The forest has no established owner.
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2**:** injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm>
so there can be a ecosystem in place, then some alian entity can walk in and claim part of the ecosystem as the entitys property that it can rightfully remove?
it takes physcial force to pick up a rock, if a giant picks up your house because no giant has claimed your house, is that force violent or not? ok , force, can be a better word than violence
EDIT: Actually, consumers would choose what to pay for. Bussinesses that successfully supply the demand of the consumers would survive on the market.
Business create and supply demand, so this is not different what I meant to say. Chicken and egg. Business decide what to offer, consumers decide what to purchase, and the best matches are the most successful. Sometimes though and geography wise, two business can’t own the same space and consumers will have to pay one to use the space. With current roads, if they turned private, a person would have no choice but to take multiple roads and pay multiple owners of those roads in some cases, ownership of the space is monopoly
Yeah, but the state, i.e, a handful of people, created this right for themselves, pretty much like the guy on the video Clayton and JJ posted above explained. As we can see, there is really no opt in or out.
Depends on what the constitution and contract they write up says. Usa constitution allows noncitizens to becomes citizens and citizens to become noncitizens. Free contracts allow people to give up what they want to give up. A person can’t call it theft if they agreed that another person could take it. Consent can’t be given to do things without consent. The contract is multiple ways and not one way.
But that doesn’t mean that it will never happen. We (by we I mean people who acknowledge the value of liberty) are here for the change. We may not see it in our lifetime (just like many who advocated change in the past, but didn’t see it in their’s), but history showed as well that every central planning society fell apart. I believe that someday, and I really wish to see this, we will grow out of this state paradigm. Just a matter of time. Until then, we learn, we teach, and we stand for what is truthful and principled. At least that’s what I try to do.
That’s good
But if Geogists are correct about property, then taxes are justified.. Or more precisely, that one tax..
Well, you have a monopoly over your body, but that doesn’t mean that someone has any right over you. The same goes with property you have originally acquired (just like the rock example JJ gave). States don’t acquire property, they say that they have the right over a definite portion of land and an arbitrary amount of the property of every person who was born on that land. If I say that I own your car, that doesn’t make your car mine. As for roads, market solutions would exist, of course. Walter Block on private roads and highways.
Right, but who agreed on the constitution?
stats do aquire property, they purchase territory and make treaties. people can also donate land to the state, the state can also have the state representative walk into the forest and take the rock. the usa constitution only gives government power granted to it by the citizens and the government serves the citizens. the citizens have the right to disolve the government should they feel it is not serving their needs.
as for agreeing to the constitution, there were people that ratified it and gave consent to be governed by it. the constitution can control those who consent to it. people agree when they become citizens, so my thought is that people only become citizens by consent and not by birth. the citizens determine what the constituion says and have the power to amend it or get rid of it.
ill look at the walter block highway book. i guess my big question is how used land with no current “legitimate” owner is supposed to be delt out? if it’s illegetimate for the state to own land, it would be illigetimate for the state to give it or sell it, but this is all land citizens are already using so there is no first usage to be had.
Yeah but remember, states claim to own simply all land within an arbitrary geographic portion. And states, as I said earlier, are just a bunch of individuals who agressed against other people. If you think people should only become citizens with consent, than there’s no state anymore by that premise, because by definition states oblige other people to comply.
As for roads, there’s lots of ideas for how private roads could function. You can look into Block’s book, and there are other resources as well, like the very wiki article about the book. It contains links of other articles about the subject.
people that apply for usa citizenship are not compelled to apply for citizenship. they arent compelled to come to this geography. if all the geography was owned by private owners in a ancap way, it still would not allow people to just come without being invited
private landowners association land wise, right now im still fuzzy on the neccicary different between that and something that can call itself a government. all corporations have governence. a group of people can homestead land, agree to purchase law from a company they set up, and agree that anytime they sell land, the new owner must use the law organization as part of the condition of buying the land. they can set the company up to allow the company to be broken apart later or even put it in the contract that people are allowed to leave at any time and will no longer get protection from the law company.
