Quote from: myrkul on May 20, 2013, 03:28:50 PM

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 09:57:53 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.

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.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 09:57:53 AM

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.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 09:57:53 AM

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

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.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 09:57:53 AM

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.

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 09:57:53 AM

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?

Quote from: Alpaca John on May 20, 2013, 09:57:53 AM

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