Private Property

[eye2i2hear]

"...uber-debaters..."

Mama`milla, is that a typo (or "code"?) for udder-debasers here, DD?!? ( . y . ) <----- "DoubleDs"
(also known as those suckin' hind tit?) ;D

meanwhile, more on point, first thanx for the reference linx, DD; I'd crossed paths with George already but hadn't gotten back to him & the "etc" as here connected.

Below is another's take on what I've asked a couple times in this thread via the general questions "How does one's authoritative claim to land as property exclusive differ from the authoritative claims of The State?" & "Where does one get the higher authority to bargain with/contract for land?" --as essentially, empirically, how is it any different from The eState's* authority?) *[eState = enforcement State/Government]

Perhaps this writer's skill(s) allow to convey what I've been tromping all over:
[note: for some having (still) a principle hold on the word "rights", I offer here again that the definition of a word is subject to process... consider subbing "desire" and some variant thereof in each usage, if that helps make it more palatable?]

A Landlord is a Government:
The Libertarian Basis for Land Rights
by Mike O'Mara

Many libertarians overlook the fact that a landlord is a government. The more territory a landlord controls, the more obvious it is that a landlord is a government (in fact, that is the origin of the word "landlord"). Within the territory he controls, a landlord collects taxes (which he calls by the euphemism of "rent"), and makes laws (which he calls by the euphemism of "lease conditions").

In addition, some landlords have their own security guards to defend their territory, just as city and state levels of government have their own police, or a national level of government has its own military. Some landlords also have their own arbitration process, just as other levels of government have their own court systems.

Libertarians in the classical libertarian tradition, such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and various others, recognized that liberty requires limiting the power of landlords, just as it requires limiting the power of government at all levels. There need to be limits on the power of the landlord level of government, as well as limits on the power of government at all other levels of government.

The problem with the landlord level of government is not whether some landowners' titles are based on land that was stolen from someone in the past. Rather, the point is that, even if their titles could trace back all the way without the land ever having been stolen from anyone, landlords are still governments - and they are still illegitimate, if they impose unjust taxes ("rent") or unjust laws ("lease conditions"), as follows.

Constitutions and Leases

The great libertarian lawyer, Lysander Spooner, pointed out that if an individual did not agree to the conditions of a government's constitution, and did not sign any contract agreeing to that constitution, then he is not obligated to abide by it. Spooner's argument can be extended, as follows. Suppose an individual is forced to do the following: 1) He is forced to choose among several governments, and to pay taxes to one of them. By extending Spooner's argument, it is clear that, if that individual did not agree to choose among those governments, then he is not obligated to choose among them, and is not obligated to pay taxes to any of them.

If he is forced to choose among governments, then it cannot be said that he voluntarily "agreed" to pay taxes to the government which claims jurisdiction over the territory he lives in. That "agreement" was made under duress, because he was not allowed the option of being free from paying taxes to any government. If a person has not agreed to be subject to a choice of tax-collecting governments, then he is not obligated to pay taxes to any government. A choice of slavemasters is still slavery.

The same is true if a landless person is forced to choose among landlords (which are really local governments). If he did not agree to be subject to a choice of rent-collecting landlords, then it cannot be said that he voluntarily "agreed" to pay rent (which is really a tax) to the landlord who claims jurisdiction over the territory he lives in. That "agreement" was made under duress, if he was not allowed the option of being free from paying rent to any landlord.

Suppose an individual was allowed to have an additional option: 2) He would be allowed to escape from those unjust taxes and unjust laws, if he would just pay a one-time "freedom tax", determined by a government or group of governments. By paying that "freedom tax", he would then be allowed to escape to a territory where he would have freedom from unjust taxes and unjust laws.

But if a person did not agree to be subject to that choice, of either choosing among tax-collecting governments, or paying a one-time "freedom tax", then he is not obligated to abide by those conditions. Again, a choice of slavemasters is still slavery.

The same is true if a landless person is offered the option of making a one-time payment (the price of buying some land), in order to be free from paying rent to landlords. If he did not agree to the choice of either choosing among rent-collecting landlords, or paying a one-time land price, then he is not obligated to abide by that choice. A person is not free if he is forced to pay for the space his body occupies.