by the time we are calling 99% people agressive against others, that looks like a big paradigm to try and shift. there has not even been a society that has not agressed and survived generation to generation without agressing by this standard that any state is itself defined as agression. that makes any registered citizen or business agressive.
im looking at articles from the site
http://archive.mises.org/2502/states-cannot-own-property/ this even says that states have the right to emenent domain over it’s own citizens in point 4. if that is ok for a states own citizens, taxes can also be ok for its own citizens. if all citizens are said to be agressive with a agressive state then it’s just some mass of agressive people.
All geography? Only governments do that. Imagine for now that there’s no governments. Look at the amount of unowned land there is today.
I’m brazilian, and it is optional for me to apply to USA citizenship, but as I said earlier, I already have a government forcing me to pay taxes, the brazilian government.
Tell me about it…but people slowly are starting to see the value of liberty, I think. Besides, with all the stupidity the states in general are doing lately, its getting easier to see
we have to at least have land trusts and ways for people to own wilderness in ancap right? i would not like the idea of some hunter going in and killing animals because noone owns the land so the hunter has the right to just go kill anything in nonhomesteaded land. privatise some state parks and then the whole area of geography can legitimately be owned by someone who does want hunting or wants to regulate hunting in a certain way. can yellowstone and other stateheld parks be sold to people that choose to conserve it privatly or must it be turned into unowned property people can choose to claim and desimate in small chunks or go through and kill what they want to kill without the rules of any public or private owner of the land to stop them?
whole areas of geography have to have the ability for ownership without people needing to use the land, or at least people must have the choice to use land in a way that could include minimal human trafic.
a person would not be taxed to use the space, but there could be a fee to use the space, and the private owner could lable that fee a tax. if private land owners could only receive money by users volunteering to give them money, they are not land owners at all. the private land owner must have soverenty over that property and the ability to demand behaviar or it’s not ownership. im mainly just going here as when i read about taxes government tolls and fees are included, and private companies include tolls and fees as part of doing business
Cab, you seem to be saying whatever government decides is OK because government owns the land, or maybe whatever 51% decide is proper because they voted for it (I’m not sure which) just one question to maybe move this forward. Did slavery only become immoral when the law made it illegal?
forcing slavery is immoral with or without a law . a law making slavery legal cannot make it moral. slavery could be seen as different than servitude i think though
voluntary servitude is a choice i think, only immoral if it means violating others at the command of a owner. some types of servidute mainly involved just the labor and then people were free for family life and choices of their own
involuntary servitude is immoral when it’s because of the initiation of violence.
i think I’m saying owners can make conditions that cause others to leave or volunteer to meet the conditions and stay.
if people agree in a contract that a 51% vote will mean a change in the law, then that seems voluntary.
in private business, lot’s of decisions are made by 1 person with 51% ownership of a company.
i think the land ownership can be close to what i am saying.
if a man’s house is he castle, and the man is king of his castle, then he is the head of state. if he requires his children take out the garbage or leave the house, it gives the children the choice to do the chore or leave the property and make their own way and deal with other people and other property. can a child say “what contract” and insist on living under the roof and call it violating NAP if the father says the child is no longer welcome in the home and must leave?
since a lot of government would not give the government ownership of people’s property, the case would be that government decides what is ok because of bilateral contract. i think a state can made out of a non-state with private land owners who get together and make a institution that they are all a part of and decide how to govern. the state is a union of sovereign individual property owners in this case.
i think I’m saying owners can make conditions that cause others to leave or volunteer to meet the conditions and stay. a tax ( or fee) can be a response to a person choosing to stay and use the property of the owner or enter the property of the owner. someone in their own sovereign state or property would not be obliged to pay another state, apart from usage fees that could come from a state putting on it’s own citizens or people that enter the land citizens own.
here we go again
picks popcorn
