I have access to such software, but don't actually own it

Am I now? How does my freedom depend on some poor schmucks on the other side of the planet being bombed by $100,000 bombs, flown by $100,000,000 drones? Oh, it doesn't? Then why the fuck am I paying for that shit?!



No I'm not. You can't magically wish value into existence. That barrel of oil is worth the same around the world. In Italy, they pay the full price for that barrel of oil. Here, I pay a much smaller price for a part of that barrel at the pump, and then secretly pay the other part through my taxes which go to oil subsidies and security to keep oil pipes from being blown up. In the end we all pay the same price. It's just that here much of it is hidden from us.


Then don't order stuff online, and pick it up at a store. Or order online, but tell them not to pack it, and that you'll accept all damages and liabilities. It's really not that hard. I mean, it's not as if there are laws against that. Unlike the laws that force you to pay for government stuff.


Since when does The Invisible Hand refer to government?



Sorry irrelevant. You are not restricted to just that one store. You are not restricted to just that one product. You can even negotiate with the store owner to only get a part if needed. And even if you are forced to buy the whole thing, you still have parts that you own and can resell to recoup your money. ALL of which fails to explain to me why one group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return is theft, while another group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return in taxation.
And, again, when you are forced to buy the whole monitor because no other options are available, you still get the whole monitor and all it's worth. Something of yours of value for something o someone else's of value. With taxation, you get a lot of nothing for something of yours of value.

Keep trying.


I am only a reflection of the people I talk to. I.e. you're an ass, so I'll talk to you like an ass. Considering just how much of an ass you are, meanness of mind and disposition are apparently very much your preferences. Want to change how I talk to you? Be more polite. Otherwise I don't really care for you either.


When you are ethical and just, it's not murder. Go to the NAP discussions to figure out what ethics and justice (morals and such) are about. It's not that difficult of a concept that doesn't need laws or government decrees for you to figure out.


the difference, as always, is who makes the rules, and who gave them the right to make those rules. That's what this whole godamn discussion is about. Who gave the majority the right to tell me what I should do with myself and my own stuff? It sure as hell wasn't be. Not willingly, anyway, since, as pointed out, if I don't follow their rules that they gave themselves, I get shot.


ass


That's a tad difficult when there are secret laws, or unjust laws. And aren't you glad those people in the south didn't break laws by reporting runaway slaves, and those germans didn't break laws by reporting jews hiding in attics? I bet you're even more glad that people in US didn't break laws against drinking alcohol, and that we still have laws making alcohol illegal 



I don't get shot because I'm not stupid enough to test it. I've seen plenty of other people get shot, and use them as examples. And, ok, let's walk this through. A cop comes to me and says I did something illegal, which I don't believe is wrong. I tell him to go away, because I didn't do anything wrong. The cop tries to put handcuffs on me, I resist and defend myself, by, say, wrestling him off of me. He escalates his attempts at arresting me, and I escalate my attempts are defending myself. At what point does he stop, and walk away? And if he doesn't, then where does this escalation end?




My whole issue is that I don't want to deal with it specifically for the reasons I've stated. It's not just, it's not ethical, it's without basis beyond the old rule that you can own land by sticking a flag on it. People organized, decided to call themselves government, and started to throw their weight around using guns and force. For someone looking for ways to better the system, you sure seem to like this one.



How will that solve the problem of corrupt politicians, being bought out by banks and corporations, who then get extra perks paid for by our tax dollars? I mean, that's in essence what we're talking about here - the power to enforce arbitrary rules, and force you to pay (steal from you) to support those rules.

Really? Because that company establishing itself in Chille, away from any endangered species, and figuring out how to continue logging on an ever DEcreasing plot of land at an ever INcreasing rate is doing an excellent job at protecting your spotted owls, by making sure less and less logging is needed elsewhere in the world. There's no need to go after those owl's homes, and risk bad publicity for your company, when you work on increasing and optimizing your profits elsewhere.

