[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO Obviously land cannot be "free." And this is because it can be used for any number of things.

No, that is not "obvious." It has to be drilled into people's heads. Believe it or not, land can exist without human beings to claim it as theirs, and people can peacefully claim things as partially theirs without paying a dime for it. Those are elementary truths that must be denied in order for this state protection racket to go on unchallenged.

Quote by: BobbyO So there will need to be mechanisms to determine the value, and thus best use, of land.

You assume that in order to possess land, people have to be encapsulated together under some type of financial system. I don't think that's the case, at least to those who value the ability of people to apply basic, peaceful reasoning in order to shape their own lives (we don't have that now, we have conditions imposed upon us).

Quote by: BobbyO Yes, the tenants can maintain upkeep. But like I said, such activities takes time and effort and skills which tenants do not perhaps have, or perhaps would choose not to employ.

You can twist reality any way you want, but this scenario you proposed still doesn't justify landlords. If people need outside help, they don't need to turn to a landlord to do something. One doesn't need to be a landlord to fix a toilet.
Your argument is like saying someone needs to join the army in order to have weapons. You have nothing to support your argument.

Quote by: BobbyO It is certainly true that not all landlords keep up teir property to high standards. However, there are generally legal requirements that they do so and so tenants have options.

And even if every landlord kept their legal property up to a high standard, it still wouldn't by itself justify their legal claim to it. The only thing justifying their legal claim is obviously the law itself, which is designed to make people utterly dependent on the system. These may be rights for some, but offenses for others.

Quote by: BobbyO By your own admission, tenants would uphold property only to the extent that they wish, which is no standard at all.

You speak of independence as if it entails having virtually no standards at all. I don't think that's the case. But the crucial point is that people could choose their own standards without these legal obligations, these titles. I think if people entered that point they'd already be at a higher standard.

Grandpa h.