5 ms·

Why must every inch of this land have to be incorporated somehow? I'd much rather have no man's land, than have a land owned by a particular man's ideology (reg

by izolate 11y ago

Why must every inch of this land have to be incorporated somehow? I'd much rather have no man's land, than have a land owned by a particular man's ideology (regardless of how much I may be inclined to agree with it).

lake99 11y ago
I welcome all kinds of socio-economic experiments. If people were free to try out various scenarios, we'd have a much better understanding of socio-economics. > I'd much rather have no man's land, than have a land owned by a particular man's ideology (regardless of how much I may be inclined to agree with it). I think that's an equally valid scenario to try out. If only my country did not have anti-sedition laws...
Retric 11y ago
In nobody owns most of Antarctica which is not exactly tiny. There is also a lot of effectively lawless land around the world.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > In nobody owns most of Antarctica which is not exactly tiny. But many countries, including most of the 'powers', have also signed treaties ensuring that no one can lay claim to Antarctica...
  - Retric 11y ago
    Nobody is going to stop you setting up a tent there. Creating a factory or even a city would be another issue, but as long as you think like a hobo an unenforced rule is meaningless. The same thing applies large stretches of the US let alone much of Afghanistan or other failed states. PS: What most intellectual Anarchists want is high quality fertile land free for the taking. But, so does everyone else which is why it's not free in the first place. With some effort you could live in the middle of the ocean and never see another person. When you get down to it most of them really want to live with the benefits of government without paying for it.
nhaehnle 11y ago
I'm not sure if you're seriously looking for an answer. If you are, it's actually rather obvious: As long as there is a piece of unclaimed land, it is sufficient for a single person/organization/state to decide at some point in time to claim it for themselves, and from that point forward it is likely to stay claimed forever. Over the course of human history, it is exceedingly likely that every piece of at least marginally potentially interesting land is claimed at some point. Furthermore, only unused land can truly be no man's land, which is why it is a bit curious why you'd be so interested in no man's land in the first place. (As soon as you go there and do something remotely interesting with it, even if it's just camping there, it stops being no man's land and starts being de facto your land, until somebody challenges you to it.)
wyager 11y ago
Land being unclaimed is an unstable configuration, whereas land being claimed is a relatively stable configuration. Probabilistically speaking, any given piece of land is therefore more likely to be claimed than unclaimed.
lmm 11y ago
No man's land is by its very nature a haven for criminals and worse.

by izolate 11y ago

lake99 11y ago

I welcome all kinds of socio-economic experiments. If people were free to try out various scenarios, we'd have a much better understanding of socio-economics. > I'd much rather have no man's land, than have a land owned by a particular man's ideology (regardless of how much I may be inclined to agree with it). I think that's an equally valid scenario to try out. If only my country did not have anti-sedition laws...

Retric 11y ago

In nobody owns most of Antarctica which is not exactly tiny. There is also a lot of effectively lawless land around the world.

Mikeb85 11y ago
> In nobody owns most of Antarctica which is not exactly tiny. But many countries, including most of the 'powers', have also signed treaties ensuring that no one can lay claim to Antarctica...
- Retric 11y ago
  Nobody is going to stop you setting up a tent there. Creating a factory or even a city would be another issue, but as long as you think like a hobo an unenforced rule is meaningless. The same thing applies large stretches of the US let alone much of Afghanistan or other failed states. PS: What most intellectual Anarchists want is high quality fertile land free for the taking. But, so does everyone else which is why it's not free in the first place. With some effort you could live in the middle of the ocean and never see another person. When you get down to it most of them really want to live with the benefits of government without paying for it.

nhaehnle 11y ago

I'm not sure if you're seriously looking for an answer. If you are, it's actually rather obvious: As long as there is a piece of unclaimed land, it is sufficient for a single person/organization/state to decide at some point in time to claim it for themselves, and from that point forward it is likely to stay claimed forever. Over the course of human history, it is exceedingly likely that every piece of at least marginally potentially interesting land is claimed at some point. Furthermore, only unused land can truly be no man's land, which is why it is a bit curious why you'd be so interested in no man's land in the first place. (As soon as you go there and do something remotely interesting with it, even if it's just camping there, it stops being no man's land and starts being de facto your land, until somebody challenges you to it.)

wyager 11y ago

Land being unclaimed is an unstable configuration, whereas land being claimed is a relatively stable configuration. Probabilistically speaking, any given piece of land is therefore more likely to be claimed than unclaimed.

lmm 11y ago

No man's land is by its very nature a haven for criminals and worse.