Also, seriously, what incentives do you believe regulators have to keep that spotted owl safe? What will happen to the politicians if they remove it from the list of endangered species? What will happen to a regulator if he/she overlooks some company's logging activity? As I understand it, it's "not much" in both cases. Worst case, they lose their job and have to go work elsewhere. On the other hand, someone who actually owns the land will be help personally responsible if they do something that harms those spotted owls. Remember, government laws and regulations are (supposed to be) the reflection of the will of the people living in a society. It's not some wishes conjured up by the regulators themselves. So if someone starts to own the land those spotted owls reside on, the will of the people to protect those owls isn't going to just magically disappear. They will continue to have just as much interest in keeping those spotted owls safe. Now, how can they enforce that forest owner's respect for those spotted owls is another issue, and I think there are way better methods of doing this than regulations no one is personally responsible for enforcing.

Aaaaactually, this is exactly what pro-government pro-environmentalists suggest when they say "we need more, better, and stronger regulations." Since you apparently missed it, my entire point with the original post was to explain that such a proposed solution to the problem of companies exploiting and polluting nature is misguided at best. Why? Because incentives are wrong (guaranteed personal paycheck v/s personal responsibility and performance-based profits), and because, regulation being an added cost that companies MUST cover, it will always be more profitable for a company to hire those creme de la creme candidates away from the regulatory offices and have them write the regulations (or navigate around them) than to submit to regulations, no matter how much you pay those regulators (up to the point where paying the regulators costs so much that it's cheaper to just fix the land).



Who are those "people who write regulations?" Whom do they work for? I claim they work for the companies being regulated, based on the various news of such "scandals" throughout the years. The other option is, at the least, they would be experts in the field. Experts in a field typically do not go to work for government. They go to work in the field they are experts in. So, either those regulations are very well written, but are written by people working for the companies being regulated (the lawyers I mentioned), or they are written by non-experts, and are likely very sloppy and inadequate regulations.



On the grounds that they either A) are there only to serve the company that wrote them helping it hold monopoly power (Bitcoin is a shining spotlight on this problem, with the banking industry requiring insane amounts of paperwork and money to enter, meaning all the big banks are safe from small competitors) or B) make "legal" what would otherwise be criminal neglegence or damage to the environment. You can spill tons of oil in the gulf, then try to clean it up with possibly even more toxic chemicals, but hey, it was all within regulations, so you didn't break any laws, despite the gulf being all kinds of fucked up. Without regulations saying that what was done was ok, because all the regulations were followed, we'd be able to go after the oil spillers for the actual damages they have done. Likewise for strip mining. If there are regulations for proper methods of strip mining, then strip mining is "legal" regardless of the amount of damage and pollution to the surrounding areas it does. The company doing the strip mining can just show that they followed regulations, and get away with it, claiming that any damage was due to inadequate regulations, not due to their actions. I'm not pulling this out of my ass btw. This has happened again and again and again. Considering I'm an environmentalist myself, I keep tabs of such things.


You totally missed it. Your reasoning, this car is being steered by a blind person and bumps into stuff once in a while. So you're just going to add more padding to the car, until it becomes nearly impossible to steer, or just replace the first blind person with the second blind person, when the first one gets hauled off for killing someone. My reasoning is I'm going to take out that blind person, and stick you in that car. Hopefully you wouldn't want to get banged up by bumping into things, and won't want to get hauled off for running someone over.

Um, can you provide some context/explain how this is relevant?

Monopole magnets exist (the discovery was presented at the Global MAGLEV Conference in 2000 in Lausanne, Switzerland), but they are only possible in superconducting type environments, needing a ton of energy input. Regardless, you wouldn't be able to get a piece of wire to spin with a monopole magnet, since that wire would just be attracted to such a magnet the same way it would be attracted to one of the poles of any normal magnet.
What's happening in the video is the nails are hooked up to a battery hidden in the wooden block, and the ends of the wire insulation are scraped off on one side, so the wire coil becomes a magnet when the scraped side is down, and stops being a magnet when the scraped side is up. Once you get the coil spinning, it periodically turns into a magnet, pulling one end of it (actually just orienting itself) towards the magnet, then it turns off, using inertia to continue spinning until it turns on again, pulling itself once more. A fairly basic motor.

Fine, I guess I was wrong.



Yes, because your "Oh woes me! We need the regulations to protect out lands and waters and such, because the evil mean corporations will totally destroy them if we don't!" line is a very common misconception about that thing you love to talk about, that being "how things work in the real world." You very obviously and blatantly stated the exact same BS claim that many other pro-regulation pro-environment types state, and I posted, for your benefit, as well as anyone else's who might hold your view (of which, as I mentioned, is many) that in the "real world" government employees are low-paid, low-skilled types who often don't understand what they are regulating (if they did, they'd be working for the company they are trying to regulate), in the "real world" regulations are written by the experts, which happen to be the lawyers working for the companies the regulation is written for, in the "real world" regulatory laws are passed by senators influenced by lobbyists working for the company to be regulated, not by the voting representatives of those senators, and in the "real world" regulations often don't do anything other than help establish the large companies as monopolies, or make the crimes against nature perpetrated by those companies technically "legal."
When was the last time someone(s) at the head of a mining, oil, or hell, even banking industry went to jail, or even had to pay a fine?

If you are paying your landlord for the pool and the doorman, then you get access to the services or use of that pool and doorman.


If you are paying for remote access to the server, you get remote access to the server. If you are paying for physical access to the server, you get physical access to the server. Access, as in you are able to use or get benefit for the things you paid for, which you paid for specifically in order to get that use or benefit.


I don't know what PMBs are. No, I don't want physical access to an army base or a sub. I would like to get the services that they provide in exchange for me paying for them. And I would like the option of not buying their services if I don't need or want them, too.

Access to services. Like  пользоваться. Learn to english.


You're forced to pay for them? So now you don't want to be forced to pay for them either? I mean, if you were ok with it, you wouldn't be being forced, you'd be paying voluntarily...



This country is unjust. Most other countries are like this one. I live here too. So it's much easier for you to move elsewhere that's the same as this country, like Europe, Canada, Brazil, or Australia, and for me to try to change things here, than for me to move to a place that doesn't exist yet. So. i.e. you gtfo.


Remember the robbery/rape/murder thing? Should I explain that again?


Are you asking me how you can buy a replacement LCD panel? Wait, do you seriously think that's not possible?
And, again, when you are forced to buy the whole monitor, even if all you need is the LCD pannel, you are still getting the whole damn monitor. Let me state this in big letters so you don't have to squint and misread my statements:

YOU ARE EXCHANGING SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR EQUAL VALUE

Does this makes sense? Now, when it comes to taxation, you are exchanging your value for something of LESSER value, because a lot of the value you are giving up goes to someone else. Or, in other words,

YOU ARE EXCHANGING (by force) SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR LESSER OR NO VALUE

Come back to me when you grasp the difference.


That was a defensive war, and one where murderers, those who agressed first, were punished. If someone is murdering someone else, it's not murder to kill them in defense. Honestly, I would me much more for small precise tactical teams that come in and only take out the people at the top responsible for the crimes. But we didn't have the means or the technology to do that back then.


So, let's ignore the "why" and focus on the "what" instead. You break a law. It may be a public law, it may be a secret law, it may be just not paying taxes. Next step, people come after you. You don't think you broke any laws, so you don't let yourself get arrested. Next step, people with guns come after you. You get shot. You die.
So, to repeat:
You don't pay taxes -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot.
You smoke weed -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot.
You drive while black - you don't get arrested - you get shot.
You hide some jews in the attic -> you don't get arrested -> you get shot (just to point out that laws aren't always just).

It sounds as if all the laws give you only two options: get arrested, or get shot. And if you don't think you broke the law, or want to resolve the situation peacefully in court without having to wait in jail, or just think that the laws and the goons coming after you with guns or tazers are unjust, you get shot.

No, you're right, it's not silly.


Yay! Another explanation of how things work iRL, without actually answering my question! Let me restate it. Please try to focus this time: Where does the government get the right to claim ownership of its property?

Maybe eventually I'll even get to ask you things like "what do we do about these issues, how do we fix them, and what do we do to improve the crappy state of affairs in this country?" But I don't think we're anywhere near that. Especially since I'm pretty sure your answer will be, "Our government consists of the Executive branch, the Legislative, branch, and Judicial branch, and all representatives in the Executive and Legislative and picked by a majority of voters, with all laws being enacted by the Legislative and approved by the Executive"   which, you know, will tell me absolutely nothing new.

