What do you believe is moral?

[crumbs]

...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

You're starting with a faulty premise. 
The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park.  He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day." 
If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro.  And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town.  Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that.

ok ill accept that. lets revise the premise and replace the word gun with tazer.

In that case the drama's all gone.  Too petty for the media to even pick it up.  Just another vagrant booted from a state park.  And even that you had to work at -- remember, at first you were politely asked to leave.  *Not* newsworthy.  No different from a bum who refused to move his cardboard box.

In short, takes too long, too boring, you're seen as a vagrant who resorted to violence when confronted by Ordinary Joe park rangers.  

[FirstAscent]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing.

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

Well, the way you put it, I see you're the last person on earth I want to go do what you said you'd do, precisely because of your ignorance regarding the effects of what you propose. And there's a lot of people like you. The fact of the matter is, you may have read the post I linked to, but you didn't understand it.

One of the most blatant offenses you mentioned is planting four new trees for every one you harvest. The bottom line, the regulations are to protect resources from people who don't have a deep understanding of their actions, yet believe they do.

And yes, the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass in such a way that is not acceptable, then yeah, you can be forcibly removed.

Tell me this, if I go onto your land and disrupt it and do things on it that you don't want me doing, do you condone forceful actions to remove me?

[Anon136]

...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

You're starting with a faulty premise. 
The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park.  He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day." 
If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro.  And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town.  Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that.

ok ill accept that. lets revise the premise and replace the word gun with tazer.

In that case the drama's all gone.  Too petty for the media to even pick it up.  Just another vagrant booted from a state park.  And even that you had to work at -- remember, at first you were politely asked to leave.  *Not* newsworthy.  No different from a bum who refused to move his cardboard box.

In short, takes too long, too boring, you're seen as a vagrant who resorted to violence when confronted by Ordinary Joe park rangers.  

Some of us disagree that the drama is all gone at this point. some of us think that it is very bad for people to attack people who are causing no harm with electrocution devises and then lock them away in a homosexual rape dungeon. some of us feel that this is very dramatic, some of us feel that this behavior would be morally reprehensible. I would like for more people to feel this way.

[Anon136]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing.

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass

If I trespass on my land? you do understand the concept of a paradox dont you?

[FirstAscent]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing.

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass

If I trespass on my land? you do understand the concept of a paradox dont you?

We both own the land, and we have regulations regarding it.

Do you understand why your actions are undesirable for the rest of us? Do you understand the whole 'tree' thing, and how replanting is not a substitute? Do you understand how if you can do it, then everyone else can, and what is then left is a reduction in ecosystem services? Do you understand the ecological ramifications, among others?

You have demonstrated that you do not. You can reverse that situation, though.

[crumbs]

...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

You're starting with a faulty premise.  
The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park.  He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day."  
If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro.  And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town.  Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that.

ok ill accept that. lets revise the premise and replace the word gun with tazer.

In that case the drama's all gone.  Too petty for the media to even pick it up.  Just another vagrant booted from a state park.  And even that you had to work at -- remember, at first you were politely asked to leave.  *Not* newsworthy.  No different from a bum who refused to move his cardboard box.

In short, takes too long, too boring, you're seen as a vagrant who resorted to violence when confronted by Ordinary Joe park rangers.  

Some of us disagree that the drama is all gone at this point. some of us think that it is very bad for people to attack people who are causing no harm with electrocution devises and then lock them away in a homosexual rape dungeon. some of us feel that this is very dramatic, some of us feel that this behavior would be morally reprehensible. I would like for more people to feel this way.

But you're missing my point.  No one will attack you unless you willfully instigate it.  Please understand that.  No one will taze you for camping in a park, or even for trying to build a cabin there.  You will simply be asked to stop.  Force will be used if you fail to comply, doing it in a way which prevents the statist thug from performing his duties, or putting him in danger.  
I'm not nitpicking, there's a night & day difference:

You jaywalk, and a cop tries to stop you.  You feel that jaywalking is your god-given right, which you proceed to defend by sticking out the middle finger of your left hand, while  puling out a Glock with your right & leveling it at the cop.  The cop beats you to the draw & drops you.

Please understand that you weren't shot for jaywalking, you were shot for resisting arrest & pulling a gun.  Would you try to argue that it was your jaywalking that led up to you getting shot?  Sure, it set the chain of events in motion *but it's what you chose to do then (you could have chosen differently)* that resulted in a shooting.  

[Anon136]

...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

You're starting with a faulty premise.  
The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park.  He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day."  
If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro.  And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town.  Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that.

ok ill accept that. lets revise the premise and replace the word gun with tazer.

