Libertarian land ownership theory

Radar · 08-04-2006, 05:02 PM

Here is libertarian land theory for you...

I own my land. It's mine, and nobody else on earth has any claim to it. I can do with it as I please. My neighbors have no say in what I do with my land as long as I'm not polluting into ground water or otherwise trespassing on their land. If I'm not living on my land, it's still mine. If you camp out on my land, you have no ownership of it. If you build a house on my land, you have no ownership of the land or the house. If you and your family move into the house and live there for 10 generations, you still have no ownership of the land or the house. The land belongs to me (assuming I've lived 10 generations) or to those I've given it to, and not to you. Your presence on my land does not give you any ownership of it; not even if you've been there for 300 years.

If land is won by governments in wars, it is honestly acquired land every bit as much as if it were purchased or given to them as a gift. This is especially true if the country that wins the land did not start the aggression in the first place. This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.

If you find land that is not claimed by anyone else, you can claim it for yourself...assuming you can defend it. For instance, the American Indians didn't claim to own land because they didn't think land could be owned. This means no land was ever stolen from them and any claims of such are completely empty.

We can apply this to the middle-east as well.

As far as recorded history goes, it shows that Israel has always been controlled by one empire or another. It was controlled by the Egyptian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire that we know of.

While I'm against imperialism and the initiation of force, land won in wars is honestly acquired, especially if the land was won by the defending force rather than the attacking force.

The land currently called Jordan, and the land being fought over by the nomadic Arabs of the area calling themselves "Palestinians" was historically all considered Israel. At no point during all of recorded history did these nomads own a single grain of sand in the disputed territory. It was owned by the UK, and the Turks, and the Egyptians, but never the squatters living on it.

The UK generously decided to split the land in half and give half of it to those squatters, who previously owned nothing. They gave the other half to the Jewish people to return part of their historical homeland so they would have a nation of their own after being persecuted throughout the world for so long.

Rather than be grateful for finally owning some land for the first time in history, these racist murderers claimed they were wronged, and started murdering Jewish people. They have said they will not stop until the last Jew is dead. They don't recognize their right to even live.

Israel on the other hand, has extended kindness, opportunity, charity, and political freedom to Arabs at a level they could never get in any Arab nation. They allow Arab men AND WOMEN to become Israeli citizens and to live, vote, work, and hold political office within Israel. There is no Arab nation on earth that allows Jews to become citizens, and none allow women to vote. Very few of them allow anyone to vote.

Israel has been under constant attack from their neighbors, but has tried to reason with them, tried to broker deals, has made concessions, and has gone above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to reaching out a hand in friendship, but the response is always the same. The hand they extend in friendship is cut off.

Things became really clear in 1996 when the Israeli government offered all the land they won in 1967 back to the so-called "Palestinians" and offered them everything they wanted other than automatic citizenship to Israel through the "right of return". Israel said they'd even work with the UN to declare "Palestine" to be an actual country. All they had to do was not kill any Jews for 2 weeks. They couldn't do it.

Israel had exhausted all reasonable actions to make peace. It became readily apparent that they didn't want peace, they only wanted to kill Jews.

You can't reason with people who are without reason and don't recognize your right to live. The Arab nations have some of the worst human rights records on earth and are all worse than Israel. You can't make deals with those who have spent the last 60 years shaking your hand while stabbing you in the back with the other hand.

No other country would have been as patient, understanding, and kind-hearted as the peace loving Israelis. No other nation would allow themselves to have women and children targeted for murder for 60 years without just destroying those who attack them once and for all.

Israel is very powerful, and isn't interested in conquest. They easily have the military might to defeat every other nation in the middle-east and to take all of their land if that was their aim, but they haven't done that. All they want is to live in peace on their own land without having their racist neighbors blowing up their women and children. The fact that Israel is as strong as it is, without just destroying those who have been attacking them for the last 60 years is a testament to their desire for peace.

If Mexicans started blowing up women and children in American malls, bus stops, movie theaters, etc. because they used to own a lot of it, do you really think America should make concessions and deals for 60 years before we just destroy them and take all of Mexico? Do you really think we should say, "Ok, we'll give you Arizona back, but you can't have Texas or California? (I wish they'd take Texas back)

Do you think we should ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves? Do you really think we should worry about the opinions of those in other nations if they call us monsters for defending ourselves? Should we just allow them to blow up our women and children if they happen to run back and hide among Mexican women and children?

This analogy is flawed though because Mexico actually did own the southwest part of America, while the so-called Palestinians never owned anything to begin with.

Ibby · 08-04-2006, 05:51 PM

...And?

richlevy · 08-04-2006, 07:00 PM

Define safe.

If you decide to open a sewage treatment plant or nuclear waste reprocessing facility on you land, will you post a bond against possible damage to my land, or the air and water I breathe?

If not, is it fair for the community to shoulder the burden of cleanup when there is an incident?

