Daily Anarchist Forum
June 19, 2021, 07:58:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
  Print  
Author Topic: If An-Cap is econ. right then why do econ. left memes crop up in An-Cap circles?  (Read 29016 times)
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2013, 10:06:12 PM »

Wow. Does that ever not answer my question.
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2013, 10:11:16 PM »

Wow. Does that ever not answer my question.

I answered your question on the other thread.   https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2720.msg23238.html#msg23238
Logged
SimonJester
Full Member
***
Posts: 134



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2013, 10:24:47 PM »

Wow. Does that ever not answer my question.

I answered your question on the other thread.   https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2720.msg23238.html#msg23238

I really don't think that you did, particularly not the specific question about my cabin.
Logged

When a man speaks of Honor, make him pay cash.  -R.A.Heinlein
state hater
Full Member
***
Posts: 212



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2013, 10:45:06 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 01:58:41 AM by state hater » Logged

"The time to sit idly by has passed, to remain neutral is to be complicit, just doing your job is not an excuse, and the line in the sand has been drawn between we the people, and the criminals in Washington, DC."  Adam Kokesh
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2013, 06:15:10 AM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2013, 10:35:12 AM »

Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 
Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2013, 10:47:23 AM »

Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 

Really?

Quote
Land has records of ownership.

That doesn't explain how somebody has the authority to create a deed to a property which is unowned.  First the property must be recognized to be owned before a deed or title of ownership can be produced.  So please explain how a property becomes owned.  If you are going to suggest that land can only be firstly owned via Homesteading, then why should anybody give absentee ownership a second thought, if it doesn't apply for first owners as well.  If absentee ownership cannot be justified in a case of first ownership, then there really isn't any justification for it; just people's hopes to be able to do something which they inadvertently admit is not justified in all possible circumstances.  Isn't that inconsistent.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2013, 11:01:48 AM »

Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 

Really?

Quote
Land has records of ownership.

That doesn't explain how somebody has the authority to create a deed to a property which is unowned.  First the property must be recognized to be owned before a deed or title of ownership can be produced.  So please explain how a property becomes owned.  If you are going to suggest that land can only be firstly owned via Homesteading, then why should anybody give absentee ownership a second thought, if it doesn't apply for first owners as well.  If absentee ownership cannot be justified in a case of first ownership, then there really isn't any justification for it; just people's hopes to be able to do something which they inadvertently admit is not justified in all possible circumstances.  Isn't that inconsistent.

Try reading more than one post.  The stupidity of this thread is annoying me. 
Logged

Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2013, 11:08:53 AM »

Really?  You seem to be the person who refuses to answer how an unowned property becomes owned, since you claim it needs a record of ownership.

I did answer it, you just didn't read it. 

Really?

Quote
Land has records of ownership.

That doesn't explain how somebody has the authority to create a deed to a property which is unowned.  First the property must be recognized to be owned before a deed or title of ownership can be produced.  So please explain how a property becomes owned.  If you are going to suggest that land can only be firstly owned via Homesteading, then why should anybody give absentee ownership a second thought, if it doesn't apply for first owners as well.  If absentee ownership cannot be justified in a case of first ownership, then there really isn't any justification for it; just people's hopes to be able to do something which they inadvertently admit is not justified in all possible circumstances.  Isn't that inconsistent.

Try reading more than one post.  The stupidity of this thread is annoying me. 

You have not posted anywhere in this thread, how you believe ownership of unowned property happens.  You may have posted it somewhere else, but you didn't post it here.  Talk about absurd.
Logged
state hater
Full Member
***
Posts: 212



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2013, 11:59:50 AM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.
Logged

"The time to sit idly by has passed, to remain neutral is to be complicit, just doing your job is not an excuse, and the line in the sand has been drawn between we the people, and the criminals in Washington, DC."  Adam Kokesh
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2013, 12:08:08 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

You know you're being ridiculous; right?  You are just describing a different version of democracy which everybody decries.  Plus if the people in the area do not accept the claim of the DRO, then their claim is moot; no matter how many organizations they have to agree with their claim.  You are creating a government, from DROs.  If people don't recognize the DRO then the DRO will just use force against them; yup, sounds like a government.
Logged
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2013, 12:16:50 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.
Logged
state hater
Full Member
***
Posts: 212



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2013, 12:18:15 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

You know you're being ridiculous; right?  You are just describing a different version of democracy which everybody decries.  Plus if the people in the area do not accept the claim of the DRO, then their claim is moot; no matter how many organizations they have to agree with their claim.  You are creating a government, from DROs.  If people don't recognize the DRO then the DRO will just use force against them; yup, sounds like a government.

You're the fool who apparently thinks that people can never leave their properties to go the store, go to work, take a vacation, etc.  In this thread, you are the ridiculous one.  

A plurality of competing DROs does not constitute a government, since a government is a coercive monopoly.

