5 ms·

The State is illegitimate. It is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises.

• venomsnake 10y ago
  The right of ownership is granted by the state. If there is no state you own nothing
• jerkstate 10y ago
  For that to be true, the landowners must depose the government, and give up the protections and benefits afforded them. There is an exchange of natural rights for the protections and benefits of belonging to a nation.
  • fiatjaf 10y ago
    Landowners must give up? What? If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now. The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.
    • jerkstate 10y ago
      >If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now. [citation needed]
• coldtea 10y ago
  First, if the state is illegitimate, then there are no landowners. You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land. So, without a state, some big bullies with access to better guns will have you for breakfast. Besides, who gave you this "right" to the land in the first place? Only a series of contracts, and before it all, stealing it from the Native Americans, who got there first (in as much as we can recognize "getting there first" as a legitimate right to a piece of land). Second, even if it "is up to the rightful landowners to allow whoever they want on their premises", that doesn't extend to outside their premises. So, either those immigrants you accepted in would have to live only on your premises, or you have to negotiate with the other landowners to have the immigrants be able to walk around their land, define some common areas which no one has exclusive rights to, etc. And this collective agreement, which you'll also need some way to enforce it, is exactly a primitive form of govermnet as well.
  • fiatjaf 10y ago
    > You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land. You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it? In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?
    • coldtea 10y ago
      >You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it? No, I just think the argument I responded to was obviously half-thought, to put it mildly. Mine is not particularly clever, not very original. It's just a statement of fact. >In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it? I fail to see the contradiction. Confused much? The fact that, as I acknowledged, it's difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, e.g. some land, it's totally orthogonal to my other point. I didn't say the State enforces the "right" ownership. Just that it enforces the existing ownership rights -- whether they are "right" (ultimately justified) or not. It's a fact that the State has the power to, and does, enforce the property rights currently in existence in the US. That's a statement of fact. Second, I never said that "the State de facto owns everything" (although they could). Just that they de facto enforce all property rights. Anyone claiming to own a piece of land in the US, must pass through the state procedures to prove so -- else it is not considered theirs, and is taken away from them.
  • unlmtd 10y ago
    No. Ownership of a good is acquired through homesteading.