I find it ironic that conservatives are so in favor of tort reform, when civil action is the only way to enforce the libertarian notion that people and businesses should be held responsible for their actions.

Setting a half million dollar cap on a 5 million dollar cleanup is essentially corporate welfare in that everyone else is assuming the burden of the actions of an individual or business.

footfootfoot · 08-04-2006, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radar

If land is won by governments in wars, it is honestly acquired land every bit as much as if it were purchased or given to them as a gift. This is especially true if the country that wins the land did not start the aggression in the first place. This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.

So, by extension,
If I come up behind you and sucker punch you (government of me waging war on government of you) and take your wallet, keys, then by extension house and chattel it is all OK?

Cool! I'll be right over. Oh wait. No, that doesn't seem right to me. I must not be a libertarian.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-05-2006, 12:13 AM

Uh,...don't forget;

Quote:

This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.

Good luck with that.

elSicomoro · 08-05-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

The UK generously decided to split the land in half

Depends on who you ask. From what I've read, the British were only too happy to leave Palestine when their UN mandate ended...especially given that some Jews started using terrorism to force the British out (e.g. the King David Hotel explosion).

Radar · 08-05-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy

Define safe.

If you decide to open a sewage treatment plant or nuclear waste reprocessing facility on you land, will you post a bond against possible damage to my land, or the air and water I breathe?

If not, is it fair for the community to shoulder the burden of cleanup when there is an incident?

I find it ironic that conservatives are so in favor of tort reform, when civil action is the only way to enforce the libertarian notion that people and businesses should be held responsible for their actions.

Setting a half million dollar cap on a 5 million dollar cleanup is essentially corporate welfare in that everyone else is assuming the burden of the actions of an individual or business.

It doesn't matter if I want to open a porno theater across from an elementary school, a sewage treatment plant, a nuclear material's processing plant, a coal mine, or a garbage dump. I'm responsible for any damages I cause. I don't have to pay for damages I haven't caused so a bond is out of the question. Why should I have my money tied up in bonds when I can have it earning serious money for me? Unless you can prove that I've caused damage (which I wouldn't because I'm a libertarian), you have no rights when it comes to what I do with my own land regardless of the proximity of your land. Neither does any government at any level. Any laws they make to the contrary are illigitimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Uh,...don't forget;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.

Good luck with that.

Luckily our government was originally built with the protection of private property in mind. A nation is only as free as it recognizes the sanctity of private ownership to be. The government's job here is to defend the private property of the weak so they can keep it even if they are unable to defend it on their own. I certainly don't agree with the strong victimizing the weak. It's just the way things have been during all of recorded humanity.

Sadly, our government is moving away from defending private property and is now helping private businesses to steal it from citizens.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-06-2006, 05:53 PM

I was thinking if 3foot took your, "wallet, keys, then by extension house and chattel", the government would be the least of his problems.

footfootfoot · 08-06-2006, 07:55 PM

I can outrun him.

Radar · 08-07-2006, 11:59 AM

Can you outrun a .357 Magnum?

footfootfoot · 08-07-2006, 12:22 PM

OK, so instead of sucker punching someone, I'd just shoot them. Does might make right?

Radar · 08-07-2006, 12:47 PM

Historically? Yes.

footfootfoot · 08-07-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

Can you outrun a .357 Magnum?

I can outrun a .357 magnum, but can I outrun a .357.357.357 magnum?

footfootfoot · 08-07-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

Historically? Yes.

Well, I knew that part. what about morally or ethically? Are we up to our own interpretaion of this? what happens when two libertarians don't agree upon points of dogma, do they just "duke it out"?

I'm not being sarcastic, I am very curious about the libertarian party especially since I despise all the other parties. I've only heard about libertarians in vague and innuendo ridden terms.

Where can I find out more?

Flint · 08-07-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

I am very curious about the libertarian party especially since I despise all the other parties.

I just vote for any third party. I don't even care what they stand for, I'm just opting out of the ping-pong game.