In that case the drama's all gone.  Too petty for the media to even pick it up.  Just another vagrant booted from a state park.  And even that you had to work at -- remember, at first you were politely asked to leave.  *Not* newsworthy.  No different from a bum who refused to move his cardboard box.

In short, takes too long, too boring, you're seen as a vagrant who resorted to violence when confronted by Ordinary Joe park rangers.  

Some of us disagree that the drama is all gone at this point. some of us think that it is very bad for people to attack people who are causing no harm with electrocution devises and then lock them away in a homosexual rape dungeon. some of us feel that this is very dramatic, some of us feel that this behavior would be morally reprehensible. I would like for more people to feel this way.

But you're missing my point.  No one will attack you unless you willfully instigate it.  Please understand that.  No one will taze you for camping in a park, or even for trying to build a cabin there.  You will simply be asked to stop.  Force will be used if you fail to comply, doing it in a way which prevents the statist thug from performing his duties, or putting him in danger.  
I'm not nitpicking, there's a night & day difference:

You jaywalk, and a cop tries to stop you.  You feel that jaywalking is your god-given right, which you proceed to defend by sticking out the middle finger of your left hand, while  puling out a Glock from your vest pocket with your right & leveling it at the cop.  The cop beats you to the draw & drops you.  Please understand that you weren't shot for jaywalking, you were shot for resisting arrest & pulling a gun.  Would you try to argue that it was your jaywalking that led up to you getting shot?  Sure, it set the chain of events in motion *but it's what you chose to do then (you could have chosen differently)* that resulted in a shooting.  

Imagine there is a big tough kid on the playground. I attempt to play on the jungle jim. He says "oi this is my jungle jim i was here first". I say "but its big enough for both of us". He says "no it isn't". I say "well im going to play on it anyway". He says "ok but if you do I'm going to hurt you". I play on it anyway. He hurts me. Now you chime in and say "You instigated the fight by trying to play on the jungle gym when he specifically told you not to".

you see whats wrong with this right? the one thing that could make the bully not the instigator of the fight is if he is the rightful owner of the jungle gym. is the state the rightful owner of land that is so remote that it has never even been seen by human eyes?

[FirstAscent]

...so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

You're starting with a faulty premise.  
The statist thug you're likely to encounter first would be an unarmed forest ranger, who'll tell you that building of log cabins is not allowed, because it shits up the park.  He'll most likely simply ask you to "GTFO by the same time, next day."  
If you choose to disobey & escalate this Yogi Bear encounter, a slightly more serious looking crew will show up the next day, and, if you resist, might tase you, bro.  And then zip-lock you and give you a ride into town.  Guns won't enter the picture unless you convincingly try to use a weapon first -- no one's got time for all that.

ok ill accept that. lets revise the premise and replace the word gun with tazer.

In that case the drama's all gone.  Too petty for the media to even pick it up.  Just another vagrant booted from a state park.  And even that you had to work at -- remember, at first you were politely asked to leave.  *Not* newsworthy.  No different from a bum who refused to move his cardboard box.

In short, takes too long, too boring, you're seen as a vagrant who resorted to violence when confronted by Ordinary Joe park rangers.  

Some of us disagree that the drama is all gone at this point. some of us think that it is very bad for people to attack people who are causing no harm with electrocution devises and then lock them away in a homosexual rape dungeon. some of us feel that this is very dramatic, some of us feel that this behavior would be morally reprehensible. I would like for more people to feel this way.

But you're missing my point.  No one will attack you unless you willfully instigate it.  Please understand that.  No one will taze you for camping in a park, or even for trying to build a cabin there.  You will simply be asked to stop.  Force will be used if you fail to comply, doing it in a way which prevents the statist thug from performing his duties, or putting him in danger.  
I'm not nitpicking, there's a night & day difference:

You jaywalk, and a cop tries to stop you.  You feel that jaywalking is your god-given right, which you proceed to defend by sticking out the middle finger of your left hand, while  puling out a Glock from your vest pocket with your right & leveling it at the cop.  The cop beats you to the draw & drops you.  Please understand that you weren't shot for jaywalking, you were shot for resisting arrest & pulling a gun.  Would you try to argue that it was your jaywalking that led up to you getting shot?  Sure, it set the chain of events in motion *but it's what you chose to do then (you could have chosen differently)* that resulted in a shooting.  

