People who are party to an evil can be brought to the bar of extralegal justice.

[zackbass]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Though I take exception to the way mutualists view rent as being a sufficient criterion for abandonment, such that a homeowner loses his house and all contents contained therein, in the blink of an eye after he rents his home.

I would ascribe that by renting your home and possessions that I have entered a verbal and implied, if not written, contract... whereby I have admitted the property to be yours.

In mutualism there would be no absentee landowning and thus no landlordism itself.

Thanks.  An excellent argument against mutualism.  Won't let anyone own more than one car or house.  Screw that, I want to drive my red car and expect to see my blue car there when I check back.

Cars are personal possessions.

That's just swell.  They are PROPERTY.  So is my land.  Keep out.  Hands off.

[zackbass]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

Oh is THAT what we are talking about?  All of Known Space is some Location or other.  I still will not put up with someone walking into the volume where my bedroom is located.

[John Edward Mercier]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Though I take exception to the way mutualists view rent as being a sufficient criterion for abandonment, such that a homeowner loses his house and all contents contained therein, in the blink of an eye after he rents his home.

I would ascribe that by renting your home and possessions that I have entered a verbal and implied, if not written, contract... whereby I have admitted the property to be yours.

In mutualism there would be no absentee landowning and thus no landlordism itself.

But I wouldn't be able to acquire someone else's labor by the mere act of borrowing it with the implied understanding that it was not being abandoned.

[John Edward Mercier]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Nope.  Never.  What's mine is mine.  You have no right to tell me how or when or whether to "use" it.  Maybe I'm just not ready yet, it's nobody else's business.

Easy "Adverse Possession" is a major reason Muslim societies are so poor.

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

By what natural means did you acquire it? And how do you demonstrate to others your ownership?

[John Edward Mercier]

Nope.  Never.  What's mine is mine.  You have no right to tell me how or when or whether to "use" it.  Maybe I'm just not ready yet, it's nobody else's business.

It is not yours when you specifically choose to abandon it, which is your right as a property owner.   

Fine, if I SPECIFICALLY abandon it.
But that is not what adverse possession is about.  It's about someone taking over land notoriously and hostilely:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/adverse_possession.html
"the person claiming ownership through adverse possession must show that its possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile"

And adverse possession doctrine most definitely covers the case of abandonment, which is what I advocated when it stated previously that it should be narrowly construed.

Nope sorry see above.  If that were what it meant I would have no objection.

If  I choose not to "use" my land for 50 years, waiting until I am ready to play with it or look at it some more, or finally to sell it now that the market is improved, or ready to give it away to a friend or relative, it is immoral for someone to claim that he has been squatting on it for the last 20 years and has more right to it than I have.  That is THEFT.

And the person who mixed their labor with the land does not have ownership of the fruits of their labor?
If you haven't been around for fifty years... how are they supposed to know its not abandoned?

[BillKauffman]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

Oh is THAT what we are talking about?  All of Known Space is some Location or other.  I still will not put up with someone walking into the volume where my bedroom is located.

Yes - all of know space is a location.

Your "bedroom" is constructed via labor and thus personal property.

[zackbass]

Nope.  Never.  What's mine is mine.  You have no right to tell me how or when or whether to "use" it.  Maybe I'm just not ready yet, it's nobody else's business.

It is not yours when you specifically choose to abandon it, which is your right as a property owner.   

Fine, if I SPECIFICALLY abandon it.
But that is not what adverse possession is about.  It's about someone taking over land notoriously and hostilely:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/adverse_possession.html
"the person claiming ownership through adverse possession must show that its possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile"

And adverse possession doctrine most definitely covers the case of abandonment, which is what I advocated when it stated previously that it should be narrowly construed.

Nope sorry see above.  If that were what it meant I would have no objection.

If  I choose not to "use" my land for 50 years, waiting until I am ready to play with it or look at it some more, or finally to sell it now that the market is improved, or ready to give it away to a friend or relative, it is immoral for someone to claim that he has been squatting on it for the last 20 years and has more right to it than I have.  That is THEFT.

And the person who mixed their labor with the land does not have ownership of the fruits of their labor?

Not a bit!  They have no right to go around mixing their fruits with my private property.
Now we're supposed to feel sorry because these trespassers have gotten free rent for years and have finally been evicted?

