Land ownership debate

[Death Metal]

1) No, I'm saying you have no validity to the claim that you don't need social services.
2) Redicule is the only response to unintelligable proposals.
3) Only in the view of those lacking emotional maturity.

People survived for thousands of years without central government. I'm perfectly content to live a mostly 1800's style life in exchange for recognition of my indicidual sovereignty.

Even people who actually live a 1800s lifestyle abide by the rules of society, and pay their taxes. Why? Because they're better off that way.

Also, last I checked? They had police and taxes in the 1800s.

[North Yakistan]

I signed nothing.

Irrelevant. "If I didn't sign something, I didn't agree to anything" Is not how contracts work.

Do you think it's okay to order a hamburger at a restaurant, eat it, and then leave without paying?

I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay. If I never leave my land or call the cops how am I using government service?

[Conscentia]

This was missed:

We purchased it from reletives.

How'd they get it? Who said it was their's to sell?

Who says we don't?

Plenty of people might. Squatters. Armed thugs. G-men with an compulsory purchase notice telling you to leave their premises.

We work to maintain it and all surrounding property owners agree to our boundary.

Irrelevant.

[Conscentia]

I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay. If I never leave my land or call the cops how am I using government service?

Enforcement and recognition of thy claim to ownership of land is a government service.

[North Yakistan]

This was missed:

How'd they get it? Who said it was their's to sell?


Plenty of people might. Squatters. Armed thugs. G-men with an compulsory purchase notice telling you to leave their premises.


Irrelevant.

You know I'm interested to hear YOUR answers, who says who oes what according to you?

[Northwest Slobovia]

We work to maintain it and all surrounding property owners agree to our boundary.

Irrelevant.

Quite relevant, actually. Despite NY dismisses the idea of the social contract, but he's tacitly admitting he accepts it: mutual acceptance of ownership is a (the?) fundamental social contract. It means people agree that this is theirs, and that is somebody else's, and they're not gonna use force to change that. Add in the notion that people have rights, and we're back to JJ Rousseau.

From there, once we admit inheritance -- assuming we do, but I think NY will -- we establish the notion of continuity of social contracts over generations. You know, "we accept that your daddy owned this land, and we accept inheritance, so we accept that it's yours". So, if we accept rights and their inheritance -- which thankfully the US does, what with birthright citizenship -- we've just established the legitimacy of a silly old social contract called the US Constitution, as amended and interpreted. Which, um, was what NY was questioning. QED.

[North Yakistan]

I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay. If I never leave my land or call the cops how am I using government service?

Enforcement and recognition of thy claim to ownership of land is a government service.

I can enforce my own claim.

Recognition is not a service.

[The Scientific States]

Nothing is wrong with private property or land ownership. I fail to see why some have problems with it.

[Death Metal]

I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay.

But you are. In fact right now, you're using the internet, which is regulated by the FCC to prevent people hijacking your connection and remotely accessing your personal computer... and was created by government funding.

[North Yakistan]

Irrelevant.

Quite relevant, actually. Despite NY dismisses the idea of the social contract, but he's tacitly admitting he accepts it: mutual acceptance of ownership is a (the?) fundamental social contract. It means people agree that this is theirs, and that is somebody else's, and they're not gonna use force to change that. Add in the notion that people have rights, and we're back to JJ Rousseau.

From there, once we admit inheritance -- assuming we do, but I think NY will -- we establish the notion of continuity of social contracts over generations. You know, "we accept that your daddy owned this land, and we accept inheritance, so we accept that it's yours". So, if we accept rights and their inheritance -- which thankfully the US does, what with birthright citizenship -- we've just established the legitimacy of a silly old social contract called the US Constitution, as amended and interpreted. Which, um, was what NY was questioning. QED.

Property rights come from the Homesteading principal

[Margno]

If you've obtained the rights to it legally, then it's yours to do with so long as you are not in violation of the laws of your jurisdiction.

So, probably, yes it is acceptable.

Well idk if Dejanic will show or not but to that I'd say as an anarcist that the law has no actual bearing on morality. What matters is if the trade of this land was voluntary, or gàined through the use of force. If the law says Jim can't buy Larrys land but Larry still sells to Jim for a agreed apon price that is not in any way violent or immoral.

(Okay, so I'm gonna argue this from an anarcho communist position)
Even voluntary trade is coercive.
We're talking about land, but first let's talk about bread. The traditional capitalist claim is: Jim can legitimately give away his bread for any reason he wants. But if he's giving it away because Larry has a gun to his head and is saying, "your bread or your life," then he's being coerced and exploited. Jim is only giving his bread away because Larry has artificially applied a negative consequence to withholding it. Larry is threatening him. He's trying to compel him to do as he wants for his own personal benefit.
Now consider voluntary trade. Jim is giving away his bread because Larry is promising to give him some of his rice if he does, and to withhold his rice if he does not. Jim is only giving it away because Larry has artificially applied a positive consequence to giving it. Larry is bribing him. He's trying to compel him to do as he wants for his own personal benefit. By the same criteria as before, Jim is being coerced and exploited.
But Jim is doing exactly the same thing as Larry; their positions are interchangeable. There are ways that Jim can give away his bread which are coercive.
You can argue that bribery is a less malicious form of coercion than threatening. But an honest man does not take a bribe, nor does he give one. He works, he gives charity, and he accepts charity if he needs it.
So no matter how the guy came to "possess" the land, it's illegitimate. He happens to be at the end of a line of bribes and threats starting with someone arbitrarily deciding that they had the right to control everyone in a particular location. If you want to stop coercing other people, you have to renounce the bullshit idea of private property and recognize that you're dependent upon the people around you doing shit for you not because you deserve it, and not because it's good for them, but because that's what being a person is.

