Added: 1 year ago
From: OtherJacobSpinney
Views: 768
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (26)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • so, basically a monarchy is legitimate in your eyes. if it's private propperty of the king/queen, who are you (the guy who's got a huge boner for private propperty) to tell them "you're not legitimate? or how about that, you just give ALL the fucking land of the USA back to the natives? after all, it's NOT your land. what you claim to be your land was originally stolen from the indians. so you yourself aren't legitimate by your own logic either.

  • also, private security that essentially polices itself doesn't need a right to do anything. market forces would cause security companies to drive each other off and force people to pay for their service regardless of whether they want to or not. et voila, military dictatorship is born.

  • Funny, your scenario with you in a similar position as a (historic) king or lord of a land is pretty much already an advanced form of government. You do exactly what governments do. Build an infrastructure and claim empty land that people can build on, where people have to live according to your rules.

    It sounds more like you oppose the government because you'd rather have yourself as a dictator.

  • Umm, this won't be anarchy for long. Property claims will produce capita, which will be used to claim more property, which will be used to poduce more capita to, claim more property. Eventualy, what will be produced are nations with governments.

  • Sounds like a complete dictatorship. Just doesn't make any sense.

  • Sounds like a dictatorship. Awful video. Btw, you probably don't like socialists a great deal, but at least there are examples of moderately successful socialistic societies with populations in the millions. I don't think I've ever heard of a successful anarchy. Ever. In the entire history of humanity.

  • @TruthAtAllCost: Not only is that not true, but it's a terrible argument. By analogy, I've never seen a human live to 130 years of age in the history of humanity. Ever. That has no bearing whatsoever on what is possible, feasible or likely to occur in the future.

  • So, you are speaking on feudalism, pretty much.

  • You obviously have no idea what Anarchy means. Trust me, if America underwent a state of true Anarchy, people like me would probably exploit and possibly kill people like you. Just be happy that we have laws that keep us from stabbing eachother in the face.

  • So an illegitimate acquisition of land is being voted into power by the majority of people? Last time I checked, the government has the support of the people and if it didn't, it wouldn't be the government because the people would rise up against it. This isn't 1984, thought isn't a crime, we aren't always watched, a movement could occur in which something like what you want could occur, but as of yet, the government still has the support of the majority of the people.

  • Don't forget the funny hats.

  • uhm you have a little problem here... the land on this earth has already been discovered, we can't go back to animal days and have everyone claim their own land like bears do on mountains.. are you seriously going to get rid of our current countries and start all over from scratch?

  • @HugNow Also, his rationelle for settling on "unused" land is like the British rationelle for taking land from the native peoples of Australia and New Zealand

  • This presents sooo many problems...

  • It seems like your only difference with statehood is what constitutes a legitimate land claim.

  • @MrCrustyelbows yeah, it's all a semantics war to me.... they still want a state but not the same state as before

  • Legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate

    What doe's the word mean ?

  • You just repeated the social contract argument for the state, the only difference between "legitimate" land aquisition.

  • @brainpolice2 If I invite you to dinner and tell you that you need to take off your shoes to enter my house, but you decide to enter my house with your shoes on, would I be the initiator by forcing you to leave or would you be the initiator by forcefully disobeying my wishes in my house?

  • @brainpolice2 Or is it your argument that I truly don't have the right to make house rules inside of my own house in the first place?

  • One of these days, someone should plant a flag in front of the Whitehouse and declare that they own it and now they have to follow his rules. ^^

  • @lordthawkeye That would be fucking epic! :D

  • free exchange = positive sum game = unanimous consent

  • i like these tag team video responses with you and spawk haha

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more