From what I understood, Anon136's main issue isn't with land ownership, it's with public land ownership, i.e. government. And although he said it would get messy, I am pretty sure he also said that we already have ways of dealing with that mess, leaving it to experts, and NOT that we shouldn't bother changing things, because they will get messy. I may be wrong, but that's what I got from reading his replies.
And, I guess the root of the problem here then isn't laws or regulation, but public vs private ownership.



Responsibility to shareholders or private owners to make a profit. You will make much more in profits if you maintain the resale value, and resell the land, recouping your initial costs, than you will if you just screw it up and abandon it. Same thing applies to most machinery and property companies invest in when they start up or expand their operations. That's, like, business 101 (depreciation and resale value). Land is a very scarce resource, and people would be willing to pay a lot for it. Land that is not owned, or publicly owned, again, is the problem here, and not lack of regulations.


FYI, though this was a reply to you, it's just general info for everyone else's use as well. So, not everything in my replies is about you.

Your family are socialist democrats? I find that surprising, as every family I know that came from USSR, including my parents, are republicans, constantly complaining about taxes, socialism, and excessive government regulation.

Meh, too easy. You are forced to pay for the apartment things, and safe packaging of your belt, and as a result you get access and use to all the apartment things, and get a belt safely delivered. With government, you are forced to pay for things, A LOT of things, but don't get access to them. Do you get subsidies for your apartment? Do you get a free cellphone? Do you get access to people's private data like the NSA? Do you even use libraries and schools? No? Then it's not the same. Point is, you are choosing to pay for things, because you like them, and you are getting the things you paid for. With government, you are forced to pay for things, whether you like/need them or not, and most of the things you paid for you never even get. It's no more complicated than that.


Is your premise that USA government owns all the property in the entire country, and thus has the right to charge maintenance fees on everything and everyone? If yes, why do we bother to buy property from each other, since we don't actually own any of it? If no, then what?

Regarding your reasons, I guess the follow-up question is, why are you so hostile to even suggestions for better ways? You said "unless a better way is found," yet you attack any and all attempts at trying to find a better way with extreme child-like hostility. Protip: No one is advocating destroying foundations. Based on your protests, like "But how will we have laws and security and blah blah blah without government," it sounds as if you keep assuming that they will be. No one is advocating that, and everyone, including me, keeps pointing out that we already have established bodies of law, structures, and companies to support all those things, and more such supports are being developed every day. The most that will happen is that government will fade out due to simply being irrelevant. Why bother with banking regulations when you have Bitcoin that does the same thing? Why bother with manufacturing regulations when you can have thousands of "hackers" debug and improve your 3D printed devices like they do with Linux? Why bother with things like police, social security, and fire protection, when you can have private security, insurance, and private fir protection and fire suppression systems, all of which work based on the exact same community-supported standards and beliefs as they do now?


Everything I do, the government claims to own a piece of. If I create and sell something, they want a portion of my labor. In my eyes, them claiming ownership of my time and labor is pretty much analogous to them claiming ownership of me.



But I am forced into something. It's colloquially called the "social contract." All my labor and time is partially owned by the government. Even if I move to Somalia, if I don't renounce my citizenship (and consequently place myself on this country's shitlist), I can still be taxed for my time and labor even while living there. Again, the question isn't really how are things working now, it's where do they get this power from?



I am a very logical person. Almost to a fault. You don't have to try to argue or reason with me based on feelings or emotions. All you have to do to convince me is to explain to me why one group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return is theft, while another group of people taking your stuff against your will while giving you nothing in return in taxation. (I'm separating taxes for services I use, like roads, from taxes for things others use and I never will).

Regarding war, people will spend money to fight wars they believe need to be fought. I would have been in full support for spending money to go fight Hitler, and likely would have bought war bonds. The problem is that we don't really have those kinds of wars very often. I was for the Afghanistan war, but not the extended protracted one it became. I was completely and adamantly against the $1.5 trillion dollar Iraq war (though now I think it may be the straw that will have completely broken the government's budget back, and may be the catalyst for it's demise). Yet governments can wage such wars because they force people to pay for them, even if those people don't want those wars. That's a problem.
As for rape, the whole thing was just an answer to you as to why I would still be against government even if I moved to Somalia. I would protest injustice even if it doesn't affect me, as I hope you would protest it even if you weren't the victim.





