phase 2 would prolly be removing any non-left opinion

i had a feeling that was the plan

>how much of the market needs to be covered to be considered a monopoly? i mean, no 1 government has a monopoly of the world

not the whole world, but some have just called dibs on an entire continent

okay but some dont

the problem is that they dont have what is considered legitimate ownership of the land according to homesteading principles

please define what you believe the homesteading principle is

you need to perform an act of original appropriation, like putting it to use or joining it to acquired property, or marking it as owned

you cant just plant a flag, write a constitution and pretend everyone agrees

okay, how long does something need to be unclaimed for there to be no claim?

i'm not sure, it's something we've been discussing in ancap discords

old lady, no kids, no siblings, dies. no will, who gets the house? how long before someone can move in to make a claim?

what would we be waiting for?

make sure there is no one that was family to make a claim

or a friend or something

i think you would have that in mind if you go homesteading a house with dead people in it. you could take a chance and just go for it, but someone might come later and reassert their claim

and if you don't know if its true, it goes into arbitration, someone gets it

correct?

yeah

who pays for arbitration?

the ones who finds it valuable to do so

it can be paid for by anyone in any way except taxation

i want the same systems we have today, but without the taxes and state monopoly bs

so you mean, just as bad

the person with the most money wins most of the time

because why side with the person with less wealth, except in places of strong character and a defined set of right and wrong

both parties need to agree on a judge. if the judge always sides with the rich, there would be no point for the poor to consult that judge.

everyone has a track record

and no rich person would want a judge who wasn't going to side with them

particularly if they want the property

so, we have an impasse

we have a giant arbitration industry right now that a lot of people prefer to go to rather than the state. this seems like a basic old problem that the arbitration industry has solved long time ago.

worst case scenario the partisan judges would just have to choose an arbitrator they both agree on

we have an impasse. i mean, there is no state. so it easy to have this be a local thing

which means greater chance to have bias judges being the only thing near by

particular if you are dealing with say an out of towner

so we need an even more corruptible monopoly that settles it with an iron fist?

need? no. but then again, my argument is never that we need the state... its always that it will come back, and does for a reason. so why repeat history and instead do our best to fix this

but so we have an impasse

so, if one side wants to press, we have conflict

who is the aggressor?

well i agree in one sense