for anybody to extract again and use

nobody said there needs to be a "cosmic property registry" in order to have private property rights

the question is not about property rights ... but WHO lays claim on them

bcuz commies just want the property rights in THEIR little greedy hands

i said that property ownership SHOULD be absolute... not that it is necessarily as it is.... isnt that the point of "owning" something? if someone else could lay claim upon it and steal it w/o recourse (like the government) .... then obv property rights are not being respected

so who owns each and every one of you?

do you not believe in self-ownership?

yeah, if you don't "own" something legitimately ... youre not the real owner lol

"owning" something illegitimately contradicts the idea of ownership ... just bcuz someone seizes something or steal something from someone else doesnt make them the legit owner

we dont create laws that "allow" ppl to own things.... but laws that PROTECT ppl's property

cannot follow all of your comments, everyone... sorry ... this is getting too high volume chat lol

peace, @Hearts™ , good chatting

Vic, it still all boils down to property rights becuz theyre still disturbing others' domains

plus... in the .. ahem .... real world ... there are these things called homeowner associations that you can look as little micro governments that would handle things like that @vlnc.co

yes, @vlnc.co, that is the point.... it was voluntary agreement that you made to give up some of the property rights in exchange to live in a particular homeowner association

@>Cytos, de lieve goede synth i agree, such as intellectual property rights 😉

the point about property rights is that you are free to contract and modify the terms with other individuals .... the glory of voluntaryism!

that would all depends on the rest of the ppl... if they dont care for whatever reason... why should there be laws against that if they all explicitly agreed to ngaf about loud music

on the other hand... just think about it from a homeownership association point of view

thats like a micro government that is consentual

but, @vlnc.co, that is all sorted out in the market economy via explicit contracts and stipulations, etc

you will WANT to negotiate some rights away in return for certain privileges in the real world

like i give up the right to play obnoxiously loud music in my neighborhood in return for the others to agree to the same terms in the homeowner association

it all just boils down to consent and explicit contracts, my friends

"consent of the governed" etc ..... its like we try and masquerade under this idea already but never really bother to think about it deeper

there would still be a *de facto* government in a pure free market economy bcuz of all the contracts that are layered upon each other voluntarily and consentually

a lot of security firms would be run by insurance companies... etc bcuz they have an incentive to keep things peaceful and prevent damages and costs, etc

PEACE officers... bring them back!

all possible under private (consentual) governance

lol, thanks ✌

anybody could become their own private firearms manufacturer though... as Cody Wilson has demonstrated .....

theres a ton of really good content that the Mises Institute covers on their channel though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiFWiGdLwE8

just one example

i will take armies of Dale Brown clones over modern police thuggary manufactoring vicitimless crimes any day!

https://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia/search?query=private+government+police+security

well guess the subject has moved on! lol gg

@vlnc.co absolute ownership as the baseline, but any agreement can be negotiated with anybody with any contracts to change that .... the point is that i am arguing for explicit consent for anything property related

i mean, if i open up a water store with newly purified water from my innovative inventions..... and i want to sell the water.... im not goign to be like... NOPE I OWN THE WATER .... I AM ABSOLUTE OWNER

the limits need to be stipulated and consented to in order for it to be a legitimate limit on ownerships.... obvious ppl can be co-owners of private property

no though... democracy is just mob rule..... ochlocracy .. it does not depend on your consent

yes, there would be naturally emerging systems of dealing with hierarchical disputes, resolutions, and arbitration

private gov doesnt necessarily have to be micro... but would evolve into the de facto macro government eventually

it would still be decentralized, but it would only appear to be centralized by that point bcuz of the natural evolution of solving problems

here... im goign to send a link to an article about what is and is not valid contracts ..... really all boils down to contracts in the end

https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/what-makes-a-contract-invalid/

read this article .... we already have basically the conventions of private law/governance... it just needs to be realized

bcuz many institutions (states, nations, municipalities, etc) dont comply as valid contractors

@vlnc.co its not about doing away with government.... i always hound on ancaps about this..... bcuz you CAN consent to being governed in a government, right?

there are already international contracting laws in place, @vlnc.co, theyre called UCC codes, etc

https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/what-makes-a-contract-invalid/

read this article

if you dont consent, its not a valid contract, simple

unless you had already given up rights via contracts beforehand

then youre not legally bound to obey the dictates of the contracts becuz its not a valid agreement

you can go off and homestead somewhere off the grid if you so please lol

basically... in this system... you will have an explicit contract or "certificate of citizenship" in the US

bcuz citizenship now basically is just a social contract, a make-believe contract (not a valid contract)

all im saying is.... there are contracting laws and conventions already in place that would handle all this stuff

https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/what-makes-a-contract-invalid/

read this article and think about the so called "social contract"

the thing is .... currently "the government" is a monopoly on the initation of force AKA the state

but there would be no central authority in a nation of decentralized legal systems.... so you would have many more choices as a consumer

cuz im talking about a *polycentric* government rather than a monopolistic govt

with true checks and balances

where the votes of others arent forced upon you arbitrarily by mob rule .... and where you cannot force your will (democratically) onto others either

just think about it though.... in order for a contract to be legally valid here and now as it currently stands, EVERY single point/requirement of the contract needs to be satisfied, otherwise its a null-and-void, invalid contract .... illegitimate

anyways.... im getting burnt out.... feel free to PM me if you want to talk more tho

good talking with you so far about this tho, is still enjoyable for a friendly debate 😇