Suppose a person is offered one other option:
3) He would be allowed to escape from those unjust taxes and unjust laws, if he would just perform a one-time amount of labor, determined by a government or group of governments. By performing that labor, he would then be allowed to escape to a territory where he would have freedom from unjust taxes and unjust laws.

But if he did not agree to be subject to that choice, of either choosing among tax-collecting governments, paying a one-time "freedom tax", or performing a one-time amount of labor, then he is not obligated to abide by those conditions. Again, a choice of slavemasters is still slavery.

The same is true if a landless person is offered the option of performing a one-time amount of labor, by traveling around in order to search for free land (free territory), where there is freedom from unjust rent and unjust lease conditions. That distance would be determined by landlords, and would change over time, as more unowned land is brought under their ownership. But if a landless person did not agree to abide by the three conditions above, then he is not obligated to abide by them. A choice of slavemasters is still slavery.

The Libertarian Alternative

The three unjust conditions described above exist if absolute ownership of land is allowed, rather than upholding the right of each individual to have some free land. Therefore, the only system of landownership which is compatible with libertarian principle is one in which absolute ownership of land is not allowed, and in which each individual has a right to free land.

But if each person has a right to some free land, how much land does he have a right to? And of what quality and at what location should that land be? First, it must be a large enough plot of land for his body to fit in, so that he does not have to pay others for renting or buying land simply so that he can exist.

Second, the plot of land has to be large enough for him to store property he owns, including consumer products, or products he owns for his business. If he did not agree to be subject to the condition of choosing among landlords in order to pay some landlord for storing his property, then no one has a right to force him to pay anyone for storing that property.

But how much free land and free storage space does each individual have a right to? And at what location? Thomas Paine proposed that each individual has the inalienable right to some free land, of average quality. He defined that as being land of per capita value, or per capita land rental value (not building value), or equivalent compensation - in order to enable the person to purchase land of that quality, or to compensate him for having to pay rent for land.

Paine's policy ensures that, if a person did not agree to the condition of paying rent or a land price to anyone, then he is not obligated to choose a landlord to pay rent or a land price to. Similarly, if a person did not agree to travel an arbitrary distance to search for some free land, then he is not obligated to do so.

Under Paine's proposal, it is recognized that any landowner who owns land of more than per capita rental value is displacing some other people from access to land of per capita rental value. Therefore, a landowner in that case would be obligated to either make some free land available of per capita rental value, or pay equivalent compensation - which would be enough so that a person he has hindered from access to land of equal rental value will be able to either buy some land of per capita rental value, or be compensated for having to pay rent for land of that quality.

[/b]

Thomas Paine's proposal for land rights is similar to the policies advocated by the other classical libertarians named at the beginning of this article, such as Jefferson, Mill, Nock, Chodorov, and others. Their views and policies on land rights can be seen in such publications as: Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to Reverend Madison"; Thomas Paine's essay on "Agrarian Justice" (1797); John Stuart Mill's *Principles of Economics*; and books by Albert Jay Nock or Frank Chodorov. The most recent literature, by contemporary authors, is available from the Schalkenbach Foundation in New York City: 800-269-9555; www.progress.org/books. [/blockquote]

??

* " Moby Thesaurus words for "udder":
bag, boobs, bosom, breast, breasts, brisket, bust, chest, crop,
dug, knockers, mama, mamelon, mamelonation, mammary gland,
mammilla, mammillation, nenes, nipple, pap, papilla, pigeon breast,
teat, thorax, tit, tits, titties, titty"

[eye2i2hear]

round 2 from O'mara:
[note: for those still having a principle issue with "right", consider perhaps "authority" and it's variables in its place?]

There is no difference in principle between a landlord and a local government. However, some libertarians try to argue that a landlord is different because a tenant voluntarily moves onto a landlord's property, and agrees to the lease.

The problem with their argument is that it's like saying: if a person voluntarily moves into the territory of Philadelphia, then that means he has "agreed" to obey its city charter ("lease"), abide by all its laws (lease conditions), and pay all its taxes ("rent") - and therefore Philadelphia supposedly has a moral right to collect high taxes and impose arbitrary laws.

But clearly, the city government of Philadelphia does not have a moral right to impose high taxes or arbitrary laws. There is no difference in principle between "voluntarily" moving into a local government's territory, versus "voluntarily" moving into a landlord's territory.

