CDZ Squatter Rights

[RetiredGySgt]

see HE wants to tell you if you are "sustaining" your own land to his standards if you're not he thinks he can claim it as his own

Indeed.

The individual has always been the highest form of legitimized sovereignty. My opinion is as valid as that of an established majority or an established minority (and states are always ran by minorities).

Basically you want to be a tyrant who gets to decide what you want no matter what. You don't want to participate in community you want to just do what ever you want with no consequences.

 

[Onyx]

Basically you want to be a tyrant who gets to decide what you want no matter what.

While I do decide what I want in life (as do you), I do not believe in using aggressive force to attain what I want. That would make me a ruler, and unlike dependent sycophants like you, I do not condone rulers.

I only believe in acting in self defense. Such as when entitled socialists like you start claiming what does not belong to you, E.G, non-sustained land.

You don't want to participate in community you want to just do what ever you want with no consequences.

False. It is the savage and barbaric state that you support which does not want to participate in the community.

A true community is a collection of independent individuals which regularly come into contact with each other. The act of living and making decisions is a form of participation within the community.

The state maintaining a monopoly on violence destroys the community.

 

[Andylusion]

Basically you want to be a tyrant who gets to decide what you want no matter what.

While I do decide what I want in life (as do you), I do not believe in using aggressive force to attain what I want. That would make me a ruler, and unlike dependent sycophants like you, I do not condone rulers.

I only believe in acting in self defense. Such as when entitled socialists like you start claiming what does not belong to you, E.G, non-sustained land.

You don't want to participate in community you want to just do what ever you want with no consequences.

False. It is the savage and barbaric state that you support which does not want to participate in the community.

A true community is a collection of independent individuals which regularly come into contact with each other. The act of living and making decisions is a form of participation within the community.

The state maintaining a monopoly on violence destroys the community.

Really.... You support squatters rights, which implies using force. If I show up at my property, and kick you off it.... how do you propose defending your squatters rights?

My guess is you want government to keep me from removing you from my property. Am I wrong? Because me and 20 of my ex-military relatives will remove you from my property unless you have government force on your side.

And it does belong to me, whether your irrelevant opinion says otherwise, or not. If I own it... It's mine. If you don't agree with that, we can always go towards no ownership, which is anarchy, and me and my 20 relatives will simply.... remove you... one way or another.

Either you accept property laws, or you don't. If you don't, then 9mm baby. I'll have the squatters removed with flying metal. No ownership laws, so it's as much mine that way too.

Which do you choose?

 

[Onyx]

\
Really.... You support squatters rights, which implies using force. If I show up at my property, and kick you off it.... how do you propose defending your squatters rights?

Did you even read my position?

I only support squatter rights when the property is not being sustained, IE, being left unused. No one has any right, in my opinion, to barge into someones home and slip into the bed.

My guess is you want government to keep me from removing you from my property.

You guessed wrong.

I believe "squatters" (which is already a subjective abstraction) have the right to tell you to fuck off if you try to kick them off of abandoned land.

If you don't agree with that, we can always go towards no ownership, which is anarchy

That is not the definition of an anarchy, but whatever.

Either you accept property laws, or you don't. If you don't, then 9mm baby. I'll have the squatters removed with flying metal. No ownership laws, so it's as much mine that way too.

Which do you choose?

I choose to mock you for trying to act tough on the internet.

 

[Andylusion]

\
Really.... You support squatters rights, which implies using force. If I show up at my property, and kick you off it.... how do you propose defending your squatters rights?

Did you even read my position?

I only support squatter rights when the property is not being sustained, IE, being left unused. No one has any right, in my opinion, to barge into someones home and slip into the bed.

My guess is you want government to keep me from removing you from my property.

You guessed wrong.

I believe "squatters" (which is already a subjective abstraction) have the right to tell you to fuck off if you try to kick them off of abandoned land.

If you don't agree with that, we can always go towards no ownership, which is anarchy

That is not the definition of an anarchy, but whatever.

Either you accept property laws, or you don't. If you don't, then 9mm baby. I'll have the squatters removed with flying metal. No ownership laws, so it's as much mine that way too.

Which do you choose?

I choose to mock you for trying to act tough on the internet.

Well you have the right to be wrong. Oh and please please please don't mock me... I might really care.... maybe.

 

[Onyx]

Well you have the right to be wrong. Oh and please please please don't mock me... I might really care.... maybe.

If you do not care, then go away. "Debating" with dumbass tools is more stressful than it looks

 

[esthermoon]

You say you believe in "the human capacity to resolve minor civil disputes"
Ok but what about crimes? What would happen to all criminals in an anarchist society?

That's a really dumb question. The term criminal is a social construct maintained arbitrarily by a self imposed powerful minority.

Explaining social constructions to statists seems to be a wasted endeavor, but as is.

You can't do almost anything against those who commit crimes.

"Crimes" in the technical sense of the word do not exist, without an established authority to label them as such.

There is however actions that human beings consider undesirable out of their own principle. There are many ways society can solves petty disputes such as theft, infringement, etcetera.

There are inner community debates on the capacity for violence within anarchy, but I personally believe in a strict adherence to non-aggression. That is different than pacifism, in that I believe others have the right to act in defense.

Crime is not a social construct.
If somebody kill or rape or rob a person what is that? A social construct?
Crime is a real thing.
I don't think a "free society" should be able to fight criminals above all organized crime

 

[Onyx]

Crime is not a social construct.

Yes it is.

A crime is a breach of the state, and without a state to arbitrarily declare others criminals, the concept of crime is nonexistent.

If somebody kill or rape or rob a person what is that? A social construct?

I'd consider them actions, and depending on how you feel about them, immoral actions.

Technically all words are social constructions. The dictionary definition of a crime is a breach of the state or the established law, neither of which would exist.

I don't think a "free society" should be able to fight criminals above all organized crime

Could you clarify, please?

 

[WinterBorn]

Crime is not a social construct.

Yes it is.

A crime is a breach of the state, and without a state to arbitrarily declare others criminals, the concept of crime is nonexistent.

If somebody kill or rape or rob a person what is that? A social construct?

I'd consider them actions, and depending on how you feel about them, immoral actions.

Technically all words are social constructions. The dictionary definition of a crime is a breach of the state or the established law, neither of which would exist.

I don't think a "free society" should be able to fight criminals above all organized crime

Could you clarify, please?

So those who are stronger (or better armed) get to do as they please? No thanks.

You fantasy is cute but unworkable.

 

[Onyx]

So those who are stronger (or better armed) get to do as they please?

That is what YOU believe.

Unlike you savage barbarians, I believe no human being should be allowed to rule over another.

You fantasy is cute but unworkable.

The irony is striking.

 

[WinterBorn]

So those who are stronger (or better armed) get to do as they please?

That is what YOU believe.

Unlike you savage barbarians, I believe no human being should be allowed to rule over another.

You fantasy is cute but unworkable.

The irony is striking.

Irony? Hardly. But i find it amusing that you think anyone who doesn't favor scrapping all govt is a statist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Crime is not a social construct.

Yes it is.

A crime is a breach of the state, and without a state to arbitrarily declare others criminals, the concept of crime is nonexistent.

If somebody kill or rape or rob a person what is that? A social construct?

I'd consider them actions, and depending on how you feel about them, immoral actions.

Technically all words are social constructions. The dictionary definition of a crime is a breach of the state or the established law, neither of which would exist.

I don't think a "free society" should be able to fight criminals above all organized crime

Could you clarify, please?

So in your utopia murder wouldn't happen? Rape wouldn't happen? No one would take from others?

 

[Onyx]

Irony? Hardly. But i find it amusing that you think anyone who doesn't favor scrapping all govt is a statist.

States and governments are not the same thing. I suggest you read a book, and maybe stop strawmanning the positions of others.

 

[Onyx]

So in your utopia murder wouldn't happen? Rape wouldn't happen? No one would take from others?

Those questions imply that I made claims to contrary. I never did.

Utopias do not exist. If you want to talk about utopian ideologies, then look at your own savage beliefs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So in your utopia murder wouldn't happen? Rape wouldn't happen? No one would take from others?

Those questions imply that I made claims to contrary. I never did.

Utopias do not exist. If you want to talk about utopian ideologies, then look at your own savage beliefs.

And yet you want no laws and no courts to do anything about murder rape and theft. What do you propose happen to those who murder rape and steal? A stern tongue lashing?

 

[Onyx]

And yet you want no laws and no courts to do anything about murder rape and theft.

I do not believe in handing over my freedom so another man can have power.

The criminal justice system is this country is absolute tyranny. The laws are written for the ruling class. I could easily do without both.

What do you propose happen to those who murder rape and steal?

Whatever happens.

I am not your ruler. It is not my responsibility to put systems in place to protect your weak and dependent ass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet you want no laws and no courts to do anything about murder rape and theft.

I do not believe in handing over my freedom so another man can have power.

The criminal justice system is this country is absolute tyranny. The laws are written for the ruling class. I could easily do without both.

What do you propose happen to those who murder rape and steal?

Whatever happens.

I am not your ruler. It is not my responsibility to put systems in place to protect your weak and dependent ass.

So you ADMIT you support the idea that only the strong have rights, thanks for admitting it.

 

[Onyx]

So you ADMIT you support the idea that only the strong have rights, thanks for admitting it.

No, I never admitted that. I could do without the strawman.

There is a difference between strength and power. Strength is not being able to bark orders and incite violence, as is what a ruler does. A strong man does not need others to rule him, nor does he need to rule others. The strong man rules himself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you ADMIT you support the idea that only the strong have rights, thanks for admitting it.

No, I never admitted that. I could do without the strawman.

There is a difference between strength and power. Strength is not being able to bark orders and incite violence, as is what a ruler does. A strong man does not need others to rule him, nor does he need to rule others. The strong man rules himself.

You admitted you would do nothing to anyone for rape murder and theft and that you do not care what happens to weak people in your version of society, Further you stated you had no reason to make any allowance for what should happen to those that murder rape and steal. Now you want to claim otherwise?

 

[Onyx]

You admitted you would do nothing to anyone for rape murder and theft

What I actually said, is that I would not create a system for you. In doing so, I would establish a monopoly on violence, which would only cause pain and suffering.

If someone was murdering/raping you in the moment, I would come to your defense.

and that you do not care what happens to weak people in your version of society

Nope, I never said that and I do not believe that.

I do in fact care about what happens to the 'weak.' That is why I oppose the violent state which preys on the weak to survive, unlike savages like you.

Further you stated you had no reason to make any allowance for what should happen to those that murder rape and steal. Now you want to claim otherwise?

If you asked questions instead of engaging in strawman, I could tell you my actual beliefs.

I have no time for you barbarians if you are going to keep putting words in my mouth.