I own a piece of land.
critic: who says you own the land? if there is no government?
me: a title to the land (would this be how it works?)
c: who gives the title company the authority to give you the land? who says they own the land?
???
In my opinion, you have to be able to enforce your claim to whatever land you want to claim. Property rights matter when they’re recognized. If you’re in a dispute you have to find a way to resolve it so that the other parties recognize the outcome of the resolution.
Who has a better title to the land than me? Is there evidence that someone was here first that claims that I am intruding on their property? evidence please.
“Who has a better title to the land than me? Is there evidence that someone was here first that claims that I am intruding on their property? evidence please.”
But it sounds like it will really come down to who has the most guns to take it.
Depends what you mean by ‘it will really come down to’.
You mean just like now? Yes.
The difference is the thief will be recognized for what he is, instead of worshipped as the fount of all goodness.
In a chess-loving community, it may turn out that ownership of everything is decided by a chess-game challenge. If you lose the game to a challenger you lose your land. If chess ability is thusly valued in such community, the best chess players would own most of the land. In a community that values/respects speed, whoever gets to the land first, owns it. In a community that values/respects brute force, the strongest brute owns it. In a community that values/respects penis size, … As I said before, pick your “community” wisely.
Settling disputes by chess is fine if both parties consent, but if they dont we are left with raw natural law, i.e homesteading and what amounts to best evidence their of . (if what we care about is a non-contradictory ethic)
If we just want to play lots of chess then thats another issue 
In what way is speed more natural (raw) than brute force?
speed?
Ordinality of events on the time axis vs ordinality of strength on the brute force axis vs ordinality of ability on the chess axis vs ordinality of size on the penis axis vs…
well, thats not speed but ok.
If the first-comer does not have the ownership who might? the chess player who challenges him but hasnt yet beaten him? Are we saying things are unowned until a game of chess is played to bring them into ownership? and how were the first chess pieces wrested from nature? there would have had to have been a first chess game to decide who owned the raw material to fashion chess pieces yet this is impossible.
Nir’s Regression theorem of anti-chess property.
Your question is dealt with in the second half.
Nir, I’m questioning the underlying supremacy of time ordinality as a basis for allocation of ownership. How is time ordinality more cosmic (natural, raw) as a consistent ownership determinant than ordinality along any other axis (dimension) possibly conceivable by the human mind?
EDIT 1: The first chess board and figures don’t have to be owned by anyone and could still be used to determine their owner and the ownership of everything else.
EDIT 2: Have no idea how I “broke” the thread. Did everything as usual.
In my opinion, you have to be able to enforce your claim to whatever land you want to claim.
and the problem arises when the land i want to claim is yours.
No actually, if you wanted to have your first chess set you would have need to have beaten me at chess, or else how are you better more deserving player?
The fact that events are oredered in time is a necessary fact of the universe, and important to give due consideration to, or if you disagree… we can continue this conversation yesterday.
by your ‘Edit 1’ I take it you have confused ‘settling disputes over property’ with the more general ‘assigning property rights’. I will illustrate by familiar example. People in a traditional classical liberal text book society , whilst they may take their disputes over property to courts to decide on, nevertheless staked claims and had claims prior to turning up for court. When you go out in the wilderness and Lockeanly homestead, it is not included in that act that you sue everyone who looks at you until they confess in court that you are the owner…
Haha, ok. So we’ve established ancap will most likely see the return of;
sweatshops and child labor
union busting enforced by the legal code
indentured servitude
and now… dueling!
What a Brave Old World you’ve enviioned.
Laotzu, what’s “union busting”?
You claim you own the chess set. I challenge your ownership by challenging you to a chess game. If I win, it’s mine. If you win, it’s yours. What’s the problem?
The fact that everything (chess ability, intelligence, brute strength, etc.) could be ordered is a necessary fact of universe, too.
Of course, I’m not proposing anything, but why couldn’t ‘assigning property rights’ be accomplished via chess competition, instead of homesteading?
The fact that everything (chess ability, intelligence, brute strength, etc.) could be ordered is a necessary fact of universe, too.
c’mon, a latecomer ownership ethic is no ethic at all , there is always a latercomer who will have a greater right than you who came earlier…but seriously I will only concede defeat on this point if you can convince me yesterday, dont bother with ‘future’ convincing…
Of course, I’m not proposing anything, but why couldn’t ‘assigning property rights’ be accomplished via chess competition, instead of homesteading?
because assignment of rights must not fail due to regression .. they must not have a degenerate foundation. Before taking any steps that would result in the first owner of a chess piece owning the first chess piece w(ith which to engage in disputes), they would by their own philsophy have no greater right to the aw materials than any other, and there would be no way for the proposed ethic to settle this original dispute.