08-04-2006, 05:02 PM	#1
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Libertarian land ownership theory Here is libertarian land theory for you... I own my land. It's mine, and nobody else on earth has any claim to it. I can do with it as I please. My neighbors have no say in what I do with my land as long as I'm not polluting into ground water or otherwise trespassing on their land. If I'm not living on my land, it's still mine. If you camp out on my land, you have no ownership of it. If you build a house on my land, you have no ownership of the land or the house. If you and your family move into the house and live there for 10 generations, you still have no ownership of the land or the house. The land belongs to me (assuming I've lived 10 generations) or to those I've given it to, and not to you. Your presence on my land does not give you any ownership of it; not even if you've been there for 300 years. If land is won by governments in wars, it is honestly acquired land every bit as much as if it were purchased or given to them as a gift. This is especially true if the country that wins the land did not start the aggression in the first place. This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you. If you find land that is not claimed by anyone else, you can claim it for yourself...assuming you can defend it. For instance, the American Indians didn't claim to own land because they didn't think land could be owned. This means no land was ever stolen from them and any claims of such are completely empty. We can apply this to the middle-east as well. As far as recorded history goes, it shows that Israel has always been controlled by one empire or another. It was controlled by the Egyptian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire that we know of. While I'm against imperialism and the initiation of force, land won in wars is honestly acquired, especially if the land was won by the defending force rather than the attacking force. The land currently called Jordan, and the land being fought over by the nomadic Arabs of the area calling themselves "Palestinians" was historically all considered Israel. At no point during all of recorded history did these nomads own a single grain of sand in the disputed territory. It was owned by the UK, and the Turks, and the Egyptians, but never the squatters living on it. The UK generously decided to split the land in half and give half of it to those squatters, who previously owned nothing. They gave the other half to the Jewish people to return part of their historical homeland so they would have a nation of their own after being persecuted throughout the world for so long. Rather than be grateful for finally owning some land for the first time in history, these racist murderers claimed they were wronged, and started murdering Jewish people. They have said they will not stop until the last Jew is dead. They don't recognize their right to even live. Israel on the other hand, has extended kindness, opportunity, charity, and political freedom to Arabs at a level they could never get in any Arab nation. They allow Arab men AND WOMEN to become Israeli citizens and to live, vote, work, and hold political office within Israel. There is no Arab nation on earth that allows Jews to become citizens, and none allow women to vote. Very few of them allow anyone to vote. Israel has been under constant attack from their neighbors, but has tried to reason with them, tried to broker deals, has made concessions, and has gone above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to reaching out a hand in friendship, but the response is always the same. The hand they extend in friendship is cut off. Things became really clear in 1996 when the Israeli government offered all the land they won in 1967 back to the so-called "Palestinians" and offered them everything they wanted other than automatic citizenship to Israel through the "right of return". Israel said they'd even work with the UN to declare "Palestine" to be an actual country. All they had to do was not kill any Jews for 2 weeks. They couldn't do it. Israel had exhausted all reasonable actions to make peace. It became readily apparent that they didn't want peace, they only wanted to kill Jews. You can't reason with people who are without reason and don't recognize your right to live. The Arab nations have some of the worst human rights records on earth and are all worse than Israel. You can't make deals with those who have spent the last 60 years shaking your hand while stabbing you in the back with the other hand. No other country would have been as patient, understanding, and kind-hearted as the peace loving Israelis. No other nation would allow themselves to have women and children targeted for murder for 60 years without just destroying those who attack them once and for all. Israel is very powerful, and isn't interested in conquest. They easily have the military might to defeat every other nation in the middle-east and to take all of their land if that was their aim, but they haven't done that. All they want is to live in peace on their own land without having their racist neighbors blowing up their women and children. The fact that Israel is as strong as it is, without just destroying those who have been attacking them for the last 60 years is a testament to their desire for peace. If Mexicans started blowing up women and children in American malls, bus stops, movie theaters, etc. because they used to own a lot of it, do you really think America should make concessions and deals for 60 years before we just destroy them and take all of Mexico? Do you really think we should say, "Ok, we'll give you Arizona back, but you can't have Texas or California? (I wish they'd take Texas back) Do you think we should ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves? Do you really think we should worry about the opinions of those in other nations if they call us monsters for defending ourselves? Should we just allow them to blow up our women and children if they happen to run back and hide among Mexican women and children? This analogy is flawed though because Mexico actually did own the southwest part of America, while the so-called Palestinians never owned anything to begin with. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

08-04-2006, 05:51 PM	#2
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	...And? __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

08-04-2006, 07:00 PM	#3
richlevy King Of Wishful Thinking Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Philadelphia Suburbs Posts: 6,669	Define safe. If you decide to open a sewage treatment plant or nuclear waste reprocessing facility on you land, will you post a bond against possible damage to my land, or the air and water I breathe? If not, is it fair for the community to shoulder the burden of cleanup when there is an incident? I find it ironic that conservatives are so in favor of tort reform, when civil action is the only way to enforce the libertarian notion that people and businesses should be held responsible for their actions. Setting a half million dollar cap on a 5 million dollar cleanup is essentially corporate welfare in that everyone else is assuming the burden of the actions of an individual or business. __________________ Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE! I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama

08-06-2006, 05:53 PM	#8
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	I was thinking if 3foot took your, "wallet, keys, then by extension house and chattel", the government would be the least of his problems. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-06-2006, 07:55 PM	#9
footfootfoot To shreds, you say? Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet! Posts: 18,449	I can outrun him. __________________ The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs

08-07-2006, 11:59 AM	#10
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Can you outrun a .357 Magnum? __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

08-07-2006, 12:22 PM	#11
footfootfoot To shreds, you say? Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet! Posts: 18,449	OK, so instead of sucker punching someone, I'd just shoot them. Does might make right? __________________ The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs

08-07-2006, 12:47 PM	#12
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Historically? Yes. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)