First acquisition (AC question)
 

Assume an ACist society. Assume that property is a natural phenomenon that arises from possesion and control. At what point does land become released as property and into the public domain for a "2nd first acquisition"? For instance I aquire land that no one is using. I build a house. At a point I move from my house and neglect the land. Since I have neglected the land, I have negated my ownership of the land. I neither have possesion of the parcel of land or control of the parcel of land. Without possesion or control no ACist should be able to make the case for ownership of the land. Assume that no one wishes to purchase the land, at the price you want for it. How does an ACist handle the transfer from ownership to a natural unowned state ready for first acquisition?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

My first thoughts would be that if the original owner who left the property is still alive and continues to assert ownership, the land is still his. If he doesn't assert ownership, then it becomes unowned.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
My first thoughts would be that if the original owner who left the property is still alive and continues to assert ownership, the land is still his. If he doesn't assert ownership, then it becomes unowned.

[/ QUOTE ] Assert is an interesting term to use as it has a connotation of force. I will sever that secondary meaning and change it to affrim, if that has better explainitory power.

Is absense of possesion and lack of control enough to negativley impact ones abilty to affirm ownership of a parcel of land?

Also, in my OP I mentioned some ideas. Public Domain to which was rightfully change by you to unowned. What type of things that once they enter into the unowned status can never be part of an first aquisition, would these be considered a public good?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

Abandoned property becomes unowned. What constitutes "abandonment" cannot be deduced a priori; it's a matter of social norm; the definition arises in the market and will be reflected in court decisions.

But we can say something like this: Abandoned property is property where the owner no longer defends his claim (note that "defend" doesn't need to mean physical occupation or presence of guns or something; legal defense of claim would be enough). And example would be a property owner who dies without family or will; who owns his property? A nasty and rather arbitrary court case might ensue.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Abandoned property becomes unowned. What constitutes "abandonment" cannot be deduced a priori; it's a matter of social norm; the definition arises in the market and will be reflected in court decisions.

[/ QUOTE ] It's comments like this that I like to see...Big guy X decides you abandoned it...

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Abandoned property becomes unowned. What constitutes "abandonment" cannot be deduced a priori; it's a matter of social norm; the definition arises in the market and will be reflected in court decisions.

But we can say something like this: Abandoned property is property where the owner no longer defends his claim (note that "defend" doesn't need to mean physical occupation or presence of guns or something; legal defense of claim would be enough). And example would be a property owner who dies without family or will; who owns his property? A nasty and rather arbitrary court case might ensue.

[/ QUOTE ]Why should legal defense be enough? By legal defense I mean a document showing that you do have a claim to first aquisition, and you do have the abilty to transfer your property to some one else. In the case of abandonment, the document showing initial acquisition and entiltement to trade is out there someplace. However, I believe that a strong case can be made using lack of possesion and lack of control to show that the legal document is null and void.

In regards to the possible nasty and long court case that AC would render. Is this a case of where government handling would be a better solution. The abandoned land parcel is transfered to the state and it is sold at auction to the highest bidder, procedes going to the state.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Abandoned property becomes unowned. What constitutes "abandonment" cannot be deduced a priori; it's a matter of social norm; the definition arises in the market and will be reflected in court decisions.

[/ QUOTE ] It's comments like this that I like to see...Big guy X decides you abandoned it...

[/ QUOTE ]

And Small guy Y hires large security company X to retrieve his property and administer a beating on Big guy X.

Try again.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Abandoned property becomes unowned. What constitutes "abandonment" cannot be deduced a priori; it's a matter of social norm; the definition arises in the market and will be reflected in court decisions.

[/ QUOTE ] It's comments like this that I like to see...Big guy X decides you abandoned it...

[/ QUOTE ]

And Small guy Y hires large security company X to retrieve his property and administer a beating on Big guy X.

Try again.

[/ QUOTE ]Right now small guy Y hires large sevurity company GOvernment that forces Big guy X to pay for it and administers a beating on Big guy X. Why should Y have to pay for X's misteps?

