Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.
This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this... Again, how? He will have nukes. If someone disagrees with him about something, his best move is to nuke them before they realise he is angry. What company in their right mind would sell him, just a random stranger, nukes, at the expense of liability to millions of people, or risk of having their own facilities blown up? And why would he spend hundrens of millions on a nuke for the purpose of just hiking wherever he wants? Why not just spend those millions to buy the land to hike on outright? Who exactly does the company sell to? Security firms? Or maybe the company owner decides that he wants to be the top dog? What now? |
|
|
|
I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy?
A private notary, who relies upon his reputation in order to get business. Are you implying that a state is necessary in order to validate contracts? Why must I acknowledge the validity of this private notary? Because private courts and private security forces with guns likely will. What gives them the right to harass me, threaten me, kidnap me, or kill me? The fact that the rest of society will consider you a douche for willfully infringing on someone else's property, and will support the desicions of that court and security company. Why? We all use different courts. The whole notion of a court means that they deal with cases in which one party loses and one wins. Seems like for every court out there, half the people will not be in support of that court. |
|
|
|
Maybe I don't believe in private land ownership. You can't force me to acknowledge it, everything had to be voluntary.
This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this... Sorry, but my private notary firm shows the land to be mine. My security force backs me up on it. |
|
|
|
I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy?
A private notary, who relies upon his reputation in order to get business. Are you implying that a state is necessary in order to validate contracts? Why must I acknowledge the validity of this private notary? Because private courts and private security forces with guns likely will. What gives them the right to harass me, threaten me, kidnap me, or kill me? |
|
|
|
I've heard the name, but not read anything from him. Perhaps it's time to do so. Yes. He's written a few books, some essays, and there are some videos of him where he discusses the finite resources of the Earth, and how economic theory must factor in those things to actually be meaningful. |
|
|
|
I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy?
A private notary, who relies upon his reputation in order to get business. Are you implying that a state is necessary in order to validate contracts? Why must I acknowledge the validity of this private notary? |
|
|
|
Why would you be near that parcel of land and need to cross it in the first place?
What business is it of yours? Maybe I like hiking. Maybe the roads in the area suck, because some private business decided it wasn't cost effective to build a road. Maybe I'm engaging in scientific study. So, are you saying that under current government system you can hike or do scientific studies on private fenced in land without asking owner's permission first? No, because in our current system, the individual owns the property. But in liberland, it's not clear to me that you actually own the land in question. |
|
|
|
So when I walk from A to B, and it happens to be across land you claim is your own, and you come out yelling and screaming, waving a shotgun around, what am I supposed to do? It seems that you would be threatening me. Why am I supposed to believe it's your land? By what authority is it your land? Maybe I contend it's just land that belongs to nobody.
So then, on your 1,000 acres, you're going to put up fences and fragment the ecosystem for the sole purpose of indicating that you own it, it's going to be ugly, and it's going to cost you money. Or, you're going to grade it all and "improve" it, to identify it as occupied, but that's costly and destructive. Or, you're not, and I'm going to go build a house on the backside of the land you claim you own, because, well, it looks unoccupied. Do you have some means of legally indicating that you those 1,000 acres? In a hypothetical libertarian society, if you fence 1,000 acres of unowned land, you have to pay to have it defended from those who consider fencing to be not a sufficient requirement for property ownership. In society with a government, if you fence 1,000 acres of unowned land, you have to pay your property taxes, and the state police force (also paid by those who consider fencing to be not a sufficient requirement for property ownership) will defend it for you. I'm assuming that perhaps you paid for the land and have some type of deed. Who acknowledges the deed's legitimacy? |
|
|
|
So when I walk from A to B, and it happens to be across land you claim is your own, and you come out yelling and screaming, waving a shotgun around, what am I supposed to do? It seems that you would be threatening me. Why am I supposed to believe it's your land? By what authority is it your land? Maybe I contend it's just land that belongs to nobody.
So then, on your 1,000 acres, you're going to put up fences and fragment the ecosystem for the sole purpose of indicating that you own it, it's going to be ugly, and it's going to cost you money. Or, you're going to grade it all and "improve" it, to identify it as occupied, but that's costly and destructive. Or, you're not, and I'm going to go build a house on the backside of the land you claim you own, because, well, it looks unoccupied. Do you have some means of legally indicating that you those 1,000 acres? Why would you be near that parcel of land and need to cross it in the first place? What business is it of yours? Maybe I like hiking. Maybe the roads in the area suck, because some private business decided it wasn't cost effective to build a road. Maybe I'm engaging in scientific study. |
|
|
|
When will someone man up and answer my question?