Ok, follow-up question: What's to stop an entity called government from passing laws against walking on sidewalks, or on your front lawn, or in your house, if the goal was to arrest you? It just seems a bit arbitrary that they would make a rule, but only punish you for resisting arrest after breaking that rule. I mean, hell, you could claim that all major criminals who were in police shootouts weren't punished for their heinous crimes, but were punished because they refused to be arrested, which would make refusal to be arrested the biggest crime in US, punishable by death. And that's just a tad silly.


Which brings us back to the original question: Where does the government get the right to claim ownership of its property? For your landlord, the answer is obvious: he bought and/or built the property you are renting from. The government didn't buy or build it, it just staked a claim to it, like we did centuries ago. Is that the system we should continue to operate under?

Your government and misinformed environmentalist brainwashing is showing.

Logging companies - The biggest logging company on this side of the planet is in Chille. It has been logging the same land for decades, and understands that if it just cut down all the trees and that's it, it would be out of business in no time. So, it tends the land, making sure to cut in ways that keeps the ground fertile, continuously replants new trees, and even created a species of fir that can grow to adult stage within 8 to 10 years, meaning they can replenish the forest in less then a decade. As new technologies in logging and genetic engineering are developed, they hope to cut that by even more years.

Mining companies - Mining companies strip-mine because they don't own the land. They lease it from the government, strip-mine it, and wash their hands of it, since once they're done, it's no longer their problem. If mining companies were instead required to buy the land, for the full price that it's worth, first, that would immediately cut out any mining company that doesn't know what it's doing, and second, it would impose an enormous cost on the company, one that it will be required to account for and restore. Companies are in it for the profits, and it's more profitable to either be more careful with the land, or to restore it once you're done with it, so you can resell it and recoup your costs. The actual real problem with strip-mining isn't a lack of regulations, it's a lack of company's responsibility/ownership, and the fact that mining regulations are written by the experts working for those mining companies (i.e. they are writing their own regulations).

Developers - Developers would only develop if there are people willing to go and use the areas they develop. If you are worried about sprawl & crawl, look at the issues with subsidized oil, roads, and housing that make it cheaper and more convenient to continue to sprawl out into the wilderness, than to live in tightly packed cities as people do in places without those things. Look at Canada, where gas is expensive, downpayments are required, and mortgage interest isn't deductible. LOTS of open wilderness, yet most people live in tightly packed cities.

Hunters - There are private game reserves. If a huge chunk of land happens to be well suited for supporting wild life, the owner would very likely keep it as such, and just charge for the  privilege of hunting. Since that will be his source of income, he would also make sure that the game isn't all hunted out, and will help the animals survive, by making sure the place is kept clean and safe for the animals (minus the threat of hunters).

Farming - Again, the issue is huge subsidies. It's not profitable to farm. Anyone can start doing it, and can undercut everyone else. Farming is exactly like Bitcoin mining in that way (at least during the GPU era). As a farmer, you have little choice as to how much it costs to grow your food. So, the price of your food has to be at least as much as it cost you to grow it. If not enough people want to pay that price, you go broke. If someone else enters the market, and no one wants to pay their food prices either, they go broke. So farmers won't enter the market. The problem we have now is the huge government subsidies. For example, it currently costs more to grow corn than farmers actually sell it for, but they are sustained by those subsidies. As a result, we have WAY WAY WAY more farming than people would actually want to pay for, if they had a choice in whether to pay for it. But as it stands now, we are all forced to "buy" corn, whether we actually buy it at the store or not.

Believe it or not, a lot of this is actually covered in MBA Finance/Economics classes.

