@i3utm of course. I agree with ending the drug war and reforming the CJS. I do believe the Fed has a right and *obligation* to defend the borders of the US. I am one of tuose guys who think thr Government has a role, but it is strictly to defend it's people from outside forces, and the state gov. For everything else generally speaking. As a general view, I believe that we need to be a society based off more of a Voluntary and individualistic way vs what we sre now.

When ti comes to borders, I am more of a Stateless society respecting individual property rights, regarldess of where the border is.

But who defends private property rights?

@i3utm ahh. What makes you come to that agreement? Honest question. I dot ge the option to ask these questions with people often. Most people I know dont care or have real opinions.

@Grenade123 who was that question to?

I3utm

He wants a stateless society, but then who defends private property rights

@Grenade123 Private property owners. It's also built in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Military would be the best use of border control. Or the National Guard.

@MickeyTheGymMouse (Daniel) A lot of my fellow Libertarians do not agree with me, so I am on my own with my stance.

But, there is no us consitiution without the us

I and everyone else in society define what is your private property outside of what you are physical controlling at the time.

So, you are telling me what my property is? How violent of you! lol

And you are telling me what land I am allowed or not allowed to use, how authoritarian of you!

You You can use whatever land you want. As long as it does not hurt people or take their stuff.

so i can live in your yard?

^

That statement implies that you already have an agreement with me beforehand.

Which means i define what is your land

Because without my agreement, you don't really have private property, nor do I

Then the Goverment can decide what land they can define. It's a slippery slope.

And then they can use Eniment Domain to destroy your property to build a wall.

Who are "they"

Government is made up of people.

They == State or Federal Goverment entities.

It's people who come and take your land

The government does not exist as some faceless, nameless entity.

It's a group of people society gives power to.

Ask those pople who have no more land in some of the Border States that question.

Tell me, how does the government take your land without people?

Without an armed force, how do they have power?

They don't. And that is what I want limited. Limited Goverment power.

But this has diverged from the original point. If I don't follow our agreement, who enacts punishment?

A 3rd party voluntarily arbirter.

If you leave your house, who kicks me out if I move in?

I do as I will be defendin my property.

No, at that point you are taking my property

I have physical control over it

So, I will kick you out as I made that claim beforehand.

So you are defining my property?

Yes, as you defined mine.

Then we are in agreement, I define your property. And the reverse is true

In other words, our property is defined by those around us

But not by us

Our property is the whole world until someone stops us from claiming it.

Who defines property as "ours?"

the social contract we have in in a society that enforces that right through force

Our as in yours or mine.

The whole world is mine until you stop me. And the whole world is yours until I stop you.

This eventually means that the person who defines property is the one who is the strongest

Everyone else subject to their will. Or team up.

But what happens when people team up against you?

What makes this any different than government defining what my property is?

You can't have a stateless government and private property because the whoever ends up being the strongest becomes the new "government", or whoever teams up and gets the most support

Defending private property is one of the core reasons governments exist. Who's property depends on the government.

This is where I think you @Grenade123 are missing one point, and @i3utm is failing to put into perspective properly. I am not trying to being rude. just an observation, if I misunderstood something or potentially missed an important point. let me know. There is this concept called the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) What this means is that one person is not to violate someone else's agency via violce. The implication of a stateless society, from my understanding, is in order for this to work, society as a whole must abide by the NAP. Should there be an issue where one person is trying to claim land, that another person owns or is claiming to own, then a third party, mutually agreed upon by the arguing parties will come in and settle the dispute. But should this be a case where it is some jack-waggon coming to just steal your stuff, then a person must have the right to defend themselves and their property via some sort of weapon, which I would assume to be some sort of Gun.

The NAP if held by a society, would make the hypothetical Grenade made, a rare occurrance, in the same manner that it is today. in theory. If society holds this view, then people would not want to aggress people, by societal pressure and the culture that it allows for. At least, so the theory goes. So it wouldnt be this radical society where people are just claiming things for the sake of claiming them. So it would be true that, ownership technically lies within the bounds of the perspective of others in that, there is a mutual understanding that "Item A" is mine and "Item B" would be someone elses. That also isnt completely true either. Just think for a moment if what things you consider yours. Are you saying that the things you purchased from the fruits of your labour are only yours because some raneom guy on the street decides not to take it when he wants it?

