You may have a point to a certain extent, but unfortunately, in this age 'might is right'. Therefore, fairness is secondary. As Bill Gates said ' Life is not fair, deal with it'.
Think of it this way guys. If you don't feel like you should pay taxes to support the military invasions of other countries, and I'm sure many of you don't, what would happen?
Do you think that you should have the right to opt out of paying those taxes? Do you think that enough people might agree with what they're going to that they decide to pay them anyway? For instance, if there was a push to protect people from genocide, how hard do you think it would be to get people to opt in?
Nevermind. I've got it. The planet is just a huge example of the "tragedy of the commons" which is really just a fancy way of saying that all humans will either die out some day or evolve into something else to deal with resource depletion. Thus, pretending to own something is a coping mechanism that humans use to deal with the fact that life has no meaning. How pleasant.
This whole idea of land ownership has me at a loss. How can anyone own land at all? Would historical records show who made use of the land first? If this is the case, then how would land be distributed equally seeing as almost everyone would be able to make some sort of historical claim to all the land? We own ourselves, but cannot survive with out the planet, so it would seem as if the planet owns us more so than we own it. It's like a dog marking his master or something...I'm so confused.
so all those people who own land that they are not making use of should lose that land? if you own 5 houses how can you make use of all of them? surely you can only live in one house at a time? what about nature reserves? national parks? didn't americans fight and win all the land of the USA? you american's surprise by the length you will go to make sure poor people don't get health care and you don't have to pay taxes
Are you the one who devoted the time/money/effort to creating those 5 houses? Then you own them. I did not say that you have to live in a space to claim it, but merely make some kind of use out of it.
I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would buy up a nature reserve/national park and keep it just the way it is and perhaps make it a tourist location.
Is that really how you think we should claim land? Give smallpox to the current inhabitants and plant a flag in their corpses?
@JacobSpinney What a joke. Take Yellowstone: if it was in private hands it be more profitable to open it up for development as a source of geo-thermal energy generation, since making a profit is the primary objective that is what would happen to Yellowstone. As for how the state obtained its territory, true some was obtained by conquest and some was purchased. In today's world it's not considered acceptable to obtain territory by conquest but that doesn't undo past territory acquisitions.
@JacobSpinney This state existed long before you were even born, it didn't impose itself upon you. You choose to remain living it that state's territory. If you wish to live some place that is not state organized than it is on you find yourself such a place. You aren't held here by force. You have a choice. Society isn't obliged to change the fundamental ways in which it operates to accommodate you, nor is the state obliged to abolish itself to accommodate you.
Agreed. As I believe we all are individual egocentrics and thus the word 'group' means the biggest possible social convention shared by those individuals I too believe that this is a very good start to deal with the concept of trading - especially 'land'. But it leaves me with questions both ways: Who does the 'first' owner claim the land from - and why does a party like 'the government' need land anyway? Building important structures or controlling controllable areas for 'darker' purposes... ?
The first owner claims the land from nature. Much like someone eating an apple from a wild apple tree.
The government does indeed take over peoples property to make government buildings, roads, etc. But the main thing the government does isn't physically claim the land, but theoretically claim the land, attesting that they have the right to apply their rules to your land and thus tax you and have you subject to it's laws.
... i wonder where this thought might take us - but I strongly believe you are on the right track. Next step: What leads to the idea of making 'us' pay taxes for 'existential' needs like a place to build a home on? What do you think makes a 'governing' superior come to the point to be allowed to do this?
yes, okay, all points there, but - frankly: I don't get this place, but what I do get is my chance to see where I can connect to others - and I strongly feel that you do have the answer there - but please take me further. Those are the everyday answers we all see... but I get that I took you to the wrong end. Other end: Is there a suggestion for the better that you have in mind? Something in your head that made you make this video. Not the obvious statement - where would you start to change it?
To decide as a society to live in a truly free society with no state to feed off of its progress. A society where we can decide how to handle problems on a voluntary basis rather than through force. A society based on the principle of self ownership where those who don't wish to abide by this principle risk being ostracized from.
My main gripe is that you use the word "logical" several times, yet it doesn't really seem like logic is what is applicable here. Perhaps you mean rational?
You may have a point to a certain extent, but unfortunately, in this age 'might is right'. Therefore, fairness is secondary. As Bill Gates said ' Life is not fair, deal with it'.
paktuan 2 months ago
Think of it this way guys. If you don't feel like you should pay taxes to support the military invasions of other countries, and I'm sure many of you don't, what would happen?
Do you think that you should have the right to opt out of paying those taxes? Do you think that enough people might agree with what they're going to that they decide to pay them anyway? For instance, if there was a push to protect people from genocide, how hard do you think it would be to get people to opt in?
