[vkou]

That is a horrible argument, because the same can be said for land ownership. Isn't it unfair that when I move somewhere, I discover that all the land in that area is already owned by someone else. Why should some old history entitle someone to exclusive ownership of any piece of land, and the ability to charge arbitrary rents for it?

The fact of the matter is, first movers have all sorts of unfair advantages over latecomers, many of them from luck, or from circumstances of birth - and I doubt you are seeking to overturn all of them.

[throw4738]

No, this system is more like feudalism or serfdom. When I move in, you expect me to work on your land, so protected class does not have to work.

Young people and foreigners have to pay large taxes and rents, to subside older people.

[vkou]

Young people become old people, serfs don't become feudal lords.

Foreigners can naturalize (and most of them have the freedom to weigh the costs of paying into systems they don't benefit from, and consider whether or not immigrating is worth it.)

[jariel]

" I move somewhere, I discover that all the land in that area is already owned by someone else. "

Why do you think that for a moment you have a right to 'go over there' and posses land currently owned by people over there?

[vkou]

Because of the parent poster's thesis that it's unfair that the first people to move somewhere get advantages.

I am just taking that axiom to it's logical, but absurd conclusion, to argue that the axiom itself is absurd.