The name of this forum is 'Politics and Society'. It stands to reason that we need not restrict our discussion to these silly hypotheticals. You or I should start a thread to discuss some specific real issue and how to address it. No doubt, our friends will join in, but nonetheless, the premise of the thread will be more meaningful. |
|
|
|
So when I walk from A to B, and it happens to be across land you claim is your own, and you come out yelling and screaming, waving a shotgun around, what am I supposed to do? It seems that you would be threatening me. Why am I supposed to believe it's your land? By what authority is it your land? Maybe I contend it's just land that belongs to nobody.
So then, on your 1,000 acres, you're going to put up fences and fragment the ecosystem for the sole purpose of indicating that you own it, it's going to be ugly, and it's going to cost you money. Or, you're going to grade it all and "improve" it, to identify it as occupied, but that's costly and destructive. Or, you're not, and I'm going to go build a house on the backside of the land you claim you own, because, well, it looks unoccupied. Do you have some means of legally indicating that you those 1,000 acres? |
|
|
|
But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?
When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time? So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land! You were. Thanks for avoiding the point. Your point has no basis unless you are admitting that Somalia is like lib-land. Either it is, and we'll have to admit that nobody is detonating nukes (yet). In that case - point in your favor about the nukes (as of now), but point lost in the sense that lib-land isn't so great. If Somalia is not like lib-land, then your point about nukes is irrelevant with regard to lib-land. |
|
|
|
These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so?
And what if I don't agree with those rules? Will I be forced by violence to abide by them?
Nobody is going to force you to agree with any rules. Nobody will force you via violence to abide by them. If on the other hand, you initiate violence against another person with no provocation, I'm certainly not going to feel very sorry for you if you get your head handed to you on a platter. So when I walk from A to B, and it happens to be across land you claim is your own, and you come out yelling and screaming, waving a shotgun around, what am I supposed to do? It seems that you would be threatening me. Why am I supposed to believe it's your land? By what authority is it your land? Maybe I contend it's just land that belongs to nobody. |
|
|
|
What's better? A system where your needs may or may not be met, where there may be somebody holding a gun to your head, or a system where your needs may or may not be met, where there is always somebody holding a gun to your head?
Nobody has ever held a gun to my head. |
|
|
|
But it does handle those issues just fine. When is the last time the IRA lit off a nuke?
When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security guards, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time? So you're likening Somalia to your lib-land? That's interesting. Gosh, now I want to go live in lib-land! |
|
|
|
Jews have been killed and nukes have been used on people. Your point?
Nukes have only been used in an anarchic libertarian context - one member using a nuke against another member within an anarchic libertarian framework. Interpret the result how you wish. The various court systems and privates security firms may not have resolved the matter to your liking. |
|
|
|
|
So, when you own land in California, is it really your land like, say, a sofa is? I know that I can remove a cushion from my sofa. But can a landowner remove any oak tree from their parcel of land anywhere in California? If not, why not?
Hmm. Something is going on here. Maybe owning a parcel of land in California is not like owning a sofa.
|
|
|
|
My liberty framework is very easy to describe and justify. In fact, the entire basis of Libertarianism is to not aggress ever, to only use self defense when there are no other options, and to do as you've agreed to.
These sound like laws. Are they uniformly applied to all citizens? Who enforces them? Let's say you and I are neighbors. Must we both abide by that set of laws? If so, who says so? |
|
|
|
Do not change my words in a quote. It only undermines your credibility.
I thought it was quite obvious (I emphasized my changes and linked to your original post) that those were not your words, but what it sounded like to me. Most people bold face another's words to indicate the precise wording they used. |
|
|
|
If you'd stop propping up your fantasy ideal of what slavery-free land would look like, and choose to engage and debate us about the real world and the real issues it faces, you'd find that all of your opponents here in this thread actually are very dissatisfied with how a great many issues are handled by slave owners. We'll happily debate you at an adult level about different specific issues, and how they might be addressed within the context of the slavery.
That's what I hear from you. Do not change my words when you quote me. It only undermines your credibility. You may bold face words that I have actually said if you wish to draw attention to them. NOTE to everyone else: Bitter Tea is changing words written by me (the bold faced ones). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