And yes I know I'm gonna get pwned with the responses to this thread. But is it really that different than what you want except X, M, N, and O pays for X's misteps. Where in your solution Y pays for X's misteps.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

History is filled with examples of property rights developing in the market. Actually, all property rights developed in the market before they were monopolized by the state. A good example is property rights in radio frequencies, which were being sorted out quite nicely in the courts before the Federal government nationalized, i.e. forceably seized, all radio frequencies and handed them out to priveleged members of a new government-licensed radio cartel.

No matter what crazy people like Theftertarian believe, people really do seek to minimize costs. Conflict is costly. Property rights rise up spontaneously to deter and resolve conflicts over scare resources, as well as systems to establish, vet, and prove claims, as well as systems to resolve conflicts. Violent coercive monopolies are not needed at any point along the line.

The places where you see perpetual conflicts, high costs, destruction and depletion of resources, etc, are where governments either prevent property rights from developing or acknowledging them (meaning that claimants have no access to the state's monopoly courts to settle disputes).

History is rife with examples. For example the Range Wars occured because the federal government refused to allow claims of more than 160 acres. This stake size was far to small for the grazing of cattle and sheep; hence competing ranchers had to graze their herds in the Federal commons. This lead to not only a tragedy of the commons in the grazing lands, but also to violent conflict, as ranchers repeatedly tried to fence off claims which the courts then refused to acknowledge. The disputes got settled, as they always are when they can't be settled in courts, violently. The violence was very costly, but it was the cheapest option given that they had no access to the courts. Gosh, I wonder why the drug trade is so violent?

Another tragedy of the commons is underway right now in the oceans. Seafood species are being massively overfished, because governments (not just ours) refuse to allow property rights in fisheries to develop. Modern technology makes electronic "fencing", patrol and enforcement of oceanic claims a simple matter, yet governments refuse to allow such rights to develop. The result is a population crash in the oceans, with some estimates I have seen showing a 90% depletion rate amongst many seafood species.

Owners of property have two incentives: to make a living from the property now, but also to preserve the market value of the property, i.e. their capital investment. In a commons, the second incentive does not exist. Furthermore, in a commons, there is no way to exclude users of the commons (excepting of course through corrupt and politicized government privelege systems). These effects combine to produce tragedies of the commons.

Anyone (excepting possibly Theftertarian) should be able to understand that there are only tragedies of the commons where there are commons.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
And yes I know I'm gonna get pwned with the responses to this thread. But is it really that different than what you want except X, M, N, and O pays for X's misteps. Where in your solution Y pays for X's misteps.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing stopping X, M, N and O from pooling their resources voluntarily to share these costs, mitigate risk, achieve economies of scale in provision of defense, etc.

As a matter of fact, I am a member of exactly such an organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
History is filled with examples of property rights developing in the market. Actually, all property rights developed in the market before they were monopolized by the state. A good example is property rights in radio frequencies, which were being sorted out quite nicely in the courts before the Federal government nationalized, i.e. forceably seized, all radio frequencies and handed them out to priveleged members of a new government-licensed radio cartel.

No matter what crazy people like Theftertarian believe, people really do seek to minimize costs. Conflict is costly. Property rights rise up spontaneously to deter and resolve conflicts over scare resources, as well as systems to establish, vet, and prove claims, as well as systems to resolve conflicts. Violent coercive monopolies are not needed at any point along the line.

The places where you see perpetual conflicts, high costs, destruction and depletion of resources, etc, are where governments either prevent property rights from developing or acknowledging them (meaning that claimants have no access to the state's monopoly courts to settle disputes).

History is rife with examples. For example the Range Wars occured because the federal government refused to allow claims of more than 160 acres. This stake size was far to small for the grazing of cattle and sheep; hence competing ranchers had to graze their herds in the Federal commons. This lead to not only a tragedy of the commons in the grazing lands, but also to violent conflict, as ranchers repeatedly tried to fence off claims which the courts then refused to acknowledge. The disputes got settled, as they always are when they can't be settled in courts, violently. The violence was very costly, but it was the cheapest option given that they had no access to the courts. Gosh, I wonder why the drug trade is so violent?

Another tragedy of the commons is underway right now in the oceans. Seafood species are being massively overfished, because governments (not just ours) refuse to allow property rights in fisheries to develop. Modern technology makes electronic "fencing", patrol and enforcement of oceanic claims a simple matter, yet governments refuse to allow such rights to develop. The result is a population crash in the oceans, with some estimates I have seen showing a 90% depletion rate amongst many seafood species.

