> Starting with the land, water, and air of this Earth, there are many resources that no one created, and no one has the right to give you.
If we divide all the land in the world equally, within 20 years some people will have more and some people will have less (due to differing productivity and non-coercive selling). This isn't unfair - it just means that some people are unproductive.
> In a city, you cannot say that you have sole right to a piece of property, to do with as you please. Everything's too packed in together. If you're blasting music at all hours of the night,
Yes you can. Blasting music is a different story - you are effecting your neighbour's quality of life (and destroying his property value).
But trust me, you can do anything on your property as long as the neighbour doesn't hear or see you.
> To put it simply: the wealth of New York City was mostly created by the city; the plumbing, the roads, the zoning laws, the building codes,
The wealth in New York city is created because highly skilled people are close to each other (a type of network effect). Just because the demand for property is higher (and therefore the asking price) doesn't mean that the wealth represented by the property is created by the state.
>This isn't unfair - it just means that some people are unproductive.
Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing. If others could have used the land better, I'd say there's a good deal of unfairness there. It's possible life could have been better for everyone if not for inheritance.
>Blasting music is a different story - you are effecting your neighbour's quality of life (and destroying his property value).
Eh? That's the sort of thing I was talking about. You have the right to do what you want, within reason. But that said, you can't for example use residential land for a commercial enterprise beyond a certain point, and there are good reasons for these sorts of zoning laws.
On your last point, the state is the proxy by which we as a group determine how to divvy up that wealth that cannot be directly attributable to any one group. Again it is imperfect, but it's better than letting those who own the land have the entire say, because they are not necessarily responsible for the value in that land.
> Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing.
Can't people give their wealth to whomever they want (while they are alive or dead)? In a system such as yours (where the state comes and takes all property like a vulture after someone dies) it means that every old person should spend all his money before he dies. He should also stop working (as many old people (at least in my country) spend their lives working for an inheritance for their children).
I guess such a thing such as working to provide for your children and grandchildren is wrong in your books.
Here is another example in my country: many farmers have children and teach their children farming. This is the only skill that some of them can transfer. The children works on his father's farm. If there are two sons the father will try and buy extra land. The children inherit and divide up the farm after the father’s death. You thus get people living generations on the same farm.
In your ideal communist system, the child will lose his home, his father and his job (through the sin of inheritance).
> It's possible life could have been better for everyone if not for inheritance.
If all wealth is divided up after inheritance, the best (evolutionary speaking) strategy would be to have as many children as possible. That way, your offspring can have a larger share of someone else’s inheritance.
The idea of the far left, of trying to steal someone’s property after he dies is pretty reprehensible for me. What is worse is their motivation for it. The idea that an individual’s rights (and property) are subservient to the majority. What you are basically saying is that if something is good for the majority, the minority or individual does not have rights.
If we divide all the land in the world equally, within 20 years some people will have more and some people will have less (due to differing productivity and non-coercive selling). This isn't unfair - it just means that some people are unproductive.
> In a city, you cannot say that you have sole right to a piece of property, to do with as you please. Everything's too packed in together. If you're blasting music at all hours of the night,
Yes you can. Blasting music is a different story - you are effecting your neighbour's quality of life (and destroying his property value).
But trust me, you can do anything on your property as long as the neighbour doesn't hear or see you.
> To put it simply: the wealth of New York City was mostly created by the city; the plumbing, the roads, the zoning laws, the building codes,
The wealth in New York city is created because highly skilled people are close to each other (a type of network effect). Just because the demand for property is higher (and therefore the asking price) doesn't mean that the wealth represented by the property is created by the state.