From: joshb@mrahat.thuis   
      
   On 2019-11-13,  wrote:   
   > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 19:19:36 -0700, rbowman wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/12/2019 09:59 AM, The greatest truth is honesty wrote:   
   >>> On 12 Nov 2019 15:05:37 GMT, Jos Boersema wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Free land is the biggest incentive you could give anyone.   
   >>>   
   >>> As Australian, South Africa and the US show, it does not take long before   
   >>> there is no free land left.   
      
   Apparently you did not understand. The point is to divide the land   
   between the amount of population, add a reasonable buffer to make the   
   administration smoother (like 5%, 10%), and then forever keep it so   
   distributed.   
      
   The same exact fake argument you are floating can be leveled against   
   land selling: soon there is no more land to sell. Is that correct ? It   
   simply is not the point of a land selling market. There is only so much   
   land, in either system.   
      
   >> In the US much of the land owned by the Federal Government achieved that   
   >> status because the government couldn't give it away.   
   >   
   > You can always sell it, just reduce the price.   
      
   That is true in both systems, although selling has a different meaning, and   
   the prices will reflect that. In a free land for all, you can still swap   
   trade your land. You have to swap trade it, because you have no right to   
   more than you right. You can however trade that you are the one owning   
   a particular right somewhere, because you can choose to check out another   
   part, or not. I would at least be in favor to allow and support swap trade   
   in law, because it makes it easy (possible) to (effectively) trade any   
   buildings on the land as part of the sale. It also gives a method of   
   determining if land is accurately distributed by the same value.   
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)