3 ms·

I can totally understand not being optimistic about such a small island succeeding in creating a lasting paradise on Earth, but I think it's pretty incorrect an

I can totally understand not being optimistic about such a small island succeeding in creating a lasting paradise on Earth, but I think it's pretty incorrect and demeaning to view this as a game of pretend when they're actually attempting what they set out to do. Whatever else you want to say about these people, unlike some "real nation", none of them are using coercion and force to get people to organize as they see fit. That in and of itself should be lauded.

hanniabu 5y ago
> when they're actually attempting what they set out to do. Buying the land is the easiest step in this process. It's like dreaming of being a star athlete and going to the store to pick up some athletic shoes. But then buying them and not being sure what the next step is.
cma 5y ago
Buying land is still using state coercion (in a mild and accepted way) to deprive everyone else of it, it's a natural resource.
- simulate-me 5y ago
  They have the option of using state coercion should someone contest their ownership, but they're not using it right now. Even with that pedantry aside, saying that property rights leverage "state coercion" is not a good take.
  - ada1981 5y ago
    That is what property rights are though. It’s a promise from the violence monopoly to keep people off your land.
    - simulate-me 5y ago
      I don't think the government has a monopoly on violence in many places in Central America.
      - ada1981 5y ago
        How are the property rights there? The strength of a government, and thus, the property rights it “grants” people, is the degree to which it has been successful in establishing a violence monopoly.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      No, it isn't. People in countries like Finland have a 'freedom to roam', showing that property rights don't need to include the right to control who can enter a piece of land. This dates from a time when people recognized property ownership, but there was no government monopoly on violence. (See especially the Icelandic Commonwealth and the Icelandic sagas.)

hanniabu 5y ago

> when they're actually attempting what they set out to do. Buying the land is the easiest step in this process. It's like dreaming of being a star athlete and going to the store to pick up some athletic shoes. But then buying them and not being sure what the next step is.

cma 5y ago

Buying land is still using state coercion (in a mild and accepted way) to deprive everyone else of it, it's a natural resource.

simulate-me 5y ago
They have the option of using state coercion should someone contest their ownership, but they're not using it right now. Even with that pedantry aside, saying that property rights leverage "state coercion" is not a good take.
- ada1981 5y ago
  That is what property rights are though. It’s a promise from the violence monopoly to keep people off your land.
  - simulate-me 5y ago
    I don't think the government has a monopoly on violence in many places in Central America.
    - ada1981 5y ago
      How are the property rights there? The strength of a government, and thus, the property rights it “grants” people, is the degree to which it has been successful in establishing a violence monopoly.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    No, it isn't. People in countries like Finland have a 'freedom to roam', showing that property rights don't need to include the right to control who can enter a piece of land. This dates from a time when people recognized property ownership, but there was no government monopoly on violence. (See especially the Icelandic Commonwealth and the Icelandic sagas.)