What has been really bothering me is that a lot of those who came from there (including my parents) automatically see anything socialist as wrong, and anything opposite as right, so, in their case, they don't like Democrats, and automatically assume that Republicans are good, no matter what. That wasn't really a problem until Bush came into power, and my parents and their soviet friends basically started to wholeheartedly support all the same fascist borderline-totalitarian BS that Soviet Union was known for. Now they're all slamming Edward Snowden as being a traitor to their new "motherland," are are all super-paranoid about those muslims coming to steal our freedoms, and are supporting near totalitarian expansions of powers and military as a result. I swear, it's as if they don't care about what the government does, as long as it doesn't use the words they don't like 

He sold me the deed for his property in exchange for something of my own. Why didn't he have absolute dominion over his property? A better question, why does some other entity calling itself government claim to have absolute dominion over that property? What gave government that right? It sounds like the right of a king or some other thing we have long decided was illegitimate and immoral.
(P.S. I can supply my own standing armies, or defense/protection systems, if needed).


It's not below, just different. You believe that maintaining land in pristine condition is in the interest of the regulator. I believe maintaining the land in pristine condition is in the interest of the landowner. The regulator's incentive is his paycheck, which doesn't really change much based on how well he regulates, and is only threatened if he does a really bad job. The land owner's incentive is the loss of value of his own property. The owner wants to keep the value up, either because he lives on that land, or wants to sell it later. I believe I mentioned that, as crumbs would say "in the real world," the reason we have so many issues with resource extraction companies ruining the land they mine is because they only get leases for that land, not ownership. So, they can do whatever they want with the land, as long as they stay within the regulations that their own lawyers wrote up and their own lobbyists pushed through congress, and when they are done screwing the place up, they just give it back to the government, and task it with cleaning up their mess. If governments actually sold those companies that land, and even charged them property taxes, then it would be in the company's best interest to either maintain the land, or to clean it up, so that they can resell it, recoup their initial costs, and get rid of the property tax burden. It all really comes down to incentives.



How were they there before, if most of them haven't even been there more than 40 years ago? It's just a group of people forming an organization, and the organization, run and owned by that group of people, is claiming dominion. So all I have to do to claim dominion over your property is just to get hired by that group. No hard work, toil, time, and savings necessary. Doesn't seem very right. As for revolutions, wars cost money. I am really hoping that bitcoin will deprive those organizations that wage war of money needed to sustain them.


So, a group of people, calling themselves government, can arbitrarily claim dominion over things as long as they feel it's worth controlling? So, if I were to create a really awesome and fancy Barbie doll that was really valued, some arbitrary random individuals can just step in and say, "Uh, this is a worthwhile resource. We know we didn't have anything to do with creating it, and haven't had any ownership of it before, but now we do, just because we say so." Why is that even remotely a good thing?


*sigh* You are conflating "I get charged for something, and then that money gets spent on whatever,"  with "I get charged for something, and then also get charged for a lot of other somethings, while only getting the first thing I was charged for." A landlord is forcing you to pay for the property you reside on. Nothing more. What that landlord does with that money afterwards is their business. Your rent bill is "Property Rental + Building Maintenance + Utilities." It's not "Property Rental + Building Maintenance + Utilities + Miss Frederick's Health Bills + Hired guns for that personal war I'm having with a gang in another town + My mom's retirement account + Pool for the folks across town + Extra rent for that poor person who would otherwise be homeless." If your bill included that, it'd be ridiculously high, and no one would pay it, because there would be plenty of other landlords who would only charge for rental, maintenance, and utilities, and nothing more. So, to reiterate, I am not saying that when you are, buying an apple, you are also paying for the apple seller's whatever-the-hell-he-wants-to-spend-that-money-on. I am saying that, if the apple seller was a government, he would charge you for the apple, and then ON TOP OF THAT charge you for a ton of other crap that has nothing to do with the apple, and then give you some of those other things you bought, while giving the rest of the things you bought (besides the apple) to some other people. Or, more precisely, he would FORCE you to buy that apple, charging you for a whole shitton of other things on top of the apple, while only giving you the apple. Put another way, it's like you spending the night at a hotel, and then getting a bill for your room,  and on top of that, a bill for some other random people's porno rental and mini fridge use, which I assume you would have objections to. Does this explain it any better?



I'm fine with land use and FAA regulations, where everything above 6 feet (~2 meters) below the surface, and all airspace below 1000 feet, is my property (to start with, anyway). Yes, I'm fine with government existing. I'm just not fine with it intruding on my property. Just as, if an Anarcho-Capitalist "state" was formed somewhere, it's residents would be fine with governments existing and doing their thing around the rest of the world, just as long as it doesn't intrude on their land.


