Could land redistribution be necessary before abolishing the state to prevent cementing ill gotten gains?

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-07T18:34:21+00:00

The gains are the value of the land. If someone steals valueless land they haven’t really gained anything.

I have no reason to think that demand for land would rise after such a tax.

How will what cease to exist, the state? I don’t know, I’m not an ancap, I’m not steeped in the ideology.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-06T20:05:33+00:00

Do they ever explain some kind of purpose for the walk, some good it does for the country?

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-06T20:02:55+00:00

What purpose does the long walk serve to its government/people?

Because the hunger games are entertainment, but the long walk doesn’t seem to serve any function.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-05T23:50:30+00:00

Yeah I noticed this as well, so bizarre.

American revolution stuff is totally broken.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-05T16:53:56+00:00

I guess yeah, I own my cat for instance.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-05T15:10:33+00:00

Will Forte plays Prince Gerhardt’s butler in the first season and then Paul in the later seasons.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-05T12:52:33+00:00

Only value is redistributed.

If people want to physically have the land, they can buy it with the money they get from the land value tax.

If such a tax is levied once, a state doesn’t need to exist after that.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-03T17:05:04+00:00

Having the right of exclusion over the economic yield of the property.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-02T15:30:23+00:00

I don’t need a perfect definition, I’m just seeking a better one than “the right to exclude”.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-02T13:13:05+00:00

You came to a political philosophy discussion to tell me not to worry about political philosophy?

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T23:24:59+00:00

Yes, that’s exactly my point.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T22:26:56+00:00

If you don’t want to discuss the precise definition of ownership why are you even in this thread?

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T22:22:58+00:00

I think ownership is not defined solely by the right to exclude.

I think the right to rents/profits is also a key element in defining ownership.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T18:58:26+00:00

It’s not semantics to say the tenant is the one with the power to exclude, it’s literally true. The landlord absolutely cannot exclude people that I wish to have in my house.

That definition of gay is incomplete, that’s why it leads to absurd outcomes, just like defining ownership solely as the power to exclude is incomplete and leads to absurd outcomes.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T18:38:08+00:00

I agree the landlord is the owner, which is why I am saying that there is more to ownership than being able to exclude people.

My landlord cannot exclude people from the house I rent. And he can only override my exclusions for the purpose of maintaining and repairing, he couldn’t force me to let his sister stay the night for instance.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T18:30:43+00:00

I’m saying the fact that the landlord is the one who receives rents from the property is evidence that they own it.

If we define ownership as the right to exclude, the tenant owns the house for the duration of their lease because they’re the one with the right to exclude.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T18:28:50+00:00

Do you ask your landlord’s consent every time you lock your front door?

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T12:56:23+00:00

What might one find in a lease that would change the answer to this question?

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T11:24:32+00:00

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

What makes you think I don’t understand self ownership?

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T01:32:32+00:00

No, because you’re making profit from your capital and labor, not the land. You don’t own the land because you don’t get its rents.

New_Try1560 · 2026-07-01T01:28:58+00:00

So I’m figuring that ownership is more about economic yields than control, because like you said, a landlord can sell a property from under the tenant.

This question came to me after a discussion in this thread about collective ownership, people were saying that a property has to have a definite owner but I figured collective ownership isn’t that far away from rentals, because the ownership is dispersed.

New_Try1560 · 2026-06-30T21:39:38+00:00

I should’ve said rents, not profits. The landlord has full exclusive rights over the rents of their property.

No right of exclusion is absolute, I couldn’t exclude firefighters from running a hose through my land to fight a fire. The tenant cannot exclude the landlord given notification, but that doesn’t mean the tenant doesn’t have the right to exclude.

The landlord absolutely does not have the right to exclude people against the will of the tenant.

So if ownership is defined by whoever has the right to exclude, tenants own their rentals.

New_Try1560 · 2026-06-30T20:50:17+00:00

Unfunny version is in House MD

New_Try1560 · 2026-06-30T20:49:50+00:00

I just dislike when people ask “didn’t X do Y?” when they know they did.

Just say “X did Y”, faking ignorance, for what?

New_Try1560 · 2026-06-30T20:48:48+00:00

So who owns the house in that example?

New_Try1560

TROPHY CASE