Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's the social contract theory and it's false. I never entered any agreement.
You hatched from an egg as a fully functioning, educated, contributing adult capable of rational decision-making? No? Then there was a society involved in turning you into one.
You hatched from an egg as a fully functioning, educated, contributing adult capable of rational decision-making? No? Then there was a society involved in turning you into one.
Homesteading is typically done where raw land has no value. So its inapplicable to the reality of a progressive state. However again if you expect any assistance in defending it, don't ask the state.
It's a theory of how a person comes to acquire property justly. It's how you establish property rights to resolve conflict over ownership. Otherwise you have people arbitrarily claiming things as their own with no logic to back it up, which is how countries have come into existence.
It's all arbitrary lines on a map. I've heard borders described as "the place where two rulers decided to stop fighting" or something similar to that. It's not based in any legitimate property acquisition.
It's a theory of how a person comes to acquire property justly. It's how you establish property rights to resolve conflict over ownership. Otherwise you have people arbitrarily claiming things as their own with no logic to back it up, which is how countries have come into existence.
It's all arbitrary lines on a map. I've heard borders described as "the place where two rulers decided to stop fighting" or something similar to that. It's not based in any legitimate property acquisition.
The land owner is the government. Why can't people get this in their head.? If what you says holds all sway on the land as a homesteader, or whatever it is you would like to call yourself , you are the government. Sounds like a lot of people want to be their own government. Well hallelujah, Attila the Hun pulled that off and hats off to him. Good luck explaining to him about the land you claim.
Hmm ...what if you "owned" a million acres.....Hmm what would happen if people wanted to rent it from you and work the land....Hmm I wonder what would happen if they suddenly wanted more say and wanted to pay less rent.....Hmmm I wonder if you might hire private security...Hmm I wonder if others were happy with your arrangement and decided fight with you for nothing....or maybe just a little concession on say how much rent cost. Hmm I wonder if they would form a mass of people....to take the land for themselves....
Small states have a lot of trouble defending themselves. Just ask the Germans before Bismark. Ask those around Germany after Bismark. That's why homesteaders, and the 10 kids their peasant wife bore them, formed states. Some had their peasant wives bare 20 while other just merged their homesteads with their brothers sisters and cousins.
Look if you are arguing for more local government then get behind me. I'd like to first bring it to the states. Then we can work on that some.....
I am a libertarian. The difference is I know what the hell I am doing , due in no small part that I did a lot of reading on those contended with these issue before me ....like John Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Henry George, JS Mill. Read those and more cover to cover.
So to beat a dead horse:
government = land owner. If you are the land owner, you are the government over it. However get used to the problems of royalty. Lot of them ended up dead.
I'm pretty open-minded, but I won't bother to discuss issues with people whose intent is to bring revolution against the will of the majority.
If there's one myth to debunk in this fight (which is myself & T0103E vs. the rest of the board) it is the use of force as a means to accomplish anything.
The non-aggression principle is sacred to the anarcho-capitalist. It's our Constitution...except for the fact it's real and requires consent.
You hatched from an egg as a fully functioning, educated, contributing adult capable of rational decision-making? No? Then there was a society involved in turning you into one.
Your life only has value if you watch American Idol and pay taxes???
No you couldn't. You couldn't protect yourself from a group of neighbors, let alone another country. Thinking otherwise is either a delusion, or just a thought exercise
Then using your logic, a business isn't a real entity. The bank you have a mortgage with isn't a real entity, which would mean any claims you have to property that came from that mortgage is illegitimate.
Under what rules are your claims to property more legitimate than the gov't?
You entered into the agreement by the mere fact that you live here. If you break your lease, you have to pay a fee. If you want to move into another apartment, you have to pay the rent according to their terms. The gov't has the right to say that you owe them money to live in their territory. You have the right to refuse and leave the country. There are some unclaimed territories left in the world that are not under any gov't control. If you don't like the terms that gov't dictates, you're free to live there.
I wasn't saying I could do it on my own. I was saying I could make the choice to try (probably a bad decision) or work with others. My point was just that I'm not given that choice now, and then you act as if I should be grateful for them protecting me. I'd be grateful if their monopoly wasn't forced on me and I could choose how I defend myself.
