>  LOL You asked the question backwards! It should be: Does your body own all it's bloodcells? If it doesn't, you are done. Same with the property you attained.

So you're saying that the land you live on actually owns you? The earth owns all of the cells that make it up? I don't think that's what you're shooting for, but that's the metaphor you've used, which fits pretty well in line with what I've written here.

> whence did that floating non-sequitor originate? Who gives a rat's pooper whether or not the land was owned previously? Where is the relevance for this?

It comes directly from the quotes by Rothbard & Hoppe that I included

> **Rothbard**: *...any piece of nature that has never been used is unowned and is subject to a man’s ownership through his first use or mixing of his labor with this resource*

> **Hoppe**: *...as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him*

The relevance is that these statements are what capitalists base their concept of land ownership on, so in a discussion of land ownership, the foundation for the concept seems pretty relevant.

> It never ceases to amaze me how Anarchos will (rightfully) back/express NAP via some sort of Objective Universal Moral Maxim

The "universal" (I put universal in quotes because it obviously is not universal, or we wouldn't have states, wars, etc.) moral maxim of 'do not harm'... which I am upholding, and which I find an anthropocentric view of the universe to be in direct opposition to. I am simply demanding moral consistency, not picking & choosing where morality applies. As I said in the post: *If a man builds a fence around his "property", keeping animals from getting to the food & water they depended on there, has no harm (aggression) been done? If the trees which make home for various animals are chopped down, has no harm (aggression) been done?*

> ...yet every other moral and philosophical premise is purely subjective depending on the tribal whim of the day.

Show me where I've made the assertion that morality is subjective? My whole point here is that morality extends past humans, that it is MORE objective than most anarchists are willing to accept.

The concept of land ownership is by far the newer "tribal whim", brought by conquering hordes of anti-moral zealots as they spread across the world killing everyone who didn't agree with them.

> you write as if this rock we named "Earth" is some organism with a conscience. Is that the case in your world view?

It is very clearly an organism ([definition](https://www.etymonline.com/word/organism): *"organic structure, organization,"*), with interconnected systems that have an absolute dependency on each other. Since consciousness is that which precedes matter, it would also seem quite clear that the Earth has/is consciousness, as is every other thing in existence.

the earth is a rock.  Ownership doesn't have relevance to a rock... except that it can be owned, or parted out.  LOL  Welcome to Libertavian masturDebate society.  You are a hoot.  Rights and Ownership are concerns of conscious beings who have to make moral choices.  

As long as we are at it, when does the debate about the shape of this rock begin?  Is that on the schedule at this convention?

Hey... you know what's cool?  Somehow you neoHippies can attract the ladies.  The rest of Libertavia usually follows this meme:
![who invited the libertarian.JPG](https://steemitimages.com/DQmVWx53fve3VLLEUfxxCZvZvUwNvya4GLZtikamwUdykxf/who%20invited%20the%20libertarian.JPG)

What is your secret ingredient to overcome it?  Drugs?  KamaSutra?  Inform those boys, please.  Imagine what would happen at Anarchopulco and AnarchoForko if the ratio of attendees would even out?

As for Rothbard and Hoppe:  They are economists, attempting to play philosopher gods.  Since when do they have some magical power to mandate Truth?  Those positions you bring forth are presented as if they are axiomatic.  What makes them self-evident?  Not a thing.  I respect their opinions.... to a point.

A friend and I used to sit down with Hoppe when he taught at UNLV back in '89-'90 at a pub across the street.  Each week, he and a few of his students would have a few beers and shoot the poop like this.  Dude... HE IS A BRICK.  Perhaps he could get away with some of his sophistry with the children in his class, but dealing with a 33 year old man who was pretty well read in Randian Objectivism, plus had real world experience from owning his own business since 24 years old... coming from the greater NYC area, it wasn't so easy for him.  Typical to form, he wilted when forced into a position to provide at least SOME empirical evidence to back his CLAIMS.

funny thing how those two had no moral compunction against taking salary from THE STATE OF NEVADA!!!  My friend and I used to bust Rothbard's balls over this once in a while when we'd bump into him in Kinkos across from UNLV.  No sacred cows......  No false demigods, bud.

I don't believe anarchy can have a right and a left as there are no rulers only human rights so I own my body and my land. I believe you have to have land ownership otherwise you can't stop people from taking the food you grew because it is not yours it would be natures.

That was just one example of how there can be different kinds of agreements, as long as everyone's on the same page. Even now, there are communities where mutual ownership is the basis, and what I am putting forth is much more in line with the many cultures who did not have a concept of ownership and operated from a place of stewardship, interdependance, and respect (for each other, the land, the resources, and the animals)

I don't feel that I've strawmanned anything by asking questions and pointing out that there is a jump between *"we need agreements to reduce conflict"* and *"we need these exact agreements"*. Where is the mischaracterization?

> *Let's agree that I can come over to your house, stay for three months rent free and eat all of your food. If not, why not? The land upon which your dwelling stands is not your property. It is everyone's.*

This is certainly a strawman, as I've laid out different possibilities for agreements that different cultures/communities could have around land, including ones where that situation would be fine (if that was the "property norm"). We've also gone over this in our previous conversations; humans not *owning* the Earth doesn't mean that humans can't have their own spaces to feel safe in, or that they can't have agreements around the use of the land they live on. I agreed in the post that humans need agreements to reduce conflict, but your responses seem to be based on the idea that everyone is just doing whatever they want, that there are no agreements, and that people want to take advantage of each other (another benefit of shifting from ownership and separateness to connection & interdependance is that destructive behaviors like that will naturally reduce as well)

---

I've also just edited the post, adding a section on land stewardship.