Another argument that some libertarians make is that, if a landlord paid for his land, they believe that is enough to give him the right to govern that land, without any limits on his governing power over that territory.

But the problem with that argument is that it's like saying: the U.S. bought the Louisiana territory from France, so that supposedly gives the U.S. government the right to impose high taxes and arbitrary laws on the inhabitants of that territory.

Clearly, a government does not have the right to impose high taxes and arbitrary laws, including local governments that are called "landlords".

If a city government imposed immigration quotas, and claimed the right to decide which people could live or work in its territory, libertarians would recognize that the city government is violating liberty.

Yet, some libertarians then turn around and say it's somehow okay if a landowner or land management company controls more territory than some city governments, and restricts freedom of immigration, by claiming the right to decide which people could live or work in its territory, no matter how big that territory is.

Similarly, some libertarians claim it's okay if a large landowner charges a high immigration tax, which is what is really going on when a landowner charges a high price for selling land to someone.

But as shown above, there is no difference in principle between a city government violating freedom of immigration and a landowner violating freedom of immigration.

No government has the right to violate freedom of immigration. Similarly, since a landowner is a form of local government, no landowner has the right to violate freedom of immigration, either.

So, any government or landowner that is restricting freedom of immigration into its territory, by claiming control over immigration into that territory, owes annual compensation to people whose freedom of immigration is thereby being restricted.

The annual compensation would be based on the market value of land in that landowner's territory - that is, based on the potential rental value of the land (location), not the buildings or improvements.

That policy has some similarity to a land tax, except that the annual revenue would not go to the government - instead, it would be used for direct compensation to people whose freedom of immigration is being restricted. So, a fine of this kind is different from a tax.

Libertarian economists have long known that requiring that annual fees or land taxes be paid by landowners cannot raise the cost of land to tenants or land purchasers - in fact, it would lower the cost of renting and buying land. A way to explain the effect is that, if you place a fine or tax on an activity, you get less of it. So, if you put a fine or tax on those landowners who restrict freedom of immigration, fewer landowners will violate freedom of immigration. As a result, with freedom of immigration, there will be more freedom of choice for land purchasers and land renters, so there will be a lower price for renting and buying land.

With freedom of immigration, people can more easily "vote with their feet" - so, freedom of immigration will lower how much landowners can charge for annual taxes ("rent"), or can charge for an immigration tax ("land price"). That means the price of renting and purchasing land will be lower.

With a lower price for land, it can more easily be bought by those who can use it more efficiently. If a person can use a large amount of land more efficiently than other people, he can just pay the annual compensation for owning that extra land, which would be the same as the market price for renting the land.

So, the result of this policy is a lower price for renting and buying land, more efficient land use, and more affordable land for housing and job creation.

And that is just what is found in the 20 or so cities in the U.S. that have been moving toward a somewhat similar policy, of gradually removing taxes on buildings and production, and replacing them with a land tax: it leads to more affordable housing and more job creation.

As a long-term goal, that policy would be even more libertarian if instead of a land tax, there were annual fines placed on those who restrict immigration, as described above - where the revenue from the fines, instead of being given to the government, would be used for direct compensation, as outlined above, and as advocated by Thomas Paine and various other classical libertarians.


If there is a better way to protect individual liberty and freedom of immigration at all levels of government, including the landlord level of government, then that alternative proposal for addressing the question should be compared with the proposal above. In any case, libertarians need to address the important point that a landlord is a form of local government.

Thus, the land is like a business in which every individual is seen at the negotiating table as an equitable shareholder-- where a claim to profit sharing is honorably expected from any and all using more than their land %!?

Mr. O'Mara doesn't cover it here specifically, but one of my proposals is that every individual retains sustainable land ownership unalienable (as again, seeing it as essential to individual life as an individual's body is).

[NonEntity]

Interesting comparison between gov't and landlord, 2i2. It somewhat breaks down for me when he suggests that people can buy land, however. For if you can buy land, are you not then the landlord of that land? Nonetheless, food for thought.

- NonE

P.S. I've not had time to read the previous post of yours, but I scanned it. One thing that stood out is your question regarding what the difference is between government "authority" and landowner authority (or something like that) and I'd have to say that I see very little difference. There is the fact that a person claiming authority over "his own" property would seem to stand on firmer moral ground than a person or group of people claiming authority over "others' property." I see that as a distinct difference. For example, it is quite a different matter if I decide to have sex with my body and if I decide to have sex with someone else's body. Of course this still does not answer the question as to how do you decide what exactly is your property, ie, what amount of property are you reasonably entitled to, and why. But then if we look more to process than dictates, that becomes more workable, as I've sugggested.