Owners of property have two incentives: to make a living from the property now, but also to preserve the market value of the property, i.e. their capital investment. In a commons, the second incentive does not exist. Furthermore, in a commons, there is no way to exclude users of the commons (excepting of course through corrupt and politicized government privelege systems). These effects combine to produce tragedies of the commons.

Anyone (excepting possibly Theftertarian) should be able to understand that there are only tragedies of the commons where there are commons.

[/ QUOTE ]Although this is a pretty good anti government speech. I'm not sure it it answers my question regarding unflinching property rights. And the possible need for public property. I'm am really trying to get at the logical solution. I personaly believe that an honest effort will lead to limited, uninterested legislative bodies.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes I know I'm gonna get pwned with the responses to this thread. But is it really that different than what you want except X, M, N, and O pays for X's misteps. Where in your solution Y pays for X's misteps.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing stopping X, M, N and O from pooling their resources voluntarily to share these costs, mitigate risk, achieve economies of scale in provision of defense, etc.

As a matter of fact, I am a member of exactly such an organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

[/ QUOTE ] That one was kinda a gimme. Do you enjoy paying for other peoples misteps provided it's voluntary?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

I don't even know what "unflinching property rights" means. I don't see how there can possibly ever be a "need" for public property, since that would mean there is a "need" for conflict. There is never a need for conflict. There is no way for legislative bodies to be limited or uninterested, since by definition they have the right to create artificial law. When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

I suppose that if homesteading, auctioning and other attempts to voluntarily appropriate the problem still breed conflict, it could easily be resolved by a private arbitator.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know what "unflinching property rights" means.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolute private property, the ability not merely of possesion and control but the ability to destroy. And to manipulate unrelated markets.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how there can possibly ever be a "need" for public property, since that would mean there is a "need" for conflict. There is never a need for conflict

[/ QUOTE ] Unowned parcels of land. Information. The grand canyon. Scientific research.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for legislative bodies to be limited or uninterested, since by definition they have the right to create artificial law.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure there is people attemp this all the time, and people get better at it with each succesive attemp. Artificial law as opposed to what?

[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that if homesteading, auctioning and other attempts to voluntarily appropriate the problem still breed conflict, it could easily be resolved by a private arbitator.

[/ QUOTE ] In this senario the arbitator wants to null and void legal documentation, because of the simple fact the the parcel of land is not in the possesion or the control of documented owner. Is that OK, to do? More so is it what people who generally believe what affirms property rights, intial acquisition or volutary exchange plus possesion and control. Would wish to be done in the case where possesion and control are found absent?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
In this senario the arbitator wants to null and void legal documentation, because of the simple fact the the parcel of land is not in the possesion or the control of documented owner. Is that OK, to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the system of post-mortem appropriation. In New Jersey, for example, if someone dies intestate, or is legally presumed dead, the common practice is to turn the property over to his spouse; if there is no spouse, it goes to the children; if there are no children it goes to the parents; if there are no parents it goes to the siblings, then aunts, uncles, closest surviving family members etc. etc. etc....and only if there's absolutely no one connected to him in any meaningful way whatsoever, the property is taken by eminent domain. Although these are state-sanctioned rules, I imagine that any civilized ACist society would have similar rules.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
eminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ] What is an ACist eminent domain?

The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies. I have bought into what I believe is the ACist definition of proprety and would like to strip those who have legal documentaion by no other evidence of property. Can I do that?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is an ACist eminent domain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, that's the whole point of this thread! We've said that there is no state and therefore no ED, and we're talking about what we would do in its place. My point was that we live under social norms that appropriate property to the closest family member before it's up for grabs. It's a very rare scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies....Can I do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know what "unflinching property rights" means.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolute private property, the ability not merely of possesion and control but the ability to destroy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, destroy whatever you own.

