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 force comes from legal backing, which is, in nature, invisible.
If I owned land on the other side of the country and I never visited the force to retain it would be present, but my actual ‘ownership’ of it wouldn’t be.
You must actively utilize your rightful property to maintain your rights over said property.
How that boils down in a real world scenario is a healthy debate within the AnCap community.
You folks aren't even close to understanding basic principles such as consent, aggression, and voluntary associations to even begin to delve into that subject matter though.
Personally, I just believe in one more 'organized group of humanity' or 'collective' or 'fill in the blank name for the concept' ... than they do, their's.
If someone breaks into your property on the other side of the country, you can call the police, who will show up to stop the intruder. That isn't invisible. That is a real show of force. You own the property that you've never visited because the government backs your claim to that property and are willing to kill to enforce that claim.
The force acted upon is done by the state which is a separate entity from the owner. The owner themselves, if not present, have no ability to commit force, there for they have no ability to control the land. That’s where the concept of invisible control comes from, the owner supposedly controls the land and yet it can’t be seen. This concept is similar to the state, they control the country and yet it most places actual control is not practiced, just acknowledged.
That’s the problem with ancaps, they see private control as replacing state control, but the two are inherently the same, meaning no true anarchy can be achieved.
You must actively utilize your rightful property to maintain your rights over said property.
How that boils down in a real world scenario is a healthy debate within the AnCap community.
You folks aren't even close to understanding basic principles such as consent, aggression, and voluntary associations to even begin to delve into that subject matter though.
Consent involves ownership, similar to aggression. I can’t consent to giving something that is not mine; similarly I have no place to defend aggression towards things that are not mine (I could but that’s besides the point).
If such things are required then we much acknowledge private ownership beyond able control to even have such a debate. The problem with ancaps is that you can’t have anarchy with privatization (capitalism) which revolves around the same philosophy of control the state operates by.
And still the question stands, if land can be acquired beyond physical capability wouldn’t the unclaimed land necessary for free movement be occupied well before the population reaches such a point organically?
Near my old hometown they put one up and moved the fire station a block from it, completely reworked drainage that folks had complained about for years, and put up traffic signals/paved & widened the road (which desperately needed it regardless).
Then we have citizen patrols around this country filling pot holes on their own dime using their own labor on their street to which the government threatens them with a fine/imprisonment.
But yes, by all means...statist-on my friends.
Hey I'm not anti-corp, I'm just anti the little guy getting crapped on again. When a Corp does things right they should be praised, and clearly in this case they did the right things. In fact, it behooves companies to predominantly do the right things, because good will is really easy to lose and really hard to gain, but when you have it, it can add 20-30% to your bottom line.
It's also somewhat ironic about the road, no? I mean without governments we wouldn't have them, or so we're told ad nauseum.
Nope. No group is coming to your house forcing you to buy them lunch. It doesn't even make sense as an analogy. The group of friends is supposed to be analogous to the government and your home is supposed to be analogous to your home? That's not how analogies work.
Consent involves ownership, similar to aggression. I can’t consent to giving something that is not mine; similarly I have no place to defend aggression towards things that are not mine (I could but that’s besides the point).
If such things are required then we much acknowledge private ownership beyond able control to even have such a debate. The problem with ancaps is that you can’t have anarchy with privatization (capitalism) which revolves around the same philosophy of control the state operates by.
And still the question stands, if land can be acquired beyond physical capability wouldn’t the unclaimed land necessary for free movement be occupied well before the population reaches such a point organically?
Sentence one is false. We can't even continue because of it.
Consent and proper ownership are the exact opposite of aggression. Aggression can't be committed against a rock or a tree.
You need a victim for a crime (aggression) to occur. Another concept completely foreign to statists.
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.
