National Join Capitalism Fund

"Whereas before the introduction of private property in the form of land, any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it, after land became private property, that individual would need to ask the landowner's permission first. The landowner has only gained the ability to exclude others from the use of land." The pro side has made several assumptions without any basis or facts to backup to his assumptions. As the Con side I effectively showed he did not have the basis for the Join Capitalism Fund the last round. Now the pro side insists that before that in the past any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it. Where did the pro side arrive at this conclusion? The information has yet to be provided. Did the individual who could go to any "piece of land" have a legal right to the land? If not it wasn't his property because property is a legal concept. The pro side has unintentionally undermined the basis of his argument. If "any individual could go to any piece of land" that suggests there where was no governing body. So what would prevent individuals from fighting over the same piece of land? After all, " any individual could go to any piece of land and labor upon it." The pro side undermined his argument that everyone has an equal claim to the land. If "any individual could go to any piece of land" that is not equal. There is no authority to make the claim that every has an equal claim to any land that they choose as the pro suggests. Therefore his equal claim that he mentioned in the first round was refuted by his own claims in the second round. I asked the pro side for his basis for the equal claim. Now he says the individual, therefore it is inherently not equal because people could claim any piece of land as says in the second round. The pro side has not shown the authority who dictates that every one has the equal claim. Therefore there is no equal claim to land. Therefore, the points that the pro side made later have no basis. According to the pro's own scenario, Person A, Person B, and Person C "could go to any piece of land and labor upon it." As, I said earlier such a scenario would lead to severe problems. For example, if Person A and Person B wanted to cultivate the same soil and farm animals on the same plot of land. That occurrence may lead to a dispute or conflict of sorts. What responsibility does Person A have to pay to Persons B and C? After all they would of contested for the same piece of land in the past. "They are losing the prosperity that they had prior to someone who has given them nothing in return. The landowner is gaining all the prosperity and ability to work land freely while taking away that same right from those who didn't claim it." Again, an assumption with no basis. How can someone lose something they never possessed? The pro side again has used the term "right" which he used as the legal concept. Yet his earlier implication suggests that there weren't any laws so an individual could go anywhere he wanted to claim land. So no one could have rights as he now selectively proclaims. "Con has let go every argument for the actual establishment of the Join Capitalism Fund and decided instead to focus on the existence of land as private property." How can the pro side make such a bold claim when he has no basis for his argument? Readers, don't be deceived by the pro's feint. In order for his Join Capitalism Fund , he must show proof of the equal claim that everyone has to the land. Otherwise the pro side has no premise to base the Join Capitalism Fund. He has not shown why Person A should be paying Persons B and C. The pro side has continued with assumptions but has yielded to show proof of these assumptions. The pro side has also committed a fallacy by assuming the con's argument. The con side has yet to mention private property(til this round) but pro side makes this claim. The pro side is intentionally attempting to negate his premise so he can selectively argue the points of the Join Capitalism Fund that he wishes. The burden of proof is on the pro side to even show that the Join Capitalism Fund has a basis. The Con side does not need to address other points about the fund until the pro side has defined the basis of the Join Capitalism Fund. Until then, the pro side's points about the fund itself are moot because they are not based on anything except opinion and autobiographical content. The argument itself has to be proven by the pro side. Yet the pro has been shown yet to do so.