Comment by tomrod
8 hours ago
Eh, I get where you are coming from. However, you should accept it because the people with the social authority to coerce through guns or imprisonment require you to do so, instead of operating in a vacuum. Plus, land ownership makes for a much clearer system of institutions (which economists of all stripes agree are fundamental to prosperity).
Further, relaxing land ownership doesn't make current occupation an externality, which was the original claim. It's a categorical error to mix externalities with morals.
Really? Argument from authority? If (actual) communists had the guns, would might make them right about property? For someone who wants to throw categorical stones, you sure seem to have a loose grip on the is/ought distinction.
Thanks for trying to explain how owning land imposes an externality on others. I still don't see a clear case made, so I'm moving on. Have a good evening.