Because this would be making true the "mine is inky mine because you allow it to be mine". Or would it be more true that it is yours because you decided that you would to trade it with the fruits of your labor. To further the point, lets say you make something, you put time, effort, and depending on the product blood, intobmaking said product. Does this mean it is not actually yours, even though you made it with your resources? And it is only true because someone else says "yes" this is yours.? Or is it actually yours because you made it?

So the next question becomes What would hold this to remain true for the over arching society? The NAP and the mutual want to not be aggressed and that the things we have un our posession, that we earned and/or worked for is ours, and the a mere claim of someone else saying "That is mine" doesnt make it true that it is theirs.

I should probably state that, I do agree we need to have a government, and that I believe it needs to exist as the sole source of force in terms of defending the people from outside sources, and that the NAP should be generally agreed upon. But when the NAP is violated, we do need some sort of third party to fix the situation or to mediate it, something along the concept of Police.

Again, if I misconstrued anything you guys were saying, or I misunderstood something please let me know.

Couldn't have said it better than myself, @MickeyTheGymMouse (Daniel) I think @Grenade123 is an instigator of provocation and not perspective. haha

@i3utm Maybe not. I dont want to assume that. Maybe he just has a different perspecrive on it, or maybe he couldn't articulate his point well enough? I do not agree that we should have a stateless, im not an Anarcho kind of libertarian. But I do understand the perspecrive of it. Im just trying to learn about things as well. Lol

There are at least a dozen or so different types of Libertarians. I hold a few of the views in one big messy package. 😃

Lmfao. And thatcm is what makes discussions so fun. So, I am a bit ignorant on this. What is Big L libertarian vs. Little L libertarian?

Big L is for the Libertarian Party and its ideals and platform. Little l is for principles that dictate whether or not you vote or you support the Big L or any of its candidates.

One can support Liberty without supporting the party.

Ahh. Okay. I havent heard of those terms until Tim did a month or two back on one of his hour long podcasts, and I havent heard him distinguish between the two. I never really cared to ask before either. 😂

It's an inside thing. Most people are like you and "Wha?" lol

I fully understand the position, I was in an ancap server. There is nothing here I haven't heard before. My issue with it is humans

@Grenade123 im listening.

The Libertarian Party leans right, but there are left-leaning libertarians as well.

I'm a Social Libertarian.

Was that your result on the 8values test?

First, what are the chances of getting everyone on Earth following such a principal and not get greedy? Who is stopping the warlord before he gets to powerful? If not all people are following it, then how do you defend yourself again a state. How do you stop say Russia? While it's true an armed population is one hard to conquer, when you are not facing a standing army then it's just a matter of time, conquering one community after another. When we look at the third party in arbitration, what stops corruption? What stops a kangaroo court? Sure, what we current have isn't great. But I fail to see how you stop the formattion of a state, if a group of people wish to form a state?

I'm a social liberal, according to that.

I think it did, @possumsquat93

@Grenade123 I think that is a better explanation than what was going on earlier, and I think actuslly refutes it far better. And it is more along the lines of what I agree wutb.

Ah, but it is supported by my previous idea.

A "stateless" society can only be permitted to exist by the strongest entity.

Much like any current state is allowed to exist so long as larger states don't invade.

They don't just invade willy nilly though, nor have they ever really

Willy nilly depends on your view point

There's usually a larger purpose for it, and it's weighed against cost and difficulty

I would consider religious reasons to be Willy nilly

I wouldn't, but even with that in mind, there's a reason why Afghanistan still exists

@Grenade123 that would be an improper use of Willy Nilly than.

As it falls flat in the face if what that phrade means.

You are right, they don't invade without reason

To be more specific, states don't attack states solely on the basis that the former is larger/stronger than the latter

TIME TO FREEDOM THE ALFS

No, but that doesn't refute my point

There's usually some perceived benefits

Being the wrong type of government can be a reason

Or just happened to be a good spot to attack their enemy

Well it's part of a larger question, since you seem to think conquering is a given

Look at Hawaii

We annex it, illegally by our own laws at the time, because it was a good place for a naval Base.

Okay, so what problem is presented by ancapistan if these things happen anyway?

The fall of any given superpower is inevitable. Nobody stays on top forever

My point is that a standing army or organized and recognized government increases the effort another someone to invade. And try and tell me that a place which has a standing army isn't a state in it's own regard.

If you are just a bunch of small communities, then you better be a bunch of militant communities, or living in a place that never has strategic value.

I don't know that I'd necessarily agree. Certainly central organization can help efficiency but it also provides easy targets for victory