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.
This scenario doesn’t exist. An oil company cannot petition the government to force the land owners to drill.
Who said petition? Not I.
Officially they can't. But with deep enough pockets they most certainly can. I mean it's not that long ago that there were discussions about the Black Hills and the Lakota on the Res being shuffled off. Again.
The issue is that government can use eminent domain for any purpose it can justify (And it can justify quite a lot). You just need to motivate that government to find a justification, as has been done for time immemorial, I guess technically the first examples were pushing out the natives for farming and lumber, with kickbacks to helpful politicians.
It doesn't sit well as the way it once was is if you didn't play along the person wanting to expand sent his goons over to see to it that you did.
So it's better that the company send government goons, than hired goons? But aren't the government goons really hired?
Same result in either case, your property is removed by force. Big difference is that if you defend your property against hired goons, you might win, if you try the same against government goons you'll never win.
Officially they can't. But with deep enough pockets they most certainly can. I mean it's not that long ago that there were discussions about the Black Hills and the Lakota on the Res being shuffled off. Again.
The issue is that government can use eminent domain for any purpose it can justify (And it can justify quite a lot). You just need to motivate that government to find a justification, as has been done for time immemorial, I guess technically the first examples were pushing out the natives for farming and lumber, with kickbacks to helpful politicians.
If you have the money you can get it done, government or not. Or are you pushing for Communism where everyone is on an equal footing?
So it's better that the company send government goons, than hired goons? But aren't the government goons really hired?
No, I do not support either scenario. Why would you think I did?
Quote:
Same result in either case, your property is removed by force. Big difference is that if you defend your property against hired goons, you might win, if you try the same against government goons you'll never win.
And yet, as I pointed out, the people of WV have won.
Courts all over the country are blocking the actions of the companies putting in pipelines.
Officially they can't. But with deep enough pockets they most certainly can. I mean it's not that long ago that there were discussions about the Black Hills and the Lakota on the Res being shuffled off. Again.
The issue is that government can use eminent domain for any purpose it can justify (And it can justify quite a lot). You just need to motivate that government to find a justification, as has been done for time immemorial, I guess technically the first examples were pushing out the natives for farming and lumber, with kickbacks to helpful politicians.
The original argument is that roads can’t be built without the government.
I provided a real life example of oil drilling as the model for building roads without government.
I don't think you understand how a oil well works. It does not cross multiple property lines.
Most oil rigs go across property lines as most the properties are an aggregate of many smaller properties. The only time you can’t cross the property line is when you don’t have the lease to the other property; however, you can drain them dry from your property without having to cross the line.
I have been in the oil and gas industry for a very long time.
Let's face it, this thread, (& countless others ), is evidence the philosophy simply cannot get beyond the issue of 'roads'.
Also worth noting the political philosophy (or whatever) has been found to be severely lacking the necessary robustness evidenced by its showing in the marketplace of ideas.
Let's face it, this thread, (& countless others ), is evidence the philosophy simply cannot get beyond the issue of 'roads'.
Also worth noting the political philosophy (or whatever) has been found to be severely lacking the necessary robustness evidenced by its showing in the marketplace of ideas.
Anarchists don't bring up roads ad nauseam. Statists do.
Of course anarchy isn't popular. You have to be willing to admit that the safety you have is merely an illusion. You have to dump the brainwashing of the moral and logical legitimacy within the fictional Social Contract paradigm.
The State-mandated propaganda centers don't touch any of this aside from a brief cursory passing here and there.
I can't speak for the other anarchists on here (not talking about Libertarians or other limited government statists) but I know this much...
When I realized I was an anarchist three things happened:
1. I immediately knew that I couldn't go back to statism if I tried. The emperor is not wearing any clothes. Once you admit that to yourself you can't go back to claiming he is in full garb. The brain won't allow it. Take that up with my neurons if you're so inclined.
2. I figured out that I had been an anarchist all along...I just didn't know it. This is key because it speaks to the natural condition of man: born into poverty, free from contractual obligations, and unable to survive if he doesn't receive charity/is protected from NAP violators by voluntary means (parents usually do this).
Of course statists don't believe this...or have forgotten it is more like it. You are born into the social contract and you are owed a rearing/standard of living by the collective...which makes sense to you folks because you believe that in exchange for getting a bottle of milk fed to you at one-day-old you have agreed not to fish in a lake during the winter when you turn 18.
3. People immediately thought I was trying to scam them or that I was "doing anarchy" as a way to be above the fray of politics. I swear we get more venom than child molesters and con men who swindle elderly folks out of their savings. And for what? Non-aggression and respect of private property? On the bright side this reaction has definitely cemented my resolve that this is morally and logically the right approach. My life improved dramatically once I started to practice more of what I believed/preached.
Last edited by No_Recess; 01-08-2019 at 10:00 PM..
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.
), is evidence the philosophy simply cannot get beyond the issue of 'roads'. 
