[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

it's a discussion of whether or not we have a legitimate claim to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Legitimacy requires a rational inquiry. There is no way to go about a rational inquiry without assuming that one owns the property from which they rationally inquire from. No conclusion in your rational inquiry can deny that you own the land you stand on. One cannot discover that their land use is illegitimate since they would be verifying its legitimacy to establish any position on the issue. You can't even say i believe that no one should be inquiring about legitimacy because that is an inquiry and comes with a large bag of implications.

[ QUOTE ]


You were clearly implying that this means that the ASist "country" owns their land, which also implies that all existing countries own their land and even implies that we already have ACism as our existing "macro structure" today, which renders this entire discussion meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

ASist countries own their an land because it had to be established from private property first. The same is no true for current ruling govenrments.

All society starts off anarcho-capitalistically. So far as people choose to force others beyond the initial property rights they become statist. However, in a way, each country relative to each other are in a state of anarchy and are capitalistically divided. Anarcho-capitalism is the major structure from the perspective of one country to another, so far as property rights are respected, but this doesnt mean that countries are anarcho-capitalistic within themselves. In fact they are socialist statists because they respect the property rights of other countries more than they do the property rights of their own citizens.

If more than one of anything is to exist the basis must of divide must be property. Whether we discuss two countries, two tribes, or two individuals. If we agree that there should be more than one size fits all, anarcho-capitalism must be the structural framework.

[ QUOTE ]


You're making less and less sense. So you are saying that all of the property in the U.S. that we call "public" property is actually private property? Well, if you're going to make absurd changes to the way we use these words then yes, you can prove any point you like simply by changing the meanings a little bit more.


[/ QUOTE ]

Public property can only exist in a statist way. The only alternative is for private owners to agree to use their property amongst themselves in a public way within their own group but their group relative to others is always private. No group, no matter how socialist can deny private use of ones own body and private use of the land they stand on. Without this the society would be stuck in paralysis or doomed to be a victim of a state.