the courts does not determine reality, they're just supposed to rule according to reality

well not quite

if a criminal comes in and takes the property by force, he is de facto owning it, objectively, since he has exclusive control over it

subjectively illegitimate ownership, but actual ownership nonetheless

i define ownership as the exclusive use and control over something

okay, can we redefine that as possession, and use ownership for rightful ownership?

sure ok

in that case the entire idea of ownership is a social construct

do you disagree?

i don't disagree with those definitions

so then, technically, i define what your private property is. as you define mine. Since if there is just one person in an area, then they can claim all the land to be their's. But once a second person shows up, that claim means nothing unless verified by the second person

what do you mean by it means nothing?

what is it supposed to mean?

well, i can say that something you have is mine. but if you don't agree and give it back, doesn't mean much does it?

yeah it does. one of us could have a more philosophically consistent argument than the other. one could be in the right and the other could be in the wrong, depending on what standards you apply

it could practically not make a difference to the consequences if one person is stronger than the other

if thats what you mean

but it could "mean" a lot about factual reality

what i mean, is just making a claim does not make something my property. either you agree, and give it to me. or you disagree and its yours unless i take it by force

right, the consequences depend on if property principles are respected by others or not

right, i just realized i missed a piece of information i should have clarified. If two people claim to have whole, singular ownership, i consider that object or land unowned until an agreement is reached, regardless of who has possession.

alright

so, in the two party system, if person A has a chair, and person B claims it his chair, and person A disagrees, then there is no owner, as its "rightful" owner is currently in dispute by all involved parties, and still has no owner until agreement is reached and there is no longer a conflict.

hence why i say a claim has no meaning without the other parties endorsement

therefore, person A's property is defined by what person B agrees to, as anything that person B does not agree to, is no one's property, it is simply an object in someone's possession.

and without person B, then there is no need for private property

the rightfulness doesnt depend on if you opponent agrees or not, it depends on what standards you apply as a spectator

just a person disagreeing with your ownership doesnt make it illegitimate

in the other person's eye it is

yeah if you choose to apply the other persons standards

but as we concluded, rightful is subjective

true, but even if those people share the same set of standards, rightful is still subjective

how do you figure?

at least, outside of rightful simply meaning current possession

if the standards are that the house should go to the next of kin, then someone who isnt next of kin claiming the property would be wrongful according to the standards

unless the person claiming to be next of kin, has not been proven to be next of kin

even if it is, infact next of kin

okay so a deeper gray zone

both sides can have distrust in their choice of judge, without an agreed upon judge, both sides are in the right and the wrong, using the same standard

then it could mean that they can't figure out who is actually in the right. that the truth is unknown.

ah, the objective truth is unknown. however, both sides have their subjective view of the truth. from one side, a man is in the wrong for moving into his dead mothers house after several months when it should belong to the son, on the other a stranger is in the wrong for claiming he is the rightful owner with no proof. Both sides believe the other wants a judge who will be bias towards them, and they cannot find a third party both trust.

both believe their version of the truth. one of them technically has the objective truth on their side, but without arbitration, they both believe the objective truth is on their side

now, should they both agree to arbitration, its possible that the son ends up not having enough actual evidence at the time to prove he is actually the son (maybe the mother was cremated before he got there and no DNA was filed before). So while he is has the objective version of the truth on his side, arbitration could end up where the man who moved in is now the owner. so, while by both peoples standards, technically the son has rightful ownership, due to the subjective versions of the truth, he no longer has ownership.

a judge may not rule in your favor. it's a harsh life.

so as i said, what is one person's private property is defined by what everyone around him agrees is his private property, even if everyone involved has the same standards

he may very well not

well yeah but it depends on the context

officially it has been ruled a certain way, and it's widely accepted. unofficially the truth might be different.

i guess it depends on how we define legitimate as well

unfortunately, life is subjective

no, it's just complicated

the closes thing you have to finding objective truth is what the most people agree on

even then, sometimes they are wrong

yeah basing your idea of objective truth on what the majority believes is not a good idea

thankfully morals are subjective so i dont have to worry about that

onto the majority no, but on a few people little by little, you stand a chance of changing the truth

if we were discussing black slavery, and you pointed out how unrealistic it would be to pick the cotton without them, and pointing out this or that logistical problem, and you made me see the light that the cotton manufacturing would just have to shut down or be left in chaos, and leave tons of people in poverty, it wouldn't do anything to change my abolitionist stance.

if we really cant figure out how to fund things voluntarily or organize things with a monopoly boss, then heck it, maybe chaos is the price we have to pay to live in a civilized society which isn't fundamentally based on things i consider human rights violations

what's the difference between chaos and freedom?

it depends, i guess

i kind of associate order with orderly performed executions of dissidents

order could be moral chaos

so maybe order and chaos are too vague terms

i posit that things are voluntary, mostly. That if there is nothing stopping you emigrating outside a lack of places to go you like, there is nothing keeping you here. That you were born here and opted not to move once you felt old enough to, and just because you do not like where you were borne, that does not make it illegitimate. Because private property is subjective, it is only your subjective belief that countries have no legitimate claim to land, because the society you were born in was just lazy, and rather than keeping infinite records of laws for each square inch of land, they made up a unified set of rules, long ago, that people liked, and that other people didn't disagree with enough to move. and as such, the rightful owners of different piece of land lend their land to a group of people that fall under the term state. And they agree that they need funding because they are providing various services and stuff.

