anarchism and gated communities

[Autolykos]

@Fool on the Hill

I am adding details when it makes the example more analogous to the state.

So you are moving the goalposts. I don’t think I have to tell you just how logically fallacious, and therefore dishonest, that tactic is.

@Fool on the Hill

The same way the tenants acquiesced and acknowledged the landlord’s property.

Pretend I’m an idiot and spell it out for me. I’m not a mind-reader.

@Fool on the Hill

The people who settled Jamestown agreed that it would be the King’s property in the same way that the construction workers agreed that the house would be the landlord’s.

They did? Can you support that assertion?

@Fool on the Hill

Some people here think that the government doesn’t legitimately own anything because it obtained it through stolen resources. If the landlord only owns things due to the money he has made off stolen resources, then he doesn’t legitimately own his possessions either.

But the allegedly “government-owned” land is considered by Clayton and myself (at least) to actually be unowned land. The aggression is by the government against the landlord, in the former forcing the latter to pay it in exchange for not attacking him.

@Fool on the Hill

They didn’t subsequently give it up any more than the construction workers in my example subsequently gave up the house. It was understood when the colonists settled the land that the king would have authority just like the landlord.

Then why did you refer to colonists giving up their land to the King?

@Fool on the Hill

No, I am assuming homesteading (though perhaps I fail to understand parts of it). I am trying to figure out why the settling of the New Word doesn’t constitute homesteading but the actions of the landlord does. I think this is my main question.

The settling of the New World did constitute homesteading by the settlers. The King didn’t homestead any land in the New World. Any/all of his agents acting on his behalf were necessarily aggressors in my book.