Imagine there is a big tough kid on the playground. I attempt to play on the jungle jim. He says "oi this is my jungle jim i was here first". I say "but its big enough for both of us". He says "no it isn't". I say "well im going to play on it anyway". He says "ok but if you do I'm going to hurt you". I play on it anyway. He hurts me. Now you chime in and say "You instigated the fight by trying to play on the jungle gym when he specifically told you not to".

you see whats wrong with this right? the one thing that could make the bully not the instigator of the fight is if he is the rightful owner of the jungle gym. is the state the rightful owner of land that is so remote that it has never even been seen by human eyes?

You're just naive, man. You have no idea about what goes into conservation, studies, mapping, land management, land usage studies, species counts, predator/prey studies, water table studies, ecosystem services management, trail usage, etc.

But with all that said, there is nothing more valuable than untouched wilderness.

[Anon136]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing.

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass

If I trespass on my land? you do understand the concept of a paradox dont you?

We both own the land, and we have regulations regarding it.

Do you understand why your actions are undesirable for the rest of us? Do you understand the whole 'tree' thing, and how replanting is not a substitute? Do you understand how if you can do it, then everyone else can, and what is then left is a reduction in ecosystem services? Do you understand the ecological ramifications, among others?

You have demonstrated that you do not. You can reverse that situation, though.

This is why i cant talk to you. you are SO intellectually dishonest that you will not even admit that you made a mistake when i point out a paradox so blatant so simple so obvious as "trespassing on ones own land". im sorry but i just cant do this. i dont ignore people just for being pig headed staists, i haven't yet ignored crumbs or blablabla or a dozen other people, but i will not tolerate your level of dishonesty. im not expanding any more of your messages, ever.

[FirstAscent]

as much as all of the other comments have frustrated me this one pleases me proportionately

libertarians (of which i count my self) often try to oversimplify property systems into basic universal axioms and pretend as if these axioms interpret themselves and draw neat boxes around every conceivable right related to a given piece of property. I try not to fall into this trap. All property systems related to land use are going to be maddeningly complex, even those predicated on overly simplified axioms. we would need legal professionals to sort out the fine detail on precisely where rights begin and end just like we have an entire industry currently dedicated to determining exactly what sorts of circumstances allow people to sue each other. We need to hire professionals for this for the same reason that you hire a doctor to give you medical advise instead of giving yourself medical advise.

In other words, "It's real complicated, don't worry about it... Real smart people will hash out the details."  
You then use the doctor/medical advice analogy to drive the point home.
All analogies  fall short, but the "call the doc for medical advice" fails from the gitgo.  I'm generous to a fault, i'll FTFY:

A girl walks into Anoncare clinic, complaining of migraines.  Anon, with an air of self-assuredness, tells her: "Let's cut off your head, put it on a shelf until it's all better, and, once the problem's solved, we'll put it back on."  The girl, not entirely convinced of the cure's plausibility or eventual outcome, asks Anon to further elucidate the procedure.  Nonplussed, Anon replies:  "Sweetheart, it's all very scientific and complicated!  I pride myself on not bothering with all the busy details -- i leave those up to the doctors who know what they're doing.  I suggest you do the same."

I mean if you build a house do i have the right to vibrate the air on your property? inotherwords can i listen to music in my house which happens to cause atleast some amount of vibration of the air in your house. well most of us would say yes we can vibrate it some but not too much. You cant use any libertarian axiom to paint a clear box around how much is too much. and thats just one of a zillion possable questions as relating to conflicts of property rights. there is no way around having an industry that is specialized in solving these problems.  

You'd be surprised how much of your question is answered, to the decibel & minute of the day, in legal code.  Saying the problems will be worked out by clever folks who do that sort of thing is no better than saying "my business plan is to succeed & make money" -- only of value to those still amused by the "got your nose!" trick.

So wait. Since i dont have every answer to every conceivable question relating to the best trade off between every conceivable conflict of rights my arguments are invalid?

It's not that your argument is invalid, there's simply no argument there.  You stated what you would like to happen, and left the rest to smart people & imagination.  Let me make an analogy:  I would like to live in lollipop forest & mary Tinkerbell.  Show me my "argument" is invalid

I'm sorry but i disagree because while i cant answer all of these questions directly (im not a god) i can tell you about a process for returning answers that can be expected to improve with time. If we had a market in the provision of law than we could expect that service to improve with time for reasons similar to why computers get smaller and faster every year.

