Bitcoin Forum

http://www.alternet.org/economy/libertarian-developers-ayn-rand-fantasy-detroits-latest-nightmare?akid=9992.155974.p-R2e4&rd=1&src=newsletter786361&t=9

Citizenship will be $300,000. Maybe he will accept bitcoins?

Literally every part of this plan is idiotic and unworkable.  Buying a 982 acre island for $1 billion.  Putting 35,000 people on it.  But mostly, the idea that anyone would pay $300,000 to live in Detroit.

You could probably buy the whole of Detroit for 6.5BTC considering they are buying up houses just to knock them down.

The US government would never allow anyone to create an independent nation inside their borders. They would probably view it as a terrorist threat and treat it like Waco.

Property taxes ow

build a space station, it will be cheaper in the long run :P

Transportation costs. We need to figure out is to rearrange particles so we can craft everything we need in space with pure energy first.

i don't think you understand.
These are the  "rich" "elites". Trying to bring  everything back to "feudalism". This is really what it is . Max keizer does great articles on this. But that's what it really is it's feudalism. Realize that.

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/feudalism-pyramid.htm

private property and especially land is the big error in anarcho-market-libertarian thinking.

no one can guarantee absolute private property and the protection of it but an authority like a king or state.

FIFY

Kings, Queens, and states are overthrown all the time.

I've been thinking that an alt chain tracking property would be the way to go. Maybe start with it being just a sort of title insurance, but as it grows in importance and shows how it does a better job at keeping track of real estate than government does, it can out-perform government's title management and eventually replace it.

Could be interesting. If it could provide a method of settling property disputes without getting a surveyor in, you could really be onto something.

My rifle can!

So let me get this straight.... You are saying something like the following:

1. Private property is good and should be protected
2. In order to protect private property we need a government
3. Government (by definition) has the right to arbitrarily pass laws and taxes at will
4. Taxation by definition is Theft as you don't have a choice to not pay and if you do not pay, you are threatened with harm (jail, being shot, etc.)
5. Theft by definition is a violation of private property
6. Therefore, in order to most justly protect private property, we should institute a group with the ability to violate private property rights at will

Sounds logical....

I didn't say any of that.


the typical mantras again, black-and-white thinking and non sequiturs  :D

when someone questions the idea of property and believes it's a merely human made-up concept, that doesn't mean they support violence of an authority like a state.

think a little bit outside of your box and educate yourself. There are many other strains of anarchism. Start with Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) for example.

Sorry about the misread. So you question private property.

Hold on, I may not be able to reply to you because I'm not sure I have ownership over my fingers to be able to type this out. Then, why am I replying to your post when you do not own the results of your argument? I may not be able to eat today as I do not justly own any food.

I am a voluntaryist, and certainly respect some aspects of anarcho-mutualism whenever they are voluntary. However, the existence of my self and my usage of the atoms making my body, and the resulting things and actions I form outside of my body also being owned by me is the justification of private property. If I kill someone, I am only guilty if I "own" the murder. I only can eat if at some point I can acquire exclusive rights over the food I want to consume, the hands I use to put it in my mouth, and my digestive system to turn the food into usable components.

Private property in some form is necessary by nature and survival. It is self-evident. Many people may choose to voluntarily sacrifice some of the property rights, but that is a choice people are allowed to make, just as I have the right to maintain exclusive rights if I so choose.

By the way, ad hominems and appeals to authority are not justified in this case  ;D

great idea if this were an island purchased "legitimately" from a consenting and internationally recognized sovereign.

It's only self-evident with an absolutist, all-or-nothing interpretation of ideas.

Many anarchists usually differentiate between ownership and property.

Don't worry, hardly anyone will dispute your ownership of your fingers, your TV, your bed, even your house and your garden. But if you claim you own an island far away just because you have a paper that says so, then things are not so clear anymore. Either this doesn't mean anything, just like those shady websites where you can buy a piece of the moon don't mean anything, or you'd have a powerful authority like a state protecting this island for you, or you'd have to expend resources yourself (guards, military if necessary) in order to protect it.

If you understand homesteading, you would know that libertarian theory for justly acquiring unowned property does not include arbitrarily claiming vast swaths of land without using them in some way for a home or for resources for something you are building or something. Selling lots on the moon is obviously not just property.