ironically you can lose your passport if you engage in tax evasion

that doesn't stop you emigrating

no one is obligated to allow you entry, but that doesn't mean you are not allowed to leave.

yeah i respect your points, and i agree property rights are subjective, but i morally disagree with them, and most if not all countries have the same anti-freedom culture, but everything is relative of course

oh, i agree things can be fixed

you do have some choices, i cant deny that

and that perhaps we can move towards a more decentralized society

however, i don't think the state can be removed. at least not without it just returning, and nothing meaningful having changed

humans got here somehow, and i don't think we have evolved all that much to get rid of it

so perhaps just figure out smaller ways to do things better

like space flight is doing

i actually agree, i dont think simply removing government is a good idea. there needs to be a slow gradual careful replacement of public services with private ones, but only after the culture has shifted into emphasizing property and freedom principles

i dont think thats likely to happen for a couple of hundred years, maybe thousands

i would like to point out though, that the argument that you can flee the country if you dont want your rights violated isnt really a good positive defense of the status quo. but i dont think thats the argument you were making.

just saying

its not defending the status quote, but refuting the idea you have to be here

see, the problem i have with an-cap is the an part. because i don't see "the state" as anything really. outside a vague definition for authority. And that a parent commanding around a child is not really much different in than the state at the end of the day. its just a matter of scale

like the monopoly comment earlier.

if one person owns a small island, they have a monopoly of that island, and any person born there might dislike that

but just because the only surround area is water doesn't mean the current owner no longer has any rights to the land on the island

What I've been reading here seems like a good argument against anarchy.

Shall I count the ways?

1. The whole damn thing falls apart if the people involved are unprincipled.

2. Having your property to be determined by those around you seems like it would lend itself to cliques

3. Also, having a *commun*ity determine who gets what seems a little... red...

well theres nothing vague about the irs calling you and threatening to send the police for not paying for the police.

i agree that the government is a mind concept, but the problem is you have specific people with titles doing engaging in physical force due to their beliefs.

I'm a reformist, not an anarchist.

You won't get a disagreement from me when you say the system's broken

yes. but without the majority agreeing to be ruled by physical force, there is no state.

without the military, or the police, politicians have no power

right yes, i agree

But politicians have power because we have given it to them.

and if the people decide they no longer like the military or the police, they can and will fight. is it pretty? no. is it the best option, usually not.

We, as a society, can choose who we send forward.

but this is where moral and rightful an-cap arguments, imo, fall flat

The mere fact that we've been so neglectful in our choices

or the military and police can decide not to fight, it doesnt absolutely have to be a violent change

Is proof enough that the common will is not enough to rule.

an-caps have great arguments for lessoning government involvement.

NatSocs have great arguments for reducing crime rate.

Just because it's a great argument, doesn't mean it's right.

do they thought?

a violent overthrow wouldnt last anyways

An ethnic nationalist would say that certain ethnicities are more prone to violence and should be dealt with accordingly.

Strictly speaking, this WOULD lead to a decrease in crime

But there's a core issue that you could address instead.

Cultural, of course.

you know what would get ride of more crime? removing all people at the same economic level

Elimination of the lower class?

isn't that what removing most of the ethnic minorities would do?

Elimination based on IQ?

Not entirely, though

no, and therefore there would still be crime

Because there are plenty of blacks who have broken through the supposed barriers

Hell, Asians are higher earners than Whites.

an inconvenient fact, you'll notice Asians are omitted by any NatSoc graph.

more over, you'd lose more beneficial people by removing all people not of a certain ethnic class that just removing most poor people

So if you eliminated people based on earnings, you'd be less diverse to be sure, but you wouldn't be ethnically pure

you'd also have really backed up sewers.

no, but we were talking about crime

Alright, let's trace that back then

statistically, most violent criminals come from either poor or broken families

Eliminate blacks - lower crime, white ethno-nationalism, massively bloody hands

with ethnicity, you are more likely to leave a murder or thief and deport a doctor

Eliminate Lower Earners - Lower Crime, Less diversity, Trash Pickup Delayed indefinitely.

eh, just pay trash pickup people more, they are no longer the lowest earners

plus, more jobs!

I'm not so sure that's the case across the board. Not that I'm arguing for it.

either way, their arguments are not that great

don't actually address the problem, just put a Band-Aid on it

but if you have a government that eliminates people, the united states would bomb it and kill everyone

ignore the exception that can disprove the trend

hey, no more humans, no more human problems, bomb away

such nihilism

just make sure you get everyone

hey, didn't say it was the best solution, just a solution.

Like I said, I wouldn't argue in favor of EthNat solutions

it's so wasteful when you could recycle people

But if you ignore ethics, they're pragmatic.

think of the environment

Still, the problems I have with anarchical solutions...

