Fair enough. My use of "monopoly" is a poor articulation of what I'm trying to express. In all your comments you seem to be acting as an arbiter of logical corr

Fair enough. My use of "monopoly" is a poor articulation of what I'm trying to express. In all your comments you seem to be acting as an arbiter of logical correctness, which is good, but where do you actually stand on the notion of land as private property, philosophically and morally? If you favor it, is it as human right, as some libertarians argue, or just a pragmatic social contract? What is your reply to the essay I link to[1], or to Henry George? -- [1] I agree with its critique of Royal Libertarianism, but not entirely with its prescription.