thanks, you too, anytime

😉

i hear your arguments though..... theyre valid concerns, but i still disagree with some of yoru premise that "macro govt requires some form of centralized authority" bcuz that is the beauty of emerging systems and spontaneous order

if you just take a look at computer technology.... just look at USB standards..... no centralized macro state authority dictating these standards... they have all arisen in common interest by tech companies and consumers ... that is an example of how emergent systems work... they EMERGE from the primordial waters of chaos and evolve into more structured order organically

these systems must *emerge* from the bottom up through *macro* voluntary human interactions.... not be imposed from the top down autocratically by self-serving politicians is what im saying

thats the invisible hand at work, and how it sorts everything out in the end..... nobody knew what would be on the other side of abolishing slavery ... and there were tons of doomsayers ("who will pick the cotton? somebody needs to pick the cotton! we'll all starve to death"), but just look at how the market solved all the problems with farming technology, etc. so it was a win-win for everybody to abolish the immoral practice of slavery

anyways..... lol 🤓

guess should have been moved to the debate thread!

regarding the whole water debate thing... i have no idea how it turned into that by the way.... someone said that the US Post Office is a necessesary function of the govt or that we need it ran by the government for whatever reason. all i said was that -- no, why should it be ran by the govt when the market can take care of it just as easily (and better). theres no good reason why the USPS should be ran by the govt.... i ask you... or else what? you also said that the govt does not monopolize this service bcuz Fed Ex and UPS can also mail letters in the large package envelopes (while illegal for them to handle regular letter envelopes due to the govt holding an arbitrary legal monopoly over this mailing service for no good reason). so you basically admitted that businesses can handle the service just as well in the market so what is the point in prohibiting UPS and Fed Ex from delivering regular mail envelopes like the USPS does. seems like an unfair business practice if you ask me to stamp out any competition! the USPS should be privatized.... no reason for it to be ran by the govt. they should be forced to compete alongside other mailing businesses in a level playing field of market competition. looks like the USPS will eventually crash and fail regardless bcuz of the inherent flaws and mismanagement of central planning. the question is... should tax payers be forced to prop up a failing business.... absolutely not! PM me if you disagree

make no mistake -- the USPS holds an unfair, government-protected legal monopoly over the regular slips of letter envelope mail. Lysander Spooner challanged their market share by offering the same service at a fraction of the cost.... and was quite sucessful at offering the same service at a much lower cost... but guess what... he got shut down by the govenment! Squashed! bcuz well.... just bcuz!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lucille-j-goodyear/spooner-vs-u-s-postal-system/

https://mises.org/library/usps-cursed-carriers

this is just common sense, people.... i dont see how this got twisted around to a debate about me defending your right to own the bottled water in your own fridge that you bought and paid for! i usually have about 15 gallons on hand of pure R/O water that i buy from a pure water store. that i don't own this water in the meantime before using it up or giving it away sure flies in the face of common sense -- nobody else would have the right to claim it without my consent. its funny how as if this water issue is somehow comparable to the unfair govt-protected monopoly of the USPS! its quite the non-sequitor.... the logic just does not follow. let me know if you disagree

iono, i was just reading some posts in the general discussion, and i was like.... "ahem.... excuse me, but i disagree [that the US Post Office is a necessary function of govt]"

and then SPLASH! water/property rights debate.... LOL

yeah i can barely keep up with the general thread in the discussion there earlier heh

true, so many overlapping discussions at once .... hard to follow who is responding to whom.... cannot imagine how crowded Sargon's channel must be

@DeusVolt @Uksio @Deleted User @missdanger @Senny @Tohob not gay if you dont make eye contact

thats okay.... patrons should have their own channel privileges IMO ... just makes sense

wow, a lot to unpack from that statement lol. definitely disagree though 😉

for all sorts of reasons.... regular businesses get undercut by the govt services so too hard for them to compete... businesses dont hav ethe power to tax, only to persuade consumer to choose them, but the govt doesnt care bcuz it will tax regardless, and if its doing a poor job, well it will just tax more and cry and under funding, when in a normal functioning business, it would just go under if it cannot sustain itself economically, and that is a good thing, all in the name of correcting and recorrecting the best means of allocating resources, etc. but the govt does not have these sorts of input/output indicators, nor do they run on the same incentives as businesses, in fact gov services are incentivized to do a worse job because they will be rewarded with more money if they perform poorly, so the incentivce structure are completely backwards perverse in the govt structure

of course the government can steal from you, thats the nature of their business and of taxation.... businesses are much more sensitive to bad reputation hurting their business, but gov is not effected by that bcuz they dont allow anyone to compete with the mailing letters anyways... so no competition to worry about

sure, they can compete with parcel packages, etc. but makes no sense for the USPS to hold a legal monopoly over the simple little paper envelope letters to be mailed

my point is that the USPS has unfair businesses advantages that is not part of the level playing field that everyone else has to operate under, why it should be privatised to compete more faily just like the others

not to mention they have an enormous market share... just imagine how muc hmarket share will be freed up to allow many other UPS and Fed Ex type of businesses to enter the industry

okay then, whats the point? sounds like youre kinda support my idea lol 😛

if it does a poor job at it, why force citizens to pay for it?

naw, you dont know that. youre just presuming. of course many more competitors will spring up bcuz that is the nature of innovation and startups

entrepreneurs always thinking of ways to offer better services at lower prices .... good for the consumer!

i dont really considermyself an ancap 😉