I'm not looking to buy roads, so that's irrelevant. As for the rest, I'd call it observation. If I do surveys, mapping, and defense on my land too, then do we jointly own it? What if a bunch of other people come in and start doing surveys and mapping? Will they become owners too? Doesn't Google own the entire world then? Why doesn't Google charge property taxes for it's worldwide surveying and mapping?


See my hotel sticking you with a bill that includes other people's expenses example. In the case of a landlord, it would be unethical if you had a rental contract with him, saying that you will rent from him for 12 months at $1,000 per month, and he comes in and tries to get more than that from you for luxuries. If he asks, you can just say no. If he threatens to kick you out, that would technically be extortion and breach of contract. Those two things don't need government to be considered unethical.

I think Proudhon may be getting a bit outdated, in the same way that some really really old dude's rants against kings and monarchs isn't really relevant to our present economic situation. Sure, there are still a lot of old capitalists who own their vast wealth thanks to force, that there are more and more new capitalists that earned it through just capitalism. Examples of such capitalist ventures that are the new super-wealthy that didn't use force are Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and even Microsoft and WalMart. All their wealth came from innovation, and people wanting to give them money in exchange for their products.

By the way, Chomsky's anarchists don't sound all that different from anarcho-capitalists. It all only depends on whether those organic units/communities would freely give up all their belongings freely to any passerby who asks for them, or whether they should protect them and give them up to other communities in trade.

The wiring and rods will make the electromagnet rail. The permanent neodymium N52 (EXTREMELY powerful) magnets will attract to the wave traveling down those rods, one on each side with the electromagnetic flux going between them. I'm not going to let them shoot out, though, since the 4 of them were about $200. This is just for a demo to sell to some companies. Theoretically, though, I should be able to send them through a wall easily enough.


I thought you were. But then, I deal with those nuts often enough in my real life, so...

What happened with Bitcoin-24? Did Simon Hausdorf go to jail because a bank closed his account???

Incidentally, I ordered four N52 12cm x 2cm x 1.5cm magnets, which should be arriving shortly, and have all the wiring and rods needed for my 2 meter long rail gun. Just need to put it together. Should be fun! 

Because I negotiated for its trade, gave up something of mine that I have spent a lot of time and labor on, and was the one who purchased it? Because, as long as whatever I'm doing on it doesn't affect my neighbors, it's none of my neighbors' business regarding what I do with it? Because I am actually involved with purchasing, and later maintaining that land? A better question is, why do you believe people who come together and call themselves "government" should have absolute dominion over my land, even when they have nothing to do with it? Why does the Queen of England have absolute dominion over a large chunk of land on the other side of the planet, just because a sailor stuck a flag on its beach? Why can I claim absolute dominion over your land just by being hired to work for the government?



I gave up something of value in exchange for something else of value. Why does it matter if that something of value is land or a doll? Why doesn't government claim absolute dominion over Barbie dolls, and charge property tax on those? You'll have to explain to me why land property is different from doll property.


The entity that owns what's inside the walls actually built what was inside the walls. They spent their own time and labor on it. At the same time, they don't own and have no right to control what's actually between those walls. There are some basic rules against doing things that will damage those walls and what's inside, but just because the inside of the walls belong to someone else, doesn't mean that someone else can dictate to me what I do with my money, my body, and the stuff residing inside my apartment. It's that thing I mentioned where your landlord can't force you to pay for someone else's health insurance or pool, remember?
So, with land ownership, I'm fine with government claiming what's above my land, below my land, and around my land, just like your inside of walls example, but they shouldn't be able to claim ownership of the land itself or what's on it. Even their claim of land ownership is specious, since they didn't actually do anything to build our create it. Even more so, they shouldn't be able to claim ownership to my body and to my time, labor, and money, as they do with restrictions on what I can do on my own property, how I spend my money, and taxation.

I know they do, and I know they are able to get away with it. My point is that they shouldn't. Partly because it's not ethical, not any more than the earlier bully and jungle gym example, and partially because such power apparently always leads to extreme corruption without a possible fix.