Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:58:44 -0500
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: "Squatters Rights? 


At 07:26 AM 10/12/2002 -0700, Kristopher Barrett wrote:

>If there are too many people living in the area, move out.

Isn't this a bit brash?   I mean it is the argument of states that if you 
don't like being in one you should move.  Is it really the anarcho-creed 
that if you spend your life wirking in or on an area that just because 
several others want to enjoy the fruits of your labors you must surrender 
them?

Should I not be entitled to the land I can wirk (WIRK?).  Isn't this a 
covenant that makes sense?


>A piece of property is only more valuable than another because of the 
>state granted owner ability to exclude others.

No, in a propertyless society a piece of property (real estate) has a value 
imposed by the person who wishes to reside there.  The land we live on has 
a beautiful mature pine tree forest right out our back door.  The wood is 
generally useless except maybe for logs in log cabins.  Why I value them is 
they carpet the floor of the woods with needles which makes for quiet 
walking and smothers the underbrush out, they never lose their leaves so 
we've always got green, and in the winter when the snow hangs heavy on the 
branches it is the most pastoral scene one can imagine.

Having 10 people move onto the land about here might just end up with one 
of the people wanting the trees for a log cabin.  Wherefore springs the 
right of one to destroy the tranquility of another?


>That and the building-code-enforced use of centuries old technology in 
>making domiciles.
>
>If those 100 million chinese had real choices, they would be just as 
>likely as you to want some elbow room. If they didn't, then they would 
>pick an urban area.

Um, Kris, that last sentence is kind of, well, goofy.  "Either people will 
want to live in the country or the city."  Yes.  But it doesn't offer much 
insight.



carp