Let's start with the first

It depends on everyone holding the same principles in roughly the same or similar priority

something that we can't even do with a state

we're kind of holding the same principles about direct slavery

Alright...

politics is downstream from culture, the culture changes and the government adjusts

But how are you going to convince people to uphold the NAP when there are people who claim that speech is violence?

yeah the trends are not looking good

They really aren't.

The NAP is a GREAT concept, don't get me wrong

why would i care about the environment?

earth wouldn't give two shits

we are the ones who care

i can just account for my own principles

Exactly my point.

theres no point in me abandoning my principles just because other people are retarded

might i point out, that we have been slowly getting less violent for a while now

this is true, physically it's getting more peaceful, but ideologically i don't know what's happening

But if those other people who are retarded also have their own set of principles that puts yours beneath theirs, how do you reconcile that?

i can just act according to my principles, i don't know what you mean by reconcile

I mean, they want your shit. By your principles they can't have it, but by their principles, in much the same way as the debate earlier, they think they can.

In much the same way that a politician doesn't have power without a military and police

your principles don't really have power beyond the force behind them

are you asking how i find peace with the fact that i have to pay taxes?

I'm a reformist, I'll remind you.

sorry i dont get the question

it seems hes asking how you ensure that your principles stay as the dominant principles

AnCap and AnCom require what practically amounts to a hive mind to function without war. How do you handle dissenters?

Basically what Blackhawk said.

"handle dissenters"? well if they attack me i hope i have enough numbers on my side for defending against their aggressions to be realistic

you dont really need a hive mind, just some respect for the principles

So, whoever has the most force gets to decide who the dissenters are.

simple force may not be enough

didnt darwin say that the most adaptable wins, not necessarily the strongest

If you end up in a community where 90% of the people want to take the property of the other 10%

if you pay attention you'll notice that war has been decreasing because the warzone has changed, the war is about opinions and beliefs and propaganda now

Poor response. You're still conceding that your property can be entirely lost due to a change in principle.

And that your defense of your own property would violate the NAP according to the claimants.

What grounds would the 10% have to stop them from taking their stuff, aside from violence

defending property would violate nap? no you can kill them in self defense

It's not your property.

i mean i agree that you need enough friends to be a formidable force to defend your rights and principles

i just dont know what you're trying to conclude

Something akin to a governing force for your area?

Some sort of agreements, accords in place

You need an army in other words

or a defense agency or militia yeah

Holy shit, sounds like a state to me.

or just a group of losely organized people with guns

And literally everyone will need these armies to keep their stuff

yeah its not too different from a state, it's just not a monopoly on coercion over a geographical zone and subject to market competition, but yeah other than that it's basically a government

Our Constitution already allows for that.

a lot of ancaps make a strong distinction between a state and a government, they say they actually want a government, but not a state

but i kind of end up using the terms interchangeably

So ancaps change definitions to suit their purposes...

*sigh*

But you do have a monopoloy on force over a certain geographical area

everyone fights over definitions tbh

Otherwise how would you control your property

When in doubt I resort to a dictionary...

yeah thats fair, but statists have an easier time calling dibs on a continent than private actors

```Definition of state
a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign```

So you arent against states

you just want more smaller ones as opposed to larger ones

With the US constitution, we came SO DAMNED CLOSE to getting something right.

What we have presently goes entirely against the constitution it's based on

That's why I'm a reformist. I want to see it enforced as it was meant to be.

could we try to avoid semantics a bit

We *could* but that would just be a point for you.

I do understand that you are against the monopoly on force

See, my principles call for a solid set of definitions before conversation can really happen.

lol ok im not your boss

The only thing you can do with monopolies is break them up

Holding companies shouldn't be a thing, for one thing.

im not even sure you could have a solid set of definitions if a language itself is inherently ambiguous

We have books for that.

This game has rules.

yeah and i think market competition breaks up monopolies, while traditional governments causes them to form

DnD has the core rulebook, we have dictionaries.

corporations seems to inherit the monopoly aspect of the state through lobbying and regulatory capture and so on

even government contracting

Oh absolutely. it's disgusting.

When you think of just how much power Google has

i believe this is absolutely inevitable as long as people have a belief that the state is necessary

You start to see where the archetypal Cyber-Punk dystopia comes from.

States can be reformed.

We have a process. if we could just get people to use it

and it'd be a hell of a lot easier to do that than to convince people that a state isn't needed.

with a hell of a lot less bloodshed, too.

well good luck

Yeah, I know. You don't think a descent down that path would be bloody. If you don't think that would be the case, you miss just how unprincipled most people are.

"normies" are low info voters

If you surround yourself with principled people, it's easy to forget.

people got no time to research cause they live the grind

well the harder i would push my beliefs on people, the bloodier it would be i suppose

Rarely is there ever a revolution that occurs without bloodshed.

I mean, I guess Canada got theirs peacefully just by asking politely...

not a revolution

that was essentially just a break off

A relocation or elimination of power.

how bloody was the industrial revolution?

tru

i guess its the matter of type

hundreds of thousands.

i mean in a sense it WAS bloody