I see what you mean, but i'm sticking with my lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell "argument."

i have a general idea about what i think is right and wrong and i know other people who have the same general ideas that i have. we will have some miner disagreements on the specifics but i believe that we will be able to employ specialists to help resolve these disputes over the details so long as most of us agree on the over arching concepts. We would use shared idiology to paint in broad brush strokes what we would like our society to look like, and then create a market in law to draw sharper specifically where regrettable and unavoidable trade offs in rights should take place.

and hey I'm very open to the possibility that the whole idea is a "lollipop forest & hawt Tinkerbell"fest. I will be the first to admit that i might be totally wrong, i dont care, im personally willing to take that risk and im personally willing to accept the consequences of being wrong to the point of my own demise if it comes to that and I dont ask you to join me. All i ask is that you support my right to be free, including the freedom to make what you believe are mistakes so long as im not hurting anyone.

and also i want to point out that you were right, i hadnt up until that point made a real argument for how i thought society should function. i was previously just discussing my personal opinions on what constitutes legitimate acquisition.

ok so you still probably want more detail on the techical specifics of how a market in law could work. which i will be happy to provide if you are interested but im going to let you digest this first.

I have absolutely nothing against getting rid of oppressive laws, government thuggery and land ownership.  I think most folks would like that, they just can't quite work out how to go about it.  If you get something good going, i'll even donate my horn of plenty & the 3-stroke perpetual motion engine to your project

For some reason, i still like Tinkerbell (sans that whole ridiculous possy -- eww!) better, but your idea is nice too -- closer to my lollipop forest than what some of the local libers might like, but that's a good thing

awesome! the only thing stopping me from doing this is the fact that the government would murder me if i tried it.

so my immediate goal, and one of the goals of this conversation, is to convince people, such as yourself, to be of a state of mind that would lead you, and others, to become sufficiently outraged by the news of my demise at the hands of the state over this matter, so as to make it politically untenable for the government to murder me in the event that i should attempt this.

wow sorry that sentence was a mouthful and could probably benefit from that linguistics lesson we talked about earlier.

Did you read the post I linked to, and then factor in the depths I went to in that post, and the consequences of traipsing off into the wilderness to do your thing? Maybe your traipsing in of itself is no big deal, but collectively, is not such a good thing.

rofl i see your post now. it reminds me why i blocked you and makes me call into question my choice to reveal a few of your comments in this thread. I know you arnt as stupid as this comment would have people believe.

so lets get this on the record. now im going to try to take out as many variables as possible so that no ones thought will be clouded. lets say my friends and i go out into the middle of no where and build ourselves some log cabins to live in. lets say that land is a national park. lets say that it is illegal to build a house on a national park. lets say that we went through EVERY proper channel to attempt to get permission to build our houses but were denied. lets say that we ad hear to every other regulation (bear cans, pouring water on our camp fires, w/e). lets say that we practice sustainable techniques when harvesting our timber. we select it from different areas spaced out and we plant 4 new trees for every one we harvest.

do you condone the state murdering and or kidnapping us at gun point over this? its a yes or no question. if you still dont feel ok with a yes or no we can revise the premise to fix what you see as any holes or ambiguities.

the national parks are my land (yours too), and as such, if you trespass

If I trespass on my land? you do understand the concept of a paradox dont you?

We both own the land, and we have regulations regarding it.

Do you understand why your actions are undesirable for the rest of us? Do you understand the whole 'tree' thing, and how replanting is not a substitute? Do you understand how if you can do it, then everyone else can, and what is then left is a reduction in ecosystem services? Do you understand the ecological ramifications, among others?

You have demonstrated that you do not. You can reverse that situation, though.

This is why i cant talk to you. you are SO intellectually dishonest that you will not even admit that you made a mistake when i point out a paradox so blatant so simple so obvious as "trespassing on ones own land". im sorry but i just cant do this. i dont ignore people just for being pig headed staists, i haven't yet ignored crumbs or blablabla or a dozen other people, but i will not tolerate your level of dishonesty. im not expanding any more of your messages, ever.

So your argument is based on that, rather than facts and knowledge?

[FirstAscent]

Furthermore, I addressed your question.

[Elwar]

I find it extremely short sighted that people believe that the only way to pay for government services is through force.

I guess that government education did not work after all.

[Anon136]

I find it extremely short sighted that people believe that the only way to pay for government services is through force.

I guess that government education did not work after all.

To me forced funding is one of the defining characteristics of government. The moment it becomes voluntary it becomes a mutual aid society or an insurance company or a security firm or something, just not a government.

[Rassah]

So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?

Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.

Just to confirm, you voluntarily chose to move to the U.S., correct?

Incorrect. I was 10 at the time, and wanted to stay in Italy.

