op's statement is contradictory and based on several misconceptions. > finite nature of land: it is true that land is finite in a physical sense, as it cannot be created out of nothing. however, the concept of property ownership and its implications are not determined solely by the physical limitations of land. > existence and land ownership: the notion that one's existence would be "illegal" because they do not own land is a misunderstanding of property rights. property rights stem from the fundamental right to act on one's own judgment and to use resources in a manner that is consistent with one's life and happiness. one's right to life and existence does not depend on land ownership, but rather on one's ability to pursue happiness and freedom, provided this does not violate the rights of others. > land ownership and the law: the claim that "allowing anyone to own more than one property" leads to an illegal existence is a distorted and confused interpretation. in a free society, people can own as much property as they can justly acquire, as long as they do not violate the rights of others. there is no inherent conflict between multiple property ownership and the right to live freely. > communism misinterpreted: the statement concludes by referring to this as "communism," but this is a mischaracterization. communism, as a political ideology, advocates for the abolition of private property and the collective ownership of the means of production. what is described in the statement would be closer to a form of collectivism, but not communism in its true sense. communism calls for state control over all property, whereas the statement suggests an egalitarian approach to property ownership (everyone owning land), which still contradicts individual rights if enforced by coercion.
Argentina