Quote from: bonker on May 20, 2013, 12:01:08 AM

Quote from: myrkul on May 19, 2013, 02:54:04 PM

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 19, 2013, 11:21:52 AM

Quote from: myrkul on May 18, 2013, 02:57:28 PM

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 18, 2013, 09:09:14 AM

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?