The Issue Again...

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn will just reply that the US govt couldn't legitimately buy it anyway since it was buying it with stolen money--

[/ QUOTE ]

The money was paid by the people of the USA who lived on the territory. If they don't want to pay the asking price for use of the territory, they could try to elect a new landlord, try to change the rental agreements, run for landlord themselves, or move.

If the landlord breached the agreement, they need to find someone with jurisdiction over the landlord to have their case heard. What? Nobody has jurisdiction over US legal system unless the US consents to it? Hey, sounds a lot like any corporately owned territory in ACland. They ought to try and convince people to change landlords or even the entire manner in which their rental agreements are made and enforced.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exchange government for "people" and you have a more accurate depiction. The people own all the land, but they've developed a system whereby an individual can claim exclusive and very extensive use of a piece of land. The people agree to protect each other through violence to prevent other individuals taking that use away.

This is merely a social contract - there is no actual, absolute right to any piece of land. If pvn claims there is an absolute right, then this is purely his belief and has no basis in reality.

And it absolutely is a system of might makes right. The people who originally muscled their way in and protected it from being taken by others gained a historical claim, and their violence is being maintained by the social contract, government or no, which every newborn is violently forced to accept under any system.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like an ACist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he believes in socially constructed property rights? Nearly all schools of thought believe in property rights, son.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Dad. Because he didn't use any euphemisms for violence, need, collectivism, and theft. Most Statists of any flavor refuse to admit that might does in fact make right.

The substitution of the government with the people is delusional (the last before the dark side). I know for a fact that I, as a member of this august body “the people” had nothing to do with UIGEA. I wasn’t even asked.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn will just reply that the US govt couldn't legitimately buy it anyway since it was buying it with stolen money--

[/ QUOTE ]

The money was paid by the people of the USA who lived on the territory. If they don't want to pay the asking price for use of the territory, they could try to elect a new landlord, try to change the rental agreements, run for landlord themselves, or move.

If the landlord breached the agreement, they need to find someone with jurisdiction over the landlord to have their case heard. What? Nobody has jurisdiction over US legal system unless the US consents to it? Hey, sounds a lot like any corporately owned territory in ACland. They ought to try and convince people to change landlords or even the entire manner in which their rental agreements are made and enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

A extorts money from B,C, and D, buys X plot of land with their money, and now B,C, or D are free to make A an offer for it. Makes sense.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn will just reply that the US govt couldn't legitimately buy it anyway since it was buying it with stolen money--

[/ QUOTE ]

The money was paid by the people of the USA who lived on the territory. If they don't want to pay the asking price for use of the territory, they could try to elect a new landlord, try to change the rental agreements, run for landlord themselves, or move.

If the landlord breached the agreement, they need to find someone with jurisdiction over the landlord to have their case heard. What? Nobody has jurisdiction over US legal system unless the US consents to it? Hey, sounds a lot like any corporately owned territory in ACland. They ought to try and convince people to change landlords or even the entire manner in which their rental agreements are made and enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

A extorts money from B,C, and D, buys X plot of land with their money, and now B,C, or D are free to make A an offer for it. Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer to you pvn's quote here, ostensibly on behalf of ACists.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

The gist of his point in that thread was: sure, at some point in the past all of our property may have been obtained through illegitimate means but the process of unwinding all those transactions is so hard and obscure that it can't be done. Ipso facto, property rights should apply from now forward, based on what people own now.

Corollary: The government gets to keep what it has, regardless of whether of not it was obtained illegitimately in the past.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Corollary: The government gets to keep what it has, regardless of whether of not it was obtained illegitimately in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence: might makes right.

Or: if I violently conquer a territory, I am the rightful owner and have the moral highground.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Corollary: The government gets to keep what it has, regardless of whether of not it was obtained illegitimately in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence: might makes right.

Or: if I violently conquer a territory, I am the rightful owner and have the moral highground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to attack what I'm saying or what pvn said before? I was just passing on what he said, but you've picked out my comment in your response.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn will just reply that the US govt couldn't legitimately buy it anyway since it was buying it with stolen money--

[/ QUOTE ]

The money was paid by the people of the USA who lived on the territory. If they don't want to pay the asking price for use of the territory, they could try to elect a new landlord, try to change the rental agreements, run for landlord themselves, or move.

If the landlord breached the agreement, they need to find someone with jurisdiction over the landlord to have their case heard. What? Nobody has jurisdiction over US legal system unless the US consents to it? Hey, sounds a lot like any corporately owned territory in ACland. They ought to try and convince people to change landlords or even the entire manner in which their rental agreements are made and enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

A extorts money from B,C, and D, buys X plot of land with their money, and now B,C, or D are free to make A an offer for it. Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer to you pvn's quote here, ostensibly on behalf of ACists.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

The gist of his point in that thread was: sure, at some point in the past all of our property may have been obtained through illegitimate means but the process of unwinding all those transactions is so hard and obscure that it can't be done. Ipso facto, property rights should apply from now forward, based on what people own now.

Corollary: The government gets to keep what it has, regardless of whether of not it was obtained illegitimately in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are several gaping holes in your process.

Most notably:

1) Government cannot legitimately own property. The fact that a "rightful" owner can't be found doesn't give government license to scoop up vast tracts by decree.

2) Government isn't claiming ownership of the land I am currently occupying. They just levy taxes on it. So even ignoring #1, government doesn't get to "keep" my property since it doesn't "have" it now.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Government cannot legitimately own property.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a collective can?

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that a "rightful" owner can't be found doesn't give government license to scoop up vast tracts by decree.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you do get to decree what is yours?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Government isn't claiming ownership of the land I am currently occupying. They just levy taxes on it. So even ignoring #1, government doesn't get to "keep" my property since it doesn't "have" it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking more of public roads, parks, lakes, etc.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Corollary: The government gets to keep what it has, regardless of whether of not it was obtained illegitimately in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence: might makes right.

Or: if I violently conquer a territory, I am the rightful owner and have the moral highground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to attack what I'm saying or what pvn said before? I was just passing on what he said, but you've picked out my comment in your response.

[/ QUOTE ]


I was extending on what you said. Hence the 'hence'.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Corollary: The government gets to keep what it has, regardless of whether of not it was obtained illegitimately in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence: might makes right.

Or: if I violently conquer a territory, I am the rightful owner and have the moral highground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to attack what I'm saying or what pvn said before? I was just passing on what he said, but you've picked out my comment in your response.

[/ QUOTE ]


I was extending on what you said. Hence the 'hence'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So do you agree or disagree with pvn's assertion that we can ignore past illegitimate transactions and, so long as we transact legitimately from this point forward, maintain our own moral highground on that basis?