I don’t believe I’ve ever suggested that it would require one to abandon their property. Pretty sure I’d said people could float out their own property or establish a new jurisdiction over their own property in place. One of the key featurs of the new political order I propose is that jurisdictional boundaries move rather than requiring people to move. I simply assume that, for most people, if they disagree with a jurisdiction enough to leave it, they will want to join another jurisdiction, form their own with the likeminded, or stay out of them altogether. The first two options would mean moving your property to join another jurisdiction. But that wouldn’t mean abandoning it.
Not sure that’s true. Probably not the forum to get into tho.
Good, good, and I hope you manage to spell my handle correctly in process.
Once again, you change the context from general notions of property and the state to the specific notion of your seasteading colony. That’s dishonest and I wish you would stop doing it.
Is your new political order necessarily tied to seasteading? Yes or no? Because I don’t see how it ever has been. What I see is you retreating into that specific example when you want to avoid being cornered in logical terms.
You’ve already gotten into it, so now what?
…
The phrase “contra anemonem” is Latin. It means “against the anemone”. I spelled your handle correctly for Latin, as the accusative singular case requires an -m ending.
Concerning the Articles of Confederation being called “Perpetual,” Kevin R. C. Gutzman writes in the Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution (pp. 12-13):
“The United States were states, and they had joined together. The fact that their union had no set end date, in part because the length of the war could not be foreseen, was denoted by calling it ‘perpetual.’ (In those days treaties between European states often purported to be ‘perpetual.’ This did not mean that neither side could bring a treaty agreement to an end, but that there was no built-in sunset provision.)”
Also, several small states ratified the Constitution under duress. Are these states part of the “Perpetual Union”. What about the conditions Virginia place on ratification? What about the Kentucky Resolves? And what about the independent countries like Texas. And the worst of all (Worse than even the treatment of the Cherokees in my opinion) the Annexation and later vote for statehood of the State of Hawaii.