If you haven't been around for fifty years... how are they supposed to know its not abandoned?

They know it is not their land fer christ's sake!  And if they are interested they can go down to the courthouse and look it up the same way you and I do.

[zackbass]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

Oh is THAT what we are talking about?  All of Known Space is some Location or other.  I still will not put up with someone walking into the volume where my bedroom is located.

Yes - all of know space is a location.

Your "bedroom" is constructed via labor and thus personal property.

So if I put up a tent on my private property, and a squatter puts up a tent on my private property, you are going to pretend you can't see the moral difference.

[zackbass]

Adverse possession can be a decent doctrine, I think, if narrowly construed.  It follows the Lockean necessity of use.

Nope.  Never.  What's mine is mine.  You have no right to tell me how or when or whether to "use" it.  Maybe I'm just not ready yet, it's nobody else's business.

Easy "Adverse Possession" is a major reason Muslim societies are so poor.

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

By what natural means did you acquire it?

Sent away.

And how do you demonstrate to others your ownership?

Recorded deed at courthouse.

[BillKauffman]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

Oh is THAT what we are talking about?  All of Known Space is some Location or other.  I still will not put up with someone walking into the volume where my bedroom is located.

Yes - all of know space is a location.

Your "bedroom" is constructed via labor and thus personal property.

So if I put up a tent on my private property, and a squatter puts up a tent on my private property, you are going to pretend you can't see the moral difference.

I don't personally ascribe to the mutualist "possession and use" convention. I am a geo-mutualist so ascribe to Locke's "enough and as good" proviso.

[zackbass]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

Oh is THAT what we are talking about?  All of Known Space is some Location or other.  I still will not put up with someone walking into the volume where my bedroom is located.

Yes - all of know space is a location.

Your "bedroom" is constructed via labor and thus personal property.

So if I put up a tent on my private property, and a squatter puts up a tent on my private property, you are going to pretend you can't see the moral difference.

I don't personally ascribe to the mutualist "possession and use" convention. I am a geo-mutualist so ascribe to Locke's "enough and as good" proviso.

How very nice for you.  Now please answer the implied question.

[Russell Kanning]

oh goodie ... a thread that has brought zackbass out of the woodwork, a three name guy, some gunslingers, and bill (land tax) grennon

it is interesting to see who is excited about this concept

[BillKauffman]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

Oh is THAT what we are talking about?  All of Known Space is some Location or other.  I still will not put up with someone walking into the volume where my bedroom is located.

Yes - all of know space is a location.

Your "bedroom" is constructed via labor and thus personal property.

So if I put up a tent on my private property, and a squatter puts up a tent on my private property, you are going to pretend you can't see the moral difference.

I don't personally ascribe to the mutualist "possession and use" convention. I am a geo-mutualist so ascribe to Locke's "enough and as good" proviso.

How very nice for you.  Now please answer the implied question.

Well, if you have put up a tent on your land via your labor, then you are in use of the land - no?

[zackbass]

The Dutch create land every day.  They OWN it.

The don't create locations. Locations pre-exist human labor.

Oh is THAT what we are talking about?  All of Known Space is some Location or other.  I still will not put up with someone walking into the volume where my bedroom is located.

Yes - all of know space is a location.

Your "bedroom" is constructed via labor and thus personal property.

So if I put up a tent on my private property, and a squatter puts up a tent on my private property, you are going to pretend you can't see the moral difference.

I don't personally ascribe to the mutualist "possession and use" convention. I am a geo-mutualist so ascribe to Locke's "enough and as good" proviso.

How very nice for you.  Now please answer the implied question.

Well, if you have put up a tent on your land via your labor, then you are in use of the land - no?

Yes, and the trespasser is in use of my land too, on the lot I own next door, but I am not.  Do you see a moral difference?

[zackbass]

I am a geo-mutualist so ascribe to Locke's "enough and as good" proviso.

Well I refuse to acknowledge anyone's right over me and my property.  The rest of humanity can go to hell for all I care, if they are unwilling to help me kill these trespassers.

What is good for Humanity at my expense must never be a moral Good.  As long as I am not Initiating Force or Fraud against anyone, please leave me the hell alone.
"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."