Well, you're claiming you're system is more free than my proposal. Does all that happen now? Then why do you assert it would be tyrannical if it didn't happen under another system? Yea, why not. There's no reason he wouldn't opt for a more uncontested, less questionable parcel. You keep implying he has some kind of obsessive compulsion for this one parcel of land. It's not like he can do it with every parcel he happens upon. An individual would be limited to at most 5 acres. If it's going to be a hassle for either party to contest the parcel, one can just go pick another one. Uh huh. Then build a foundation in the ground that you can attach and detach a portable home to and from in the event that you live in an area at risk to earthquake and tornados. If you live in one prone only to tornados a portable house might even be an asset, as you could drive it away during a storm warning. And plus a smaller portable home would require less energy to replace anyway than a 2000 sq. ft house. Again, there is no need to put a small portable house in a trailer park. If you don't want to live in a trailer park, don't. Uh huh. Do people who leave their apartment or land wrecked or poisoned with garbage or chemicals get in trouble now? So why is there reason to suspect they wouldn't get in trouble under a non-monetary system? No. I'm not saying they own it. I'm saying it is theirs while they use it. And let's remember, we have people disabusing their rentals and property under the monetary system you're defending right now. It's not like we need a non-monetary system for that. I don't expect that to happen, as private land use would be limited to no more than a 5 acre parcel per individual/family so I'm sure there will be plenty of room for large industry. Besides, doesn't eminent domain happen under the current monetary system you're defending now anyway?