[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it is 100% in line with the AC position that property rights are a purely subjective notion? Great. So your use of force to defend your land has the same "legitimacy" as my use of force to seize your land or to regulate your use of your land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. My use of land doesn't *require* an interaction with you (of course, there are cases where use would entail an interaction, but it's not a necessary condition for my usage). Your seizure of land or regulation of land does require an interaction with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "requiring an interaction" will get us nowhere. If people want to live on, use, or protect the land you have fenced off for your exclusive use, then there already is an interaction. We can debate what kind of value system we'd *like* to see adopted regarding use and ownership of the land, but I think the point you're making actually says nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Desire is not an interACTION.

[/ QUOTE ]

Case A. You "own" 10 acres. No interaction is required between us so long as I stay off "your" land.

Case B. You "own" 10 acres. I don't agree with your definition of land ownership and set up a small living space on the back acre that you don't need or rarely if ever use. No interaction is required between us so long as you stay off "my" land.

Same degree of "interaction" in both cases. So your use of "level of interaction" as a metric does not justify A while invalidate B.

And as you just pointed out, your desire to have me off your property is not an interACTION.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making some assumptions about what I consider "ownership" of land.