...and so on. Legitimate just means lawful. That law has been around since the founding of the country. It's lawful because the laws of a country apply to the territory of a country.
We get this, really, we do.
But standards have gone up, man!
Is it wrong that people are becoming no longer content with the old models of semi-slavery that have existed to date? I don't think so. They were always held in place by their lack of information and if they are starting to become informed, (Which the internet is absolutely making sure of) I for one do not think that standards of freedom going up is unreasonable.
Every citizen is a shareholder in the state.
Only on paper... What dividends do we receive when the share price goes up?
You can find the sources of pollution. It's at every tailpipe, every smokestack, every drainage pipe. But you can't necessarily find the source if you have no authority to enter property to look for it. You also can't always prove direct causality.
The problem with this and all related arguments is that you assume since no industry exists now to track down pollution to the source, one never could.
How do you know that it's not the government that is stopping this industry from appearing? They stop a LOT of useful industry from happening with all of their regulations! One has only to look up the long and interesting history of the Pinkertons Detective company or UPS to see that private solutions can be as big or even bigger, and certainly more cost effective than, the government's "regular" alternative.
So if my paint peels due to acid rain, who do I go after pay for my damages? Really, who? The polluter? It's everyone.
In a stateless society you can still agree upon laws between everyone present to not pollute and assign a penalty when you do so... Geez, you act like the gubment is the only thing on earth that deals with rules and penalties!
I just disagree with your viewpoint on it. I think private property denies people access to and travel through the land, which I feel is wrong. Not that anyone should be able to enter anyone's property at any time, but that "ownership" by individuals of land by individuals be subject to some consideration for humans, as creatures of nature, be allowed some access to our natural environment. This is an intuitive sense for me, and something I feel pretty strongly about. When I go into the woods and see 'private property - no trespassing' signs, or I'm walking on the beach and come to a private section of beach, it upsets me. No one would stop an animal from going where it pleases, why should I be stopped? Make whatever 'tragedy of the commons' argument you want, it's a position that I intuitively feel is right. IMO, as long as you treat the land, and the current "owners" or designated users of the land with respect, you should be able to go and do as you please.
I find this your most intriguing argument.
I too have seen spoiled countryside that "would have been much better off" had the owners not done something stupid like cut trees down to improve on it or hoard something to themselves like a beautiful lake.
It _
FEELS_ wrong, I can agree with you on that much.
But that feeling is just an emotion. A human emotion, like love, envy, jealousy and greed. There is no PRACTICAL nor LOGICAL reason that we should have the freedom to tromp around other peoples' property at will, so it's kind of silly if you think about it to make such a huge change in law and the structure of society to accommodate such a small, unimportant thing as a feeling.
Priorities, man, priorities.
Then you shouldn't have purchased property that was inside the territory of a state. That's all there is to it, really. The state was around long before you - it didn't force you to be part of it. Maybe that's your parents fault. But whatever the case, as long as you're in the territory of state, you're subject to its laws.
Really sucks that it's all already owned then... Where do they want me to go to be free, Mars? Build my own seastead? Not cool. There just aren't any good malls or theaters there right now!
So yeah, on one hand we're basically advocating property theft, in a way, to advocate the fall of a government and rise of any form of anarchy in its' place...
But on the other hand the government isn't fair, STEALS FROM US, FARMS US for our productivity... The governments of the world are all basically EVIL, and there is no one I'd rather steal from than someone who is out to steal from me first. (And farm me, and be unfair to me, etc...)
In cases like this though, I'd much prefer having a government in place versus leaving everything up to the private sector.
Like I said a few blocks above in the other example; you can't know what private solutions would exist because the bloated bureaucratic, public ones are there now. Read up on the Pinkertons. They were a HUGE, private alternative to the cops that were basically made unlawful after 100 years of service by socialist government proclaimations.
Who's to say that the private answer to FEMA wouldn't be 1000 times faster, more powerful, and better all around since there is no government red tape involved? It just sounds inhumane to the ears of socialists that someone should have to pay for such a service, because they know the poor wouldn't.
The bottom line on that argument is that the poor wouldn't exist in that society. They would adapt or perish quickly, and that IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
...the point is, what happens when you end up with say two dozen companies who are supplying the 90% of societies demand? And that's basically where we're at now, and the road we're continuing down. I don't believe that's not healthy for either, society or the economy.
LOL! Which side are you arguing???
Socialism -> What you just said
Capitalism -> There will always be competition, it can grow overnight out of nowhere with a better product.
Then start a military, claim stake to some land, and defend that land. That's what everyone else throughout human civilization has had to do. Again, you're not going to change human nature, or what makes us all tick.
It's literally easier to go and build a huge seafaring seastead civilization than that these days, and apparently that's what humankind is finally up to doing.
Is government necessary? Pick your poison. It is either have laws enforced by a government (or alpha). Or fight yourself to defend what you have from the other mammals who seek to dominate you. This is the reality, as proven over and over since the beginning of life on planet earth.
Are there alternatives? Absolutely not. It is in our nature, as mammals, to behave this way.
A few of us believe we are at the dawn of a third alternative; make new land. I think that as long as the rest of the world doesn't get to resentful and try to bomb the first seastead, it'll take off like wildfire.
I'd even bet in 25-50 years or so they'll Moonstead or even Marsstead too!
Honest mistake: you know with it being posted under what I wrote... anyway party on.
No probs, I proley should have quoted someone above first when I posted that... Just thought it might answer more than one person above...
