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