[crumbs]

...Imagine there is a big tough kid on the playground. I attempt to play on the jungle jim. He says "oi this is my jungle jim i was here first". I say "but its big enough for both of us". He says "no it isn't". I say "well im going to play on it anyway". He says "ok but if you do I'm going to hurt you". I play on it anyway. He hurts me. Now you chime in and say "You instigated the fight by trying to play on the jungle gym when he specifically told you not to".

you see whats wrong with this right? the one thing that could make the bully not the instigator of the fight is if he is the rightful owner of the jungle gym. is the state the rightful owner of land that is so remote that it has never even been seen by human eyes?

You understand that you got beaten up for defying the bully, not for playing on the jungle gym, right?  You effectively challenged him to a fight by "calling his bluff" (if that's what you thought you were doing).  His options, at that moment, were limited to folding, and being shown a wimp & a fraud, or fighting you.  Since you've called him a bully, i assume you knew well enough which one was the likely result -- you've challenged him to a fight.  *Not* the same as being beaten up for playing on the jungle gym (i suspect you didn't even get to play much)

You've picked a loaded example -- i hear "bully" and i already know he's in the wrong.  Let's assume your mom caught you with your hand in a cookie jar.  She told you to put the cookie back, you refused, she warned you that if you didn't listen to her, she was going to spank you.  You didn't.  She did.  Did you get your ass whipped for taking a cookie, or defying your mom?

[FirstAscent]

So, just to confirm, do we all agree that we essentially live in a communist world where the government owns everything, even if you buy that thing from someone else claiming to own it, and that you statists believe it's perfectly OK for government to own everything and everyone, including the money you earn, just so you can feel safe?

Cause that's the sense I get from talking to you guys, and frankly, it's quite upsetting. Especially the part about you wanting to use violence to make sure that none of us who wants freedom tries to attain it.

Just to confirm, you voluntarily chose to move to the U.S., correct?

Incorrect. I was 10 at the time, and wanted to stay in Italy.

Ahhh. I understand.

[crumbs]

... when i point out a paradox so blatant so simple so obvious as "trespassing on ones own land". im sorry but i just cant do this. i dont ignore people just for being pig headed staists, i haven't yet ignored crumbs or blablabla or a dozen other people, but i will not tolerate your level of dishonesty. im not expanding any more of your messages, ever.

  State parks do not belong *only* to you -- they belong to everyone, so your rights aren't exclusive.  Gotta learn to sharez.

[crumbs]

...
To me forced funding is one of the defining characteristics of government. The moment it becomes voluntary it becomes a mutual aid society or an insurance company or a security firm or something, just not a government.

You own an apartment (again).  You complain about the mandatory building maintenance.  You call it "government," 'coz it's not voluntary.  Is it government?

[Rassah]

...
To me forced funding is one of the defining characteristics of government. The moment it becomes voluntary it becomes a mutual aid society or an insurance company or a security firm or something, just not a government.

You own an apartment (again).  You complain about the mandatory building maintenance.  You call it "government," 'coz it's not voluntary.  Is it government?

Does your landlord force you to pay for building maintenance, local school (despite you not having kids), medical insurance, local libraries, roads that aren't on the building's property that you never use, insurance for elderly who don't live in your apartment, and a slew of other services that have absolutely nothing to do with your apartment nor things you actually receive? Or does your landlord force you to pay for only the specific services that have to do with the apartment you live in, all of which affect you directly?

If building maintenance has to do with the property you reside on, services you receive, and is something you are buying directly, it's not government. If building maintenance includes things that have nothing to do with what you want, need, or actually receive directly, it's government.


Same question to you. You are thirsty and need to buy a bottle of water. You complain about the store clerk forcing you to pay for that bottle of water, which you have to buy, because there isn't any other water around (let's say you're stranded somewhere). Is it government?

[FirstAscent]

...
To me forced funding is one of the defining characteristics of government. The moment it becomes voluntary it becomes a mutual aid society or an insurance company or a security firm or something, just not a government.

You own an apartment (again).  You complain about the mandatory building maintenance.  You call it "government," 'coz it's not voluntary.  Is it government?

Does your landlord force you to pay for building maintenance, local school (despite you not having kids), medical insurance, local libraries, roads that aren't on the building's property that you never use, insurance for elderly who don't live in your apartment, and a slew of other services that have absolutely nothing to do with your apartment nor things you actually receive? Or does your landlord force you to pay for only the specific services that have to do with the apartment you live in, all of which affect you directly?

If building maintenance has to do with the property you reside on, services you receive, and is something you are buying directly, it's not government. If building maintenance includes things that have nothing to do with what you want, need, or actually receive directly, it's government.

The Home Owner's Association does indeed charge for things that many people don't use, like swimming pools, etc.