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