[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That would only be true if I accepted your bogus axiom that you have some absolute right to property you've mixed your labor with, which of course I do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa, what? You yourself said that if all land is owned you only exist at the consent of others. I pointed out that this is the scenario now and nothing crazy has happened.

This is an exercise in futility with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Look at the context. I said
"<u>IF</u>" I accept ACist premises, here are the consequences. Please tell me you don't somehow think I've drunk from that particular batch of kool-aid.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, if you look at the context out of nowhere you interject this "bogus ac premise" which has nothing to do with the conversation.

Your worry is that in an AC society people will eventually only live based on the consent of others. Your reasoning is because all land will eventually owned, but THIS IS THE CURRENT SITUATION, AND THIS PATHOLOGICAL SCENARIO HASN'T HAPPENED.
[ QUOTE ]
I had no intention of using this as a strawman, and apparently you haven't denied it enough. Please tell me exactly what it is that you feel is required to exert a right to property.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've already done this dozens of times, specifically for you (don't you remember us having this exact conversation?). I'm not doing it anymore.

I'm with john, this is nothing but mental masterbation at this point.