- NonE

P.P.S. And what about quantity? The reasonable amount of land a person might claim in Wyoming is probably not going to work in Tokyo or London or New York. In fact, if you took all of the people in Tokyo, removed all the buildings and got down to the bare land, you'd probably have to stack the people up like cord wood to get them all to fit. Maybe they could each reach between the legs and arms of the others and touch a piece of land with their fingers and claim that as their own. So, it seems to me, that it is all relative and subject to negotiation rather than distinct dictates of fairness or whatever.

[NonEntity]

2i2,

I think it comes down to a philosophical question. I think that some people have a need or desire or strong wish for certainty in their lives. So they create gods with magical powers and they point to them and claim that they are all knowing and all powerful and have "my" best interests at heart.

Others recognize that there is no certainty. That it is all pretty much of a crap shoot. You need to try and figure the odds and navigate by the best means that you can lay your mind around, but still... it's a crap shoot. All of the pretending that Geo. Bush has my best interests at heart (or the Wizard of Oz or the Tooth Fairy or whatever) will not change the reality.

So all claims that there are rules are just make-believe. It just is. And we can either deal with it or have a hissy fit. Having a hissy fit may make one feel better, but I don't think it will improve one's odds. It's all about growing up, accepting reality, and figuring out how to live most comfortably, in all senses including one's sense of morality and honor, within that reality.

And of course one of those views of reality is that there are no morals and that it is a dog-eat-dog world and so anything goes. I have no argument against such a view aside from the fact that I do not choose to live in such a world to the extent that I can create a more desirable one. And my wishing for a more desirable one won't bring it about, but my efforts will make a difference, even if infinitesimally small. It is just a choice we each can make. We can choose to whine and claim magical rights granted by... who? ... what? ... or we can just go on about our lives living in such a way as to come as close to our ideals as we can understand them at the time.

Granting respect to others rather than demanding our "due" is one way of doing that. Just as I am not omniscient, neither are those with whom I must deal. So if we each can approach the other with a sense of respect and a generosity of spirit, we are most likely to fair better in coming to terms than if we claim to know the truth (what a laugh THAT is!) and act like bullies.

The claim of rights seems so terribly arrogant and immature, from this perspective, does it not? How can one know what one's rights are unless one is omniscient?

- NonE

[learnin2]

The claim of rights seems so terribly arrogant and immature, from this perspective, does it not? How can one know what one's rights are unless one is omniscient?

With regaurd to you and all other people and government, I am omnicient. None of my rights come from you or government, or need your/their approval, to exersize them. Argue your point with government, that seeks to control you and all your activities, and believes that IF you have ANY rights, they come from government. My dog even understands property rights, not surprizing though, that most people don't.

[creolefood]

Wow! Now I'm really confused! (re: A Landlord is a Government).

I guess the basis of this subject is how someone becomes a "landlord" or comes to control significant amounts of land. True, a "private" landlord can become abusive to his tenants; the owner of some slum in New York City can let his building become run down, not provide maintenance, be careless about security, etc. In that case the tenants can either move or stay put and endure it.

But let's discuss the means of acquiring land. True, a "private party" can acquire relatively large tracts of land and exercise monopoly and tyranny over that land. However, in most cases, there is an obvious difference between the private land owner and the government land "owner." The government has acquired its land by either marching in with armed troops and taking it over and/or purchasing that land with money stolen through taxation. And of course if there was not a fiat money system the government would be severely restricted in its ability to steal land. I think it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that it would be extremely difficult for a private party to acquire huge amounts of land (let's say county size or similar pieces) without using violence; but then once he does that, he becomes a government.

A good reference point is Murray Rothbard's discussion of how one can be the first owner of previously unclaimed land by "working that land;" i.e., when people first came to America and found a suitable piece of land to live on (and assuming that no one had claimed it before them), they claimed that amount of land that they could reasonably work, usually by farming it and raising animals on it. Contrast this with government wherein some power hungry idiot stands on a mountainside, sees thousands of acres of land spread before him and declares "I doth declare that the King of Spain controls all that I see!" A modern day counterpart to that was when "President" Clinton declared thousands of acres (or maybe millions of acres?) of land in Utah, I think, totally off limits to development.