[ QUOTE ]
And to manipulate unrelated markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how there can possibly ever be a "need" for public property, since that would mean there is a "need" for conflict. There is never a need for conflict

[/ QUOTE ] Unowned parcels of land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unowned parcels of land cannot be "public property". Public property would mean something unworkable like, every person owns an equal quotal share of the property. Nothing could be done with the property without getting the permission of 6 billion people (or whatever arbitrarily sized group you arbitrarily restrict what you call "the public" to be for that particular property), which is impossible. What this would inevitably devolve into is an elite "caretaker" class, that would actually have control over the so-called "public property", i.e. they would become the actual owners in every meaningful sense except that they could not sell the property on the market and pocket the procedes (because then the jig would be up and the "public" would get prety pissed off that "their property" has been stolen from them).

What is so crazy about unowned parcels of land being owned by the people who homestead them, or so hard to understand about the market sorting out what constitutes abandoned property, other than that you just apparently don't want it to work?

[ QUOTE ]
Information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different discussion. Information is not scarce. Land is.

[ QUOTE ]
The grand canyon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the grand canyon be public property (i.e. the pseudo-private property of a few government bureaucrats)?

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, different discussion. But my answer would be the same, the market would sort out IP.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for legislative bodies to be limited or uninterested, since by definition they have the right to create artificial law.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure there is people attemp this all the time, and people get better at it with each succesive attemp. Artificial law as opposed to what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-artificial law. I.e. law that is not made up by a tiny cabal of men and unilaterally forced on everyone else. Like a law that makes it illegal for banks to wire funds to internet gambling firms.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nobody has to buy them. So what happens in a volunatry society is that people design products that favor the people that buy them. This includes the law. In a free market for law, "the law" would certainly be crafted by human beings (I imagine a judicial literature with perr review, as there is now a scientific literature). The difference is that if a lawmaker starts producing perverted law, nobody has to buy it.

This is really not hard to understand. The majority of people in society want justice out of their judicial system, whatever that society's definition of justice might be. Hence it will cater to them. Just decisions are valuable in the market, because they can be enforced. Unjust decisions are not valuable in the market, because they cannot be enforced.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, that's the whole point of this thread! We've said that there is no state and therefore no ED, and we're talking about what we would do in its place. My point was that we live under social norms that appropriate property to the closest family member before it's up for grabs. It's a very rare scenario.

[/ QUOTE ] The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[ QUOTE ]

The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies....Can I do that?



No.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see how you are able to define property without being able to also define negating of property using the same method.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, that's the whole point of this thread! We've said that there is no state and therefore no ED, and we're talking about what we would do in its place. My point was that we live under social norms that appropriate property to the closest family member before it's up for grabs. It's a very rare scenario.

[/ QUOTE ] The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eminent domain can be easily predicted to become ever more frequent under a state. If you have the power to legally seize other people's property, you will tend to use it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The 2nd part is I want to do it even before the person dies....Can I do that?



No.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see how you are able to define property without being able to also define negating of property using the same method.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you they are defined using the same method. It's called the market. It defines what property rights are to minimize costs, and it would define what abandonment means, for the same reason.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no ED in ACism.

Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes I know I'm gonna get pwned with the responses to this thread. But is it really that different than what you want except X, M, N, and O pays for X's misteps. Where in your solution Y pays for X's misteps.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing stopping X, M, N and O from pooling their resources voluntarily to share these costs, mitigate risk, achieve economies of scale in provision of defense, etc.

As a matter of fact, I am a member of exactly such an organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

[/ QUOTE ] That one was kinda a gimme. Do you enjoy paying for other peoples misteps provided it's voluntary?

[/ QUOTE ]

I keep doing it, therefore I must feel that it is beneficial. I trade some EV for lower variance.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a fallacy here that is extremely common in arguments against hypothetical AC scenarios. Yes, there will be thugs. However, you can't just assume the populace has the same preferences, thought processes, and tolerances; AC can't simply be imposed upon a bunch of people who don't understand it or want it (the entire idea of imposing it is self-contradicting). So, if we're in a scenario where AC is in effect, we have to assume that there is a large segment of the population that understands freedom, accepts the responsibilities, respects property rights, etc. In this case any tinpot wannabe who tries to design such a system will be laughed at (at best), run out of town on a rail, or tarred and feathered. They aren't going to just roll over.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The senario is rare, but ED isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no ED in ACism.

Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

But he WANTS to take someone elses stuff! Before he dies!

Doug, when I want to take your TV, it's called what?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

Guys, if there's no erectile disfunction in AC, you may have a chance of making this happen.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I told you they are defined using the same method. It's called the market. It defines what property rights are to minimize costs, and it would define what abandonment means, for the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ] So the hubub is about replacing one arbitrary definition of property to a different arbitrary definition one? I'm not very excited about that.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
But he WANTS to take someone elses stuff! Before he dies!

Doug, when I want to take your TV, it's called what?

[/ QUOTE ] I am both in possesion and control of my TV. You ACist and your jackbooted thuggery. How can something belong to someone else if they don't have possesion or control?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a fallacy here that is extremely common in arguments against hypothetical AC scenarios. Yes, there will be thugs. However, you can't just assume the populace has the same preferences, thought processes, and tolerances; AC can't simply be imposed upon a bunch of people who don't understand it or want it (the entire idea of imposing it is self-contradicting). So, if we're in a scenario where AC is in effect, we have to assume that there is a large segment of the population that understands freedom, accepts the responsibilities, respects property rights, etc. In this case any tinpot wannabe who tries to design such a system will be laughed at (at best), run out of town on a rail, or tarred and feathered. They aren't going to just roll over.

[/ QUOTE ]So these are people that want to minimize costs over war, but will rise to war at systems designed to take slight advangtage of them.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

Boro, so your contention is there is no naturally arising definition of property only what the market decides?

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I told you they are defined using the same method. It's called the market. It defines what property rights are to minimize costs, and it would define what abandonment means, for the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ] So the hubub is about replacing one arbitrary definition of property to a different arbitrary definition one? I'm not very excited about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

First appropriation and voluntary exchange is not arbitrary. On the contrary, it's the only system of property assignation that is not arbitrary or subjective. It is objective.

Defining property "abandonment" is clearly inherently subjective. But again, whether you like it or not, the market sorts these things out to minimize costs.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Boro, so your contention is there is no naturally arising definition of property only what the market decides?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't say that. A property system based on first appropriation and voluntary exchange arises naturally to deter and settle disputes over scarce resources.

As I said, "abandonment" is an inherently un-objective thing. But the market will still sort out what the market definition of "abandoned" is, and will do so in such a way as to minimize costs and conflicts.

Let me be clear, regarding any particular case of potential "abandonment" I expect there to be relatively more conflict than over any particular claim of (regular) ownership, specifically because of the subjectivity of defining "abandonment." The same thing will likely happen with intellectual property; it's not scarce, so any social norms about ownership of IP are inherently subjective, and there will likely always be conflicts over IP, to a greater or lesser extent depending on cultural factors.

But cases of property abandonment, specifically real estate, are so rare as to be almost totally pathological. Nobody abandons real estate because it is so predictably an appreciating asset (unless it's in a city somewhere where the local government can tax it off the market and destroy its value).

The best example of abandoned property might be marine salvage of wrecked ships, a field of law the developed entirely privately before being usurped by various governments.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But he WANTS to take someone elses stuff! Before he dies!

Doug, when I want to take your TV, it's called what?

[/ QUOTE ] I am both in possesion and control of my TV. You ACist and your jackbooted thuggery. How can something belong to someone else if they don't have possesion or control?

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY! It's jackbooted thuggery when I take your TV which you have possession and control of. But when someone takes my land, which I have possession and control of, and that someone happens to be the state, it gets dressed up as fancy-sounding "Eminent Domain."

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

[ QUOTE ]
So these are people that want to minimize costs over war, but will rise to war at systems designed to take slight advangtage of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely they'll just ignore the guy. If it comes to war, it won't be very expensive since it will be millions of people against one.

If Bill Gates wanted to wage war against the entire state of, say, Washington, who do you think would win? How about Bill Gates AND Warren Buffet? It's not even close.

Re: First acquisition (AC question)
 

they'll have to be smart about it and have clear achievable objectives.
Hire assassins, operate covertly, so that the state of Washington will never even know that a war is being waged and who is behind it. Get what they want using any means necessary. Ofcourse, if their goal is extermination of Washington's population, they will lose, but other war goals could be achievable.