I suspect that you're just one of those freeloading types who thinks that he's entitled to steal other people's things, who justifies his amoral position by playing absurd word games.  
Logged

"The time to sit idly by has passed, to remain neutral is to be complicit, just doing your job is not an excuse, and the line in the sand has been drawn between we the people, and the criminals in Washington, DC."  Adam Kokesh
state hater
Full Member
***
Posts: 212



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2013, 12:19:40 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 
Logged

"The time to sit idly by has passed, to remain neutral is to be complicit, just doing your job is not an excuse, and the line in the sand has been drawn between we the people, and the criminals in Washington, DC."  Adam Kokesh
Agrarian_Agorist
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2013, 12:30:50 PM »

So then you support my claim to owning the rest of the Universe; right?

That would be fraud on your part.  

Some people are gullible.  Some will accept it.   Look at how many people are paying for land on the moon to a guy that put up a website for it, even though he has no claim to it.  

Land has records of ownership.  It isn't really in question.  

You still haven't made any kind of argument for homesteading land that has a record of ownership.  You just keep saying you don't mind fraud and theft if almost everyone agrees to it.  Until you come up with something, I don't see a reason to keep repeating this to you.  If you ask the same thing again, just read one of the other posts I already made asking for a real reason.  

If nobody owns the moon, then how can anybody ever have a title of ownership if the person who claims it first isn't allowed to own it?  When land is without owner, then the owner is the person who claims it.  I claim the Universe, minus Earth and such.  Since I am the first to lay such a claim, then it is incumbent upon those who believe in property claims and absentee property rights to accept my claim.

By denying my claim of ownership of the rest of the Universe you are acting as one of the wolves in your picture.

You're far from the first to make such a claim,  and there have been endless baseless claims throughout history.  At one point the nations of Europe divided up the entire globe between themselves.  Your analogy is fallacious and absurd.  There is an obvious difference between claiming an area you can't even get to vs. claiming a lot you've poured money into building an apartment complex on.   You're being absurd and argumentative just to troll people, which makes it difficult to take any part of your point of view seriously.  

Absentee ownership doesn't require anybody to do anything to the property.  People want to own land while not having to live there, have a business there, or do anything to the property.  Some on here want to own land while only going there sporadically at best, and some don't even believe that one should have to go to the property at all, for their ownership claim to be upheld as legitimate.

As far as the countries of Europe dividing the world between themselves, ask yourself how the dispute was resolved.

My point is that for a contract or deed to be recognized, then the general populations must recognize it as legitimate, otherwise it is just words with no legitimacy other than the amount of force one can back the claim up with.

This bring us back to the Homesteading principle which is about the only private property claim which a majority of people would ever possibly recognize as being legitimate.

How about I register my purchashed or homesteaded property with my DRO, which in turn registers said property with all the other DROs, which recognize each others' registrations through a system of reciprocity?

So then, if a property is to be owned it must first be homesteaded?  Isn't it interesting that homesteading is a consistent property allocation method, while the concept of absentee ownership is not, because it first depends on a property being homesteaded before it can be absentee owned.  If the concept of absentee ownership cannot originate the ownership of a property, then one must question if absentee ownership isn't  people just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

What you're missing is the reality that one could not legitimately homestead an "absentee" property that was universally recognized by DROs as already belonging to someone else (unless, perhaps, that person was dead and had failed to leave the property to an heir, or that person had been uncontactable for a certain length of time after which his DRO voided the registration).

What you seem to be missing is that not everybody will use DRO's; unless you want to force people to use them.  Do you want to force people to use DRO's?

For a philosophy to be considered even remotely legitimate, it first needs to be consistent.

If I subscribe to a DRO, and it verifies my registration (e.g., sends an employee to the property to see that it is in fact occupied by me and that there are no competing claims), and that DRO gets every other DRO to recognize that said property is mine, then the situation is completely analagous to that of a country's borders being recognized by the other ~ 200 governments of the world.  If some weirdo like you then tries to squat on my land, you'll be removed by force.  Since every DRO accepts that the property is mine, you won't be able to get any DRO to fight my DRO on your behalf.  Most likely, you'll be left with a handful (at best) of quasi-Marxists who shower once a month to try to steal my property with you, and since they would hardly be a threat, they would fail when my DRO came to remove them.

Also, there is nothing prohibiting a DRO from not being part of the Universal DRO agreement.  Do you understand that when people and businesses are without being forced to do something, then there is a highly probable reason to accept that some will not go along with the majority.  If you support individual rights, then forcing someone to agree with your claim is in violation of that individuals rights.

That DRO will be opposed by the multitude of other DROs when it tries to steal the properties of their respective clients. 

You do realize that you are suggesting a representative democracy, right?  Either the individual rights come first to the rights of a collective come first.  You will have to decide.

You are also assuming that everybody will utilize a DRO.  Unless people are forced to accept a DRO, then it is highly unlikely that everybody will use a DRO.  A DRO basically can only be justified in dealing with other people utilizing DRO's; other than that and it is force with the overt threat of violence for not accepting the DRO's authority.  Yes; what you propose is a form of Government.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!