Disclaimer: all of the above is strictly opinion (except the power hungry idiot part) and may or may not be real; readers are advised to consult a skilled professional before making any decisions on their own.

[NonEntity]

creolefood said:

Wow! Now I'm really confused! (re: A Landlord is a Government).
...
But let's discuss the means of acquiring land. True, a "private party" can acquire relatively large tracts of land and exercise monopoly and tyranny over that land. However, in most cases, there is an obvious difference between the private land owner and the government land "owner." The government has acquired its land by either marching in with armed troops and taking it over and/or purchasing that land with money stolen through taxation. And of course if there was not a fiat money system the government would be severely restricted in its ability to steal land. I think it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that it would be extremely difficult for a private party to acquire huge amounts of land (let's say county size or similar pieces) without using violence; but then once he does that, he becomes a government.

A good reference point is Murray Rothbard's discussion of how one can be the first owner of previously unclaimed land by "working that land;" i.e., when people first came to America and found a suitable piece of land to live on (and assuming that no one had claimed it before them), they claimed that amount of land that they could reasonably work, usually by farming it and raising animals on it. Contrast this with government wherein some power hungry idiot stands on a mountainside, sees thousands of acres of land spread before him and declares "I doth declare that the King of Spain controls all that I see!" A modern day counterpart to that was when "President" Clinton declared thousands of acres (or maybe millions of acres?) of land in Utah, I think, totally off limits to development.

Disclaimer: all of the above is strictly opinion (except the power hungry idiot part) and may or may not be real; readers are advised to consult a skilled professional before making any decisions on their own.

I don't think that "we" Anglos did that, for the most part. It seems to me that we killed the people who were living in Norte America and took the land that they had been living on and using and started living on it and using it "ourselves." So how is this different than a government? I'm beginning to see that this may be a crucial issue.

Watch. Soon I'll be singing Tharrin's praises!

The more I look at it, the more I see landlordism to be about the same as governmentism, at least as regards land ownership.

So this once again brings me back to the idea of process over dictate or principle or however you want to call it when you claim that you have all rights to a piece of land forever and ever and ever and so on.

Hmm. The view keeps changing the more I look at it.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

How can one know what one's rights are unless one is omniscient?

Ok, granting that you don't know me from learnin2's dog (or from Dog/doG/"Creator")... I would wish to ask the parallel question then: How can one know what "honor" is unless one is omniscient? or How can one know what "respect" is unless one is omniscient? Is "omniscient" the real issue here?

I feel still the issue here is mental dancing around "legal"* rights versus empirical ("natural") rights. Note all 3 words (2 adjectives**, 1 noun). 3 "words". Where in this case, you know, it's that dancing where you don't touch. (or mental relative to some form of legal, like espoused in the Declaration of Independence's "endowment".

*["legal rights" include "endowed by their Creator" belief here; noting that legal can and does often include (or start with?) empirical validated rights but then moves into imaginary as well/eventually]
**[oh, but what the simple use of some descriptive adjectives would bring to conflict prevention; significant too, perhaps, that most claiming legal rights also hold that they can legally "waive" said rights!?]

The only "inalienable" or "unalienable" rights are simply those which are necessary to natural life. How does one separate/alienate, say eating or breathing from life?

But to the point:
where do rights come from?
Each other.
Same as authority.
Same as respect/honor.
Same as widgets (yupp, we collectively would have to agree-- "contract" --on a "widgets" definition-- just as we agreed to "w-i-d-g-e-t-s"-- just as we agreed to "w"...).

Rights are after all purely societal (who would you argue rights with/find necessary to appeal to, after all, apart from each "other"?). Hence, as with any and all concepts, rights are either empirically validated or are not. If they are not, then they are mere beliefs-- and if one is willing to die for these latter, then they are of religious belief. [being willing to die to ensure another's rights, may or may not be of religious belief however...?]

Central to seeking to establish natural rights is the authority aspect. If it is "my" right then it is also "your" (every "ones") right. That settles a lot of the mud flying in itself. Natural rights inherently mandate the obligations, personal and individual, again simply by allowing the Crusoe examination regarding rights. Nature first mandates the individual obligations. Rights can only follow that foundation.

