/liberty/ - Liberty

bump

>>85746

I'd argue that any permanent source of aggression, such as a state should be decapitated at the first sign of aggression against any property owner.

Meaning that states exist only to have their governments removed and their institutions privatized to expand free markets.

>>85858

but you dont know who is the property owner. someone who uses land? then farmers under feudalism were legitimate owners and should have rebelled?

bumping

bump

bump

>>85882

The owner of the land is whoever first used it. Most people clarify by saying whoever first transformed it with their labor from a natural resource to a processed one. So if the farmers under feudalism were the homesteaders of the land (most probably were), then that land is rightfully theirs. That land remains theirs until they voluntarily sell or gift it to someone else.

>>86290

>(most probably were)

you dont know for sure

>>85857

>>86076

>>86155

>>86276

This is pathetic. Make a better thread next time and people will want to discuss it. Your complicated question has a simple answer. The State is a monopolistic force with a heavily enforced monopoly on violence. This is sufficient cause for the destruction of The State, or sufficient reason to believe it to be illicit.

>>86388

>The State is a monopolistic force with a heavily enforced monopoly on violence.

landlord is monopolistic force with heavily enforced monopoly on violence too…

>>85746

Original owner can never be determined so the bootstrap phase is the government liquidating itself on the market.

>>86392

The landlord can only demand an eviction. He has no power to enact physical aggression. Nor is his ownership self-perpetuated. You're about to get a good glimpse of that with the next big housing bust with people dumb enough to seriously believe land ownership in itself is a money tree. Calling anything "monopolistic" carries no value as an argument for anything in a world where scarcity is a thing. Having no clear owner of the use and wear of a good does not mitigate conflict and only incentivizes careless use.

>>86392

You can build yourself a house and be free of your landlord. If you try to build yourself a new government to be free of the existing one, you'll soon be dead or in prison.

>>86401

Why can't the tenant "evict" the landlord? Who is the third party they're appealing to, and if there's not a state monopoly on judges, what's to stop the tenant from going to a judge that doesn't uphold property rights? And if all possible judges in all possible realities would rule in favor of the landlord, why even bother with the appeal instead of jumping straight to the throwing the tenant out part?

As long as you believe in property rights, you believe that property owners have the right to use violence against property users, but not vice versa. The poster above was wrong about landlords having a monopoly on houses, but correct that they have a monopoly on violence, in the same way that the state has a monopoly on violence when it's illegal to protect yourself from the police.

>>86393

>bootstrap

what?

>The landlord can only demand an eviction. He has no power to enact physical aggression.

defending one's property is self-defense just like you do selfdefense if someone attacks you

The U.S. is no longer a Republic.

Check-out the excellent threads and material posted here, with more details on this:

https://8ch.net/bannedfromqresearch/catalog.html

>>86643

tldr