examples of the tragedy of the commons; it's perfectly rational economic behaviour for anyone to fish for fish, fly a plain or cut some wood, but if everyone starts doing it, it would end in disaster. That's why we need regulation.

The answer to that is the same in all cases: Overfishing? Private ownership of the seas will allow (and encourage) the owners to prevent overfishing, as that will cut into the future profitability. Rainforests? Private ownership of the land will allow people who wish to, to conserve that land in it's natural state. Global warming is a much larger issue, and deserves it's own conversation. Suffice it to say that if we're going to change anything about the global climate, it needs the full cooperation of the entire planet, not just a few governments.

As to your other two questions:
Yes, we can't all live on the Champs-Élysées (even if all land is held in "common"). That's why, to prevent conflict, we recognize two ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation, and voluntary sale. That way, land goes to those who value it most.

Ok, who should I buy the land from, then? From the guy who ownes the land right now? How did he get to own it? By buying it from someone else? How did that guy get to own it then? If we go back far enough, someone must have just claimed the land at some point. Land was always there, nobody created it, so at some point somebody must have just declared the land to be his, almost certainly by using force upon those who disagreed. And now we have to pay for it to get it back? No. Fuck that. Somebody used force to get it in the first place, we can use force to take it back.

As I said, there are two legitimate ways of acquiring land: Original appropriation (Declaring, by occupying first, that land to be his), or voluntary sale. Allowing people to come along and take land by force equates to no property rights at all, and war of all against all.

Land was always there, it was created by no one. It should therefore be owned by either no one, or by everyone. You shouldn't be able to claim it anymore than you should be able to claim the air we all breathe, or the water in all of the rivers and all of the oceans in the world.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but land belonging to nobody causes strife, and land belong to "everybody" causes strife. Only when land belongs to "somebody," can there be peace.

Now, how do we get to decide who lives on the Champs-Élysées? I propose we let the market decide, BUT without any indiviual profiting from it. Whoever is willing to pay most gets to live there, but WE THE PEOPLE get to spend the money on something WE THE PEOPLE want to spend it on. This could be schools, hospitals, bridges, a policeforce, or whatever we decide it to be.

Sounds nice on paper. What happens if 50% of the people want to spend the money on a hospital, and 50% on a school? Which half is right? And, to make matters worse, where are you going to put it?

Also, I got to agree with bonker, just because you don't want violence to exist or even won't use any violence yourself (ever), that does not mean nobody else won't either. If you believe that, that to me seems like a very naïve worldview to be honest.

Tsk... Just because I don't consider violence a legitimate means to gain property doesn't mean it won't happen. Just that it is legitimate to resist violence with violence. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

^^^^^^^
Jesus, just look at the length of this mush!

If you can't write a decent argument in 1 sentence then your ideas are junk IMO