[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think ownership of 100,000 acres is some wild-eyed fantasy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but hoarding 100,000 acres of unowned (and presumably valuable) land without mixing it with any labor and shooting all trespassers is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think that is a fantasy?

So in AC land, if you aren't working on your land or using it in some way, then you believe that others can move in and take it from you against your will?

Okay then. This is a whole new side of the debate.

So, if I inherit my father's 100,000 acre estate in AC land and sit around living the life of luxury, you are hereby declaring my claim to the land null and void? And what mechanism enforces this proclamation of yours? Everybody grab what they want from me? Wow, this is really news and I eagerly await your rationale of how my claim suddenly became illegitimate.

And once you make that case, you'll have also made the case why its okay for me to homestead in the backyard you rarely use, and if you try to force me off....well, you already have stated that shooting trespassers is against your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, non-sequitur?

Hoarding unowned land =! inheriting/trading for legitimately owned land.

I guess this debate really isn't all that interesting to me since most of the world currently has some system of property rights as a social norm, and for the most part (to my knowledge) there are not huge swaths of unowned land out there littered with valuable resources. (Well, maybe the ocean - maybe I could be interested in that aspect.) I am not making an argument ad status quo here - it just seems like the most difficult hurdle (initial land distribution) has already been done, and even if it has been done unfairly, unless there is some individual who has a more legitimate claim than the current owner, there is no reason for a change to current ownership rights. This was addressed at length in a recent thread with regard to land being taken away from Native Americans 500 years ago.