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.