From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:45:21 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:41 PM Subject: Re: Trump will NEVER turn America into a White nation! On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:13:02 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
- the libertarian position is no borders, no citizens, no government. well at least you got that one right.
I believe the correct libertarian position is no GOVERNMENT borders. Not no borders at all.
> Borders are by defintion a creation of the state. And > vice-versa. A state is defined by its borders. Well, maybe you're playing word-games. I used the term "borders" to refer, generically, to any demarcation of ownership or control over land. borders = boundaries. Topological separations.
Private property still rules. And anything which is currently "government property" should become quasi-private
False. Not to mention, you just made up a new ad-hoc kind of 'property'. There is no reason that a given piece of property cannot be owned, jointly, by many people. (Corporations own property, today.) Even, potentially, millions of people. Currently, things called "government" claims to "own" what is referred to as "public property". Get rid of the governments, and what happens? Does that land simply evaporate? No, it does not. Okay, then, who owns or controls it? That land contains roads, which people who own 'private property' often use to move around. In order to avoid too much disruption, it is reasonable to continue things so that this previously-publicly owned property should remain useable by many people. Absent a government, some sort of contract-driven group ownership of that land makes sense. (What is the alternative?) So no, I didn't really make up a new kind of property. I just expanded a previous form of property ownership by a group of people. Jim Bell