Rights then are simply an empirical/naturally based appeal. Little, if any different, from honor and respect, etc. They are an appeal to common sense, as that commonly sensible. And just as with any contract offering are subject to rejection. [proponents of natural "property rights" then are simply those appealing to others to honor such, but where the appeal is empirically validated as essential/needful rather than merely desirous-- or enforced via defense]

I also offer for the negotiating table, that rights are seldom inherently "legalistic" and rigid either. Rather, as nature commonly demonstrates, much is "personal"; flexible; "grey" (or is it "gray"?) . Rights are guide"lines". Where I find it "sign"ificant that in purist nature there are few if any perfectly straight lines...

[NonEntity]

Ok, granting that you don't know me from learnin2's dog (or from Dog/doG/"Creator")... I would wish to ask the parallel question then: How can one know what "honor" is unless one is omniscient? or How can one know what "respect" is unless one is omniscient? Is "omniscient" the real issue here?

Man I just HATE it when I'm forced to eat my own words without even so much as a glass of water to wash them down with. A bit of consideration would SEEM to indicate that at least you coulda given me some water, dude!

- NonE

[tharrin]

It appears that we haven't concluded who determines the land the land "LORD" supposedly owns and by what authority? So it comes down to who do you want to bow to and who do you want to pretend to have authority over?

[NonEntity]

I don't pretend to have, nor do I accept, authority by or over anyone but myself (not even mythical entities). But I DO have that authority. Granting that you have the same, we now have a place from which to negotiate.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

I don't pretend to have, nor do I accept, authority by or over anyone but myself (not even mythical entities). But I DO have that authority. Granting that you have the same, we now have a place from which to negotiate.

Is the violence ("defense" defining) point crucial to our negotiation here as well?

[NonEntity]

If you attack me I may defend myself with force, but probably only if all other avenues failed. I've been defrauded a few times and chosen to just let it go rather than to engage in ugly acts in return. I don't think I would ever engage the "legal system," for example, as I see it as inherently violent and coercive and totally failing in producing justice.

- NonE

[tharrin]

I am still unconvinced you can claim ownership or force another to take notice of your claim without some sort of force. You can claim you own a piece of land and I can counter claim that very same piece of land, neither of us has evidence that either's statement has any validity. Neither of us can defend it. So with that said, how can you sell something that you have no evidence of proof you own.

If you go with the status quo, you use the system to enforce your belief, again without a shred of evidence. If you contract with another to purchase a piece of land you might as well contract with a person to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge. In either case, there is no evidence the seller owns what he pretends to sell. In fact, it is one of the greatest scams ever devised, because the seller gets something for nothing. There after, every person that allegedly pretends to own that piece of property, is only doing so, to scam somebody else into giving something for nothing. The belief is backed by a society that wants to believe in the illusion of ownership and therefore will back the alleged owner by giving him a piece of paper called a Deed or some such other nonsense and then defend the premise by creating conditions of punishment for not believing in the illusion.

The person harms no one by not believing in the illusion but society creates a thing called law around a persons freedom to move about on the face of the earth.

So your contractual agreement with another, pretending to transfer alleged ownership back and forth between people automatically infringes upon all those living around you and their freedom to move about on the face of the earth where you have arbitrarily invoked mystical lines.

So therefore None you will either have to bow to those that use force to own or use counter force to own. The illusion can only be manifested through some form of force to give it a reality. Otherwise your imaginary lines have no substance.

[tharrin]

I must also clarify that the seller these days also gets nothing for nothing because the little green things we exchange to get possession of other things has no intrinsic value either but only represents the expended labor one traded for possession of the little green things. After all those green things are merely paper and the base metals of negligible valve are nearly as worthless as the paper it represents.

So lets all pretend to be Land LORDS and play superior being over all those useless eaters that have no choice but to pay us to exist on this earth. We can corral their minds into a thought process that makes us wealthy and them slaves to us.

Don't you see through the illusion? It is all about power and superior right and ultimately about control. It is not about privacy or human rights (if there is such an animal). It is about whom will tell who where to live based on a baseless claim. If I have collected and control enough baseless claims I become the Donald Trumps, Vanderbilt's, Rockerfellers...etc etc etc. Then I can control human interactions to my benefit. Sounds a lot like government.