[North Yakistan]

Well I have to work but ill be back in a few hours. Pick up then

[Death Metal]

Well I have to work but ill be back in a few hours. Pick up then

Enjoy those federal reserve notes made possible by the US treasury!
And that clean air regulated by EPA emission standards!
And use of tools and equipment delivered to you by publicly maintained infrastructure!

[Geilinor]

Irrelevant. "If I didn't sign something, I didn't agree to anything" Is not how contracts work.

Do you think it's okay to order a hamburger at a restaurant, eat it, and then leave without paying?

I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay. If I never leave my land or call the cops how am I using government service?

If the cops see you getting attacked, they will defend you even if you don't ask.

[Geilinor]

Well I have to work but ill be back in a few hours. Pick up then

Don't step on a public road!

[Northwest Slobovia]

Quite relevant, actually. Despite NY dismisses the idea of the social contract, but he's tacitly admitting he accepts it: mutual acceptance of ownership is a (the?) fundamental social contract. It means people agree that this is theirs, and that is somebody else's, and they're not gonna use force to change that. Add in the notion that people have rights, and we're back to JJ Rousseau.

From there, once we admit inheritance -- assuming we do, but I think NY will -- we establish the notion of continuity of social contracts over generations. You know, "we accept that your daddy owned this land, and we accept inheritance, so we accept that it's yours". So, if we accept rights and their inheritance -- which thankfully the US does, what with birthright citizenship -- we've just established the legitimacy of a silly old social contract called the US Constitution, as amended and interpreted. Which, um, was what NY was questioning. QED.

Property rights come from the Homesteading principal

...and your ability to convince other people that that -- whatever it is -- is something they should agree to. Which is to say, mutual acceptance of ownership. And we're now back to where I came in: the social contract. You can't get around it: getting people to agree to stuff is the foundation of human society. My man JJ just came up with the name and the fancy intellectual structure.

Even the coercive state is based on mutual agreement: the dude in charge and his enforcers need to agree to terms, or they don't get nothing. It doesn't always work; you get tyrants shot by their own gaurds, or toppled by their buddies, or simply the lower ranks of their army defect to the other side(s) in the struggle for power, and the regime collapses.


...and I see you still haven't provided evidence for a cheaper, more efficient FDA nor an internet that works without government regulation. I'm a scientist, so saying "I think it is so." doesn't interest me in the slightest. I want evidence and reasoning.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I still don't see how if I'm not using the services I still have to pay. If I never leave my land or call the cops how am I using government service?

If the cops see you getting attacked, they will defend you even if you don't ask.

But are under no obligation to do so.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Well I have to work but ill be back in a few hours. Pick up then

Enjoy those federal reserve notes made possible by the US treasury!
And that clean air regulated by EPA emission standards!
And use of tools and equipment delivered to you by publicly maintained infrastructure!

... and a workplace made safe by the cruel OSHA, a car subject to savage safety standards, and all the other brutality of modern, civilized life.

Anyway, NY, I thought you'd been waving your hands about self-sufficiency on your family's land. I'm crushed, just crushed that you have to sully yourself dealing with us backwards primitives who don't recognize your glorious freedom.

[America Libertaria]

There's nothing wrong with owning private land. In fact it should be encouraged.

[Llamalandia]

I never said China.

So... This is basically turning into the scenario of Red Dawn.

Well if no one else is going to say it I guess I will.

Wolverines!!!

[Greed and Death]

Well you said yesterday your family are dirt poor yet happen to own 280 Acres of land, firstly I'd probably dispute that, it's pretty uncommon to be poor and yet coincidentally own almost 300 acres of land, especially if you and your family are financially comfortable enough to use that land for recreational activities such as "hunting" and literal "recreation".

If there is no production taking place on the land its self, then no workers are being exploited. Though I would say that 280 acres of farmable land being used purely for "hunting" and "recreation" as opposed to production Is incredibly inefficient.

There are a lot of places that if your crafty enough you can get 280 acres in adverse possession.

[Sklavinia]

Of course its acceptable. There is nothing wrong with owning any amount of land.

[Saiwania]

I'd say that technically speaking, the government of whichever sovereign nation you live in indirectly "owns" all of the land, even when it is privately owned, in which case it is merely leased. If you don't pay property taxes on it every year, it will get taken away.

[Magna Libero]

Private ownership of land is exploitative? Come on...

I'd say that technically speaking, the government of whichever sovereign nation you live in indirectly "owns" all of the land, even when it is privately owned, in which case it is merely leased. If you don't pay property taxes on it every year, it will get taken away.

1. What if I fight to protect my own land?
2. So, if I'm poor (alternatively live an Amish kind of primitive lifestyle) and I own a lot of land in rural areas miles away from civilization I must pay to the government with something I have very little or nothing of?

[Conscentia]

Enforcement and recognition of thy claim to ownership of land is a government service.

I can enforce my own claim.
Recognition is not a service.

Yes it is. If they did not recognise your claim then it would cease to be yours. Someone else would be free to take it.