A business is also an idea, yes. People own things, organizations do not. The difference between a business and the government is that a business is legitimate and the state isn't. The owner of a business owns the products, buildings, or whatever the business uses. The state only operates because people imagine it to be legitimate and it isn't. I don't feel like I'm explaining it very well, but I'm kind of multitasking right now.
The government obtains its "property" with force, not trade. That's why it's illegimate. You can create something, trade for it, receive it as a gift, etc. but that's all voluntary. If the state operated on a voluntary basis, which is what I support, it wouldn't be any different than a private organization.
I actually have an entire thread dedicated to the social contract and there are many videos out there debunking it, so I won't spend significant time going into that. There's no way anyone would use the arguments they use to defend the social contract that they'd use in any other scenario. It's special pleading.
You hatched from an egg as a fully functioning, educated, contributing adult capable of rational decision-making? No? Then there was a society involved in turning you into one.
Yes, of course others helped me. I don't see how that translates into "we can force you to do what we want because we outnumber you, and if you want to be left alone you can leave"...
You have the right to be left alone. If you don't want to pay for something, you won't get it. If you want it, pay for it or try to convince people to do it for free. If the government is stopping people from offering you the services and obligations it tries to force on you, that's a problem.
The land owner is the government. Why can't people get this in their head.? If what you says holds all sway on the land as a homesteader, or whatever it is you would like to call yourself , you are the government. Sounds like a lot of people want to be their own government. Well hallelujah, Attila the Hun pulled that off and hats off to him. Good luck explaining to him about the land you claim.
Hmm ...what if you "owned" a million acres.....Hmm what would happen if people wanted to rent it from you and work the land....Hmm I wonder what would happen if they suddenly wanted more say and wanted to pay less rent.....Hmmm I wonder if you might hire private security...Hmm I wonder if others were happy with your arrangement and decided fight with you for nothing....or maybe just a little concession on say how much rent cost. Hmm I wonder if they would form a mass of people....to take the land for themselves....
Small states have a lot of trouble defending themselves. Just ask the Germans before Bismark. Ask those around Germany after Bismark. That's why homesteaders, and the 10 kids their peasant wife bore them, formed states. Some had their peasant wives bare 20 while other just merged their homesteads with their brothers sisters and cousins.
Look if you are arguing for more local government then get behind me. I'd like to first bring it to the states. Then we can work on that some.....
I am a libertarian. The difference is I know what the hell I am doing , due in no small part that I did a lot of reading on those contended with these issue before me ....like John Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Henry George, JS Mill. Read those and more cover to cover.
So to beat a dead horse:
government = land owner. If you are the land owner, you are the government over it. However get used to the problems of royalty. Lot of them ended up dead.
I agree with a some of this, but here's where I'm coming from...
It's wrong to initiate force and to violate property rights. Don't hit, don't steal. You can defend yourself, but you're wrong if you're the one bringing violence into a non-violent situation. I don't care if people organize and form a government voluntarily. I'm just against having a designated central authority that's allowed to do things that would be immoral for anyone else to do...like tax. If people consent, great, then it's a donation. A tax is inherently forceful, where innocent people are having their money taken to be spent in ways that the majority decides it should be spent. That's just theft and rationalization after the fact.
If there's one myth to debunk in this fight (which is myself & T0103E vs. the rest of the board) it is the use of force as a means to accomplish anything.
The non-aggression principle is sacred to the anarcho-capitalist. It's our Constitution...except for the fact it's real and requires consent.
non-aggression ....you mean like those nice Syrians raping German girls was just another aberration in thousands of years.
Funny thing is I have real anarcho-capitalist credentials .Ever brew anything? Ever can , dry, ferments , eat catch or process wild food? I have. The entire natural world is violent. That much I can tell you. I eat thistle for example. Problem is I have to get around its aggressive defences or reach some kind of symbiosis with it . Same thing with burdoc, and dandelion. Same with acorns. When I ferment something I populate it with microbial allies to occupy it and make war against microbial enemies. Lacto acid bacteria makes war on botulism. Thats how this word works. What kind of fruity, faerie land libertarians do we have here to think force isn't coming to their door?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