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
Nevermind. I've got it. The planet is just a huge example of the "tragedy of the commons" which is really just a fancy way of saying that all humans will either die out some day or evolve into something else to deal with resource depletion. Thus, pretending to own something is a coping mechanism that humans use to deal with the fact that life has no meaning. How pleasant.
Redvisorman 1 year ago
This whole idea of land ownership has me at a loss. How can anyone own land at all? Would historical records show who made use of the land first? If this is the case, then how would land be distributed equally seeing as almost everyone would be able to make some sort of historical claim to all the land? We own ourselves, but cannot survive with out the planet, so it would seem as if the planet owns us more so than we own it. It's like a dog marking his master or something...I'm so confused.
Redvisorman 1 year ago
Excellent analogy of the difference between the population of a country and the government of a country.
It is difficult to get some people to accept that the country of a country is *not* identical with the population of the country.
kevinbenko 2 years ago
this is kinda random but ur hair is FUCKIN AWESOME!!! lol
alecz444 2 years ago
so all those people who own land that they are not making use of should lose that land? if you own 5 houses how can you make use of all of them? surely you can only live in one house at a time? what about nature reserves? national parks? didn't americans fight and win all the land of the USA? you american's surprise by the length you will go to make sure poor people don't get health care and you don't have to pay taxes
FreeBornJohn1600s 2 years ago
No.
Are you the one who devoted the time/money/effort to creating those 5 houses? Then you own them. I did not say that you have to live in a space to claim it, but merely make some kind of use out of it.
I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would buy up a nature reserve/national park and keep it just the way it is and perhaps make it a tourist location.
Is that really how you think we should claim land? Give smallpox to the current inhabitants and plant a flag in their corpses?
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
@JacobSpinney What a joke. Take Yellowstone: if it was in private hands it be more profitable to open it up for development as a source of geo-thermal energy generation, since making a profit is the primary objective that is what would happen to Yellowstone. As for how the state obtained its territory, true some was obtained by conquest and some was purchased. In today's world it's not considered acceptable to obtain territory by conquest but that doesn't undo past territory acquisitions.
xexixk 5 months ago
@JacobSpinney This state existed long before you were even born, it didn't impose itself upon you. You choose to remain living it that state's territory. If you wish to live some place that is not state organized than it is on you find yourself such a place. You aren't held here by force. You have a choice. Society isn't obliged to change the fundamental ways in which it operates to accommodate you, nor is the state obliged to abolish itself to accommodate you.
xexixk 5 months ago
Do you really think that I hate poor people? Do you really think that I enjoy seeing people suffer and die of curable illnesses?
JacobSpinney 2 years ago 2
Agreed. As I believe we all are individual egocentrics and thus the word 'group' means the biggest possible social convention shared by those individuals I too believe that this is a very good start to deal with the concept of trading - especially 'land'. But it leaves me with questions both ways: Who does the 'first' owner claim the land from - and why does a party like 'the government' need land anyway? Building important structures or controlling controllable areas for 'darker' purposes... ?
aegidaeon 3 years ago
The first owner claims the land from nature. Much like someone eating an apple from a wild apple tree.
The government does indeed take over peoples property to make government buildings, roads, etc. But the main thing the government does isn't physically claim the land, but theoretically claim the land, attesting that they have the right to apply their rules to your land and thus tax you and have you subject to it's laws.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
... i wonder where this thought might take us - but I strongly believe you are on the right track. Next step: What leads to the idea of making 'us' pay taxes for 'existential' needs like a place to build a home on? What do you think makes a 'governing' superior come to the point to be allowed to do this?
aegidaeon 3 years ago
A group of people craving power who are able to brainwash the ignorant masses into allowing them to claim such power under the guise of security.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
yes, okay, all points there, but - frankly: I don't get this place, but what I do get is my chance to see where I can connect to others - and I strongly feel that you do have the answer there - but please take me further. Those are the everyday answers we all see... but I get that I took you to the wrong end. Other end: Is there a suggestion for the better that you have in mind? Something in your head that made you make this video. Not the obvious statement - where would you start to change it?
aegidaeon 3 years ago
To decide as a society to live in a truly free society with no state to feed off of its progress. A society where we can decide how to handle problems on a voluntary basis rather than through force. A society based on the principle of self ownership where those who don't wish to abide by this principle risk being ostracized from.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
My main gripe is that you use the word "logical" several times, yet it doesn't really seem like logic is what is applicable here. Perhaps you mean rational?
TheRealCalamityJames 3 years ago
Logical - "characterized by clear sound reasoning." Logical and rational are quite close synonyms. I'd think you could use either one.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago