Where do any of the definitions from the dictionary mention the initiation of force?
You’re right, I messed that up. It’s through the threat of force.
There's nothing about groups being more effective that means only government can provide protection.
You can lay claim to property until your blue in the fact, but that alone doesn't make it yours. Your claim to possession is only as valid as the force that backs it up. If someone steals your land, it changes hands. As the former owner, you can make the moral claim that it’s yours, and I’d sympathize in such a situation, but claims simply will not change possession. This is done through force or the threat of force by the sovereign government.
You lost your way when you started to explain the reason specialization of labor means government would be more effective. It's not because groups are more efficient. It's because specialization of labor means that some people can train full time at being soldiers and are thus far more effective than untrained civilians. That still doesn't mean government government is required, but it would imply the existence of private armies which pose their own problems. I won't go into the discussion of how such problems can be resolved. I'll leave it by saying these issues have been examined and various solutions proposed.
There’s two reasons that group are more effective and efficient at property: specialization of labor
and strength in numbers. The logic being families defending their property are also defending their country, the same way a soldier defending his/her country is also defending their property and way of life.
Historically, the function of any territorial groups is to defend against external threats and and to implement a functioning property system for its members.
Territory is not property. The too things are entirely separate. Military force decides which court system is in force, but it doesn't decide who owns the property unless the invader decides to abolish or confiscate private property, which few ever do.
A state’s jurisdiction over its own territory comes from the rights ceded to it by individual property-holders so to speak. Territory can be considered a form of property in the broad sense.
Owning slaves is about the only kind of property that has been abolished. That was never a legitimate form of property in the first place.
I agree
As for the airwaves, they came into existence because of the invention of the radio. Government didn't create radio, Guglielmo Marconi invented it. Once invented boundaries had to be established to make it useful, just as upon discovering the new world the various governments involved had to establish the boundaries of privately owned land. However, history shows that communities found means other than government to establish property boundaries. There's no reason to imagine that some means other than government couldn't have been used to establish boundaries on the radio spectrum.
The airwaves examples was to demonstrate the government functioning for the commons. Markets don’t always deliver superior outcomes.
Wrong. It's a myth. A genuine contract must be agreed to by both parties. I never agreed to any of the rules that government imposes on me. Getting born doesn't constitute agreement to anything. That's basic contract law.
That's just wrong because the social contract is a myth. Government has no rights over me simply because I was born. That's the central myth of government and the reason it's not legitimate.
It's no such thing. In the first place, getting born isn't agreement to anything. In the second, government doesn't own the property I live on. You explicitly agree to pay a taxi fair because you voluntarily entered the taxi knowing you would have to pay a fair. Getting born within the boundaries of a specific government doesn't constitute knowledge or agreement to anything. This is the weakest of all the arguments statists use to justify government.
Your decision to reside in the United States is the agreement to abide by its social contract. It’s similar to owning a condo: it’s yours but you have a contract between you and your condo association. You agree to pay fees in exchange for certain services and abiding by its rules. You have an equal vote with other condo owners regarding rules, regs, budgets, etc. If you don’t intend to abide by the rules, you’re free to leave and have no right to reside there. There’s other places to live in the real estate market.
This is the inherent problem with the libertarian position. You claim you never signed a contract, but our society has long accepted the concept and validity of implied contracts. If you go to a concert, you’re required to pay, even though you never signed a contract.
Another example of the implicit nature of contracts are children. Many libertarians will argue that since children are basically victims of being born, it’s somehow not fair that you should be a party to a contract you never agreed to enter into. At least for the first 18 years of your life, your parents chose where you reside and your citizenship.
Only if you believe our country is a monarchy. In this country government exists at the sufferance of the citizens, including the property owners. It has authority only so lone as it does what the citizenry wants it to do. It does not have authority to arbitrarily impose its will as it would if it was the true owner. Your view of property ownership died with the revolution and monarchy in general.
No, it’s due to the fact the government is the penultimate owner of all property within its territory and jurisdiction. As citizens, we get to own property for personal and private use in exchange for accepting certain responsibilities, such as taxation and limitations on its use. The ultimate property holder creates the system of private property in its jurisdiction.
Duh, . . . wrong. The fact that private property existed prior to this point in time proves that you are wrong. You haven't even contested that fact.
First of all, the term "property" didn't even have a legal definition until like 17th century England. Before that, what we had was landed property, which was a crucial component of feudalism. If we go into antiquity, the Greeks and Romans had property, inheritance laws, etc, mostly based around social status. Without a government, you can't have a functioning property system. Please don't talk to me about ancient Iceland or Ireland, it doesn't cut the mustard, because those systems were a blip on the radar screen of recorded history.
