No doubt.
I disagree that these are essentially delusional. They are (presumably) agreements between people. Humans donât need to be delusional to come to agreements with regards to human activity. These become delusional when they claim to prescribe non-human activity and objects. Unfortunately, nearly all human laws and government try to focus entirely upon territory/property instead of actual inter-human activity.
I guess that might work out for you, if you are content to live in a violent society. But no amount of violence is going to convince objects that you own them, or non-human animals (the vast majority) why human claims are valid. There doesnât seem to be much of a future in it.
Go to google maps and look at the border-- the Danube is right there, an obvious, easy to define border, but the line between Serbia and Croatia zig-zags back and forth across the river seemingly at random (though probably based on lots of factors).
Itâs not an issue of whether Iâm content with it. Itâs just the nature of how every government in the world works. Break the laws (which are theoretically agreed-upon rules governing social interactions), face some kind of consequences ranging from fines to incarceration to physical violence.
The idea of legal property isnât about convincing the land or the object or the original idea that someone âowns them.â Itâs about convincing other people that someone owns them.
The term for places nobody wants is terra nullius, but one reading of the Wikipedia list casts doubt on whether this really qualifies, since Croatia is exerting de facto jurisdiction.
Until recently, the only decent terra nullius around that wasnât in Antarctica or space was created by conflicting territorial claims between Egypt and Sudan, whereby neither side wanted to take a 795-square mile patch because to do so would be to implicitly endorse the other sideâs argument in the larger dispute.
Unfortunately for those who love both freedom and deserts, it has since come under the political control of a cruel hereditary dictatorship led by the wicked Princess Emily.
This all depends upon how people define âgovernmentâ. It is certainly not how all of them work, but if those are the ones you give legitimacy to, then you are stuck with them. As a LCD, I think itâs misanthropic and and an insult to human dignity. But since social life is an aggregate of our choices, we can each choose whatever we think is most accurate. Itâs part of my lifes work to make Westphaelen-style nation-states impossible to maintain.
I am aware of that. But this is precisely how property is delusional, because it assumes that human agreements naturally define the world at large, when they do not. It is an exercise in wishful thinking, like most economics, that manipulating the symbols for things causes a corresponding change in real-world resources. Itâs not difficult to make the argument that this has done very little to teach/enable humans to accurately account for and manage resources.
Whether productive or harmful, property laws are not âwishful thinkingâ if they actually control who can use which real-world resources. For example, if I walked into your home and took your computer I could be arrested for trespassing and theft because property laws ascribe consequences for certain kinds of human behavior. I might rail before the judge that all property is just a shared delusion but that still wouldnât keep me out of a jail cell.
That these claim to control real resources doesnât mean that they do in actuality, it still amounts to a nominally consensual activity. I could just as easily claim that my god is real if I can march you into a church at gunpoint. Rule by fiat has no place in a civilized society based upon reason. If you let violence determine what social activity is valid, you get a violent society. Consensus is composed of the decisions of individuals.
So? Is this then an exercise in resource management, or coercion? What if a monkey steals my computer? Are they subject to human law? What if I steal the monkeyâs computer? What if I buy a car from somebody and decree it to be public âpropertyâ?
It seems to be mostly a case of âWith friends like these, who needs enemies?â when people who seem to know better choose to go along with a harmful status quo simply because itâs traditional/widespread.
Heâs a good actor at anything he wants but damn! He was born to play that role.
All laws are enforced through some form of coercion. Thatâs hardly unique to laws governing property.
Only where the âconsensusâ has been proven ineffective. If it was actual, no coercion would be required. Coercion requires classism, a split between the governing and the governed. If the state draws itâs authority from the citizenry, then whence comes itâs capacity to act against them? The lack of civility is basically built-in.
There is wide social consensus that theft, rape and murder should not be tolerated in civil society. But we still try to coerce would-be thieves, rapists and murderers to avoid doing those things by creating consequences for those who choose to ignore that consensus.
While simultaneously institutionalizing theft, rape, and murder when done by the state on a larger scale. Hence my remarks about the problems of classism.
Yeah⌠Iâm not familiar with the reasons why, but itâs easy to see it swinging into some weird territory given the states involved, and the still tense relations between them. The region between Kosova and Serbia (which include a strong Albanian minority within Serbia and a strong Serb minority in Northern Kosova along the border) is still a dangerous hotspot.
Just what we need in the Balkans . . . another minority population to be oppressed . . . Liblanders.
land adjacent to Serbia, but which Serbia doesnât want
From which we deduce that there arenât any Croats or Bosnians living there.
From the sounds of it, most would be cheering it on.
âAw, did the poor dinkums Libertarian get Philosophically Cleansed?!?â
Which then lets the libertarians fulfill their ultimate vision. A place where all there is to do is talk about how the statists ruined everything.
Derby Lineâs fully accessible from the rest of the state, it just happens that portions of their buildings are located upon Canadian soil. They used to have just a simple gate in town on the roads crossing the border but thanks to 9/11 that had to change.
Side note: all that national security funding went to worthless shit and reenforcing the border where it didnât need it, but none went to funding the department that actually staffs border crossings, and the number of agents was cut almost in half over the last 6 years.
Ironically, perhaps, it tends to be precisely the statists who complain when people create a new state. Go figure.
