At 02:16 PM 6/30/2008, you wrote:
Wraith wrote:
>>
>> Nobody owns the property on the border?
>
>
> Exactly. Its "owned" by the group of thugs commonly referred to as
> government.
> It would be entirely different if that land was private property.
Wrong, it is owned by the people who own land there.
Try telling that to the Imperials, Goat...I'm certain that they will
be rather entertained...The border zone isn't private property.
>
>> There is no mixing of concepts,
>> they are exactly the same.
>
> On the contrary, you are mixing private property with that of government.
Except that the concept of common property is just as valid and predated
the concept of private property.
Common property is a useful fiction. As for it predating private property,
that's open for debate. Its all in who gets to make the definitions. As
with most such, its those with the most power. But does that make it right?
Since we are suppose to be the
government, it is us who is suppose to have the say on how
the commons is administered.
Oh please...Sure we have a government of, by and for the people. What
they don't tell you is which people. Its those who have bought(or rented) the
politicians that get to make the definitions, as I stated above.
Without the commons, and without any
private property, you would have nether positive or negative rights,
except for what somebody who did have negative property rights
granted you positive rights on their property.
Without commons(or very limited) everything would be a matter of private
property. But that doesn't suit certain types of ideologues.
>
>> Some libertarians just ignore it to try
>> to make the position tenable, when it isn't.
>> Goat
>
> What position might that be?
That a people doesn't have the right to keep others from trespass.
Goat
Having never taken that position, I feel no need to defend
it. Private property
is just that, private.
================================================================================
Tu Ne Cede Malis
