This story is unavailable.

Clay wrote:

>“If I squat on some government land, then of course that’s a negative externality, in that I’m depriving society of a rent that they’d charge.”
No, it’s a negative externality because you are depriving everyone else of their liberty to use the land. You’re not depriving society unless its customary arrangement is for land users to pay rent.

“But if society/government sells me the land outright, then I’m not creating an externality by living on it. Period.”
Objectively wrong. Period. Your arrangement with whatever lying thief claimed a right to sell you future generations’ liberty rights creates a negative externality for uninvolved third parties: all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. Period.

Moreover, your claimed transaction never happened, so it is irrelevant to all actual land titles.

Why do you do this to yourself, Clay? You know I am just going to demolish and humiliate you for your fallacies and absurdities again, as I have in every exchange we have had to date.

>So if I’m then forced to rent the land after having already paid for it,

You didn’t already pay for it, no landowner did. And even if you had, paying someone for something they don’t have a right to sell doesn’t get you a rightful title to it. You might as well claim a right to own Jennifer Lawrence on the basis of stupidly having paid some con man for her.

>then I’m being double-charged.

Except that no landowner ever paid for the land in the first place, and even if he had, whoever claimed to be selling him everyone else’s rights to liberty had no right to do so.

And you should know by now that it is actually the PRODUCER who is being double charged, as he has to pay the taxes that government spends to provide desirable public services and infrastructure, and must then pay landowners for ACCESS to the exact same services and infrastructure his taxes just paid for. The producer pays for government TWICE so that the landowner can pocket one of the payments in return for doing and contributing exactly nothing. The landowner is not the one being double charged, he is the one BENEFITING from the PRODUCER being double charged.

Everything you say just proves you even more wrong, and proves your beliefs are false and evil.

>You cannot refute that.

I did better than that: I proved it is fallacious, absurd, irrelevant garbage that is the very opposite of fact, logic and morality.

>[I wrote] Yes it is. An externality is defined as an effect of a transaction on a third party who is not involved.

>CO2 emissions are obviously regarded as a negative externality, and stealing something from you is effectively no different than profiting by emitting CO2 that harms you.

Flat wrong. When you burn fossil fuels, I am not involved in that activity. When you steal from me, I am.

>So clearly your informal definition here is missing something.

No it’s not.

>An alternative definition sheds some light:

a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved

Yes, it certainly does shed some light, because it proves you wrong, as usual. Stealing is not a commercial or industrial activity. So you just proved yourself wrong AGAIN.

>This is purely about the actor.

Wrong again. It’s about effects of activities on third parties.

>If I steal from you, I derive benefit that doesn’t cost me anything, causing me to engage in an activity that shouldn’t actually make economic sense.

But that activity is not a commercial or industrial activity, so it doesn’t create an externality. It is just an unrequited forcible transfer from one party to another, like a wealth tax. It is just stealing, like you want to steal from the most productive, who have rightly earned more than those who do not make a contribution, in order to give the money to greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic landowners, who by definition never make any contribution, only take.