Should I Shoot My Neighbour?

[pErvinalia]

I want to take it back! But I need guns! Send help to a fellow inalienable human, Seth. How can you disavow the most important libertarian principle there is - the right to arm oneself to the teeth and overthrow one's government??!

[Seth]

I want to take it back! But I need guns!

Damned shame you let your government take them away I guess. My heart bleeds for you.

Send help to a fellow inalienable human, Seth.

Why? If you can't secure your own liberty then you are unworthy of it.

How can you disavow the most important libertarian principle there is - the right to arm oneself to the teeth and overthrow one's government??!

I'm not denying it, I'm simply not choosing to make a contract with you to supply you with arms, which is also a very important Libertarian principle: I get to tell you to go fuck yourself if I like.

In this case, since you've already done so, I need not repeat it.

[pErvinalia]

As usual, you side with an authoritarian government! You're Un-Libertarian! (that's nearly as bad as Un-Amerkan!)

[Seth]

As usual, you side with an authoritarian government! You're Un-Libertarian! (that's nearly as bad as Un-Amerkan!)

No, I just don't side with you. Big difference.

[Forty Two]

He comes onto my property to mow my lawn while he's doing his. I've only got a small amount of lawn. Should I kill him (or perhaps just blow a kneecap out)?

Bring him up on charges for grass theft.

[Forty Two]

But I shouldn't have to. He's improving my land and therefore trying to take over it by the principles of Libertarianism. I am morally right to fill him full of lead.

Libertarianism has a principle which says that people can take over other people's land?

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. Ask Seth. It's truly dumb.

[Seth]

But I shouldn't have to. He's improving my land and therefore trying to take over it by the principles of Libertarianism. I am morally right to fill him full of lead.

Libertarianism has a principle which says that people can take over other people's land?

No. Modern land ownership laws do however recognize the principle of adverse possession, which means that if a person occupies property for a statutory period in "open and notorious possession" without objection by the actual owner of record, they may be awarded title to the land as a means of settling title disputes.

For example, if you build your house and it inadvertently encroaches on a property line of another and neither of you recognize this fact, after a statutory period (in Colorado it's 18 years) if the error is discovered you can claim title to the encroached property on the theory that having used it for that long without the objection of the owner, it would not be equitable to force you to move your house because the true owner waited too long to defend his property boundary. This is why one must "beat the bounds" on a regular basis if one owns tracts of land. Patrolling and looking for trespasses and encroachments is one of the responsibilities of owning land. Fixing fences and making objections if someone is illegally using or trespassing is required in order to prevent someone from claiming adverse possession or use. In one case in Boulder County, a couple had been using a "social trail" from their property across a neighboring property to access public open space for more than 25 years. When the owner finally sold the lot to a developer, the developer closed the trail and filed trespass charges against the couple. They went to court and established their regular, open and notorious use (possession) of that trail and were awarded a permanent easement over the property in perpetuity.

If you sit on your rights for too long without defending them, you can lose them.

In some states the period is as little as six months, so if you own rural property you need to check it for "squatters" twice a year.

[pErvinalia]

There's more than that, but I'm on my phone, so can't really type much

[Forty Two]

But I shouldn't have to. He's improving my land and therefore trying to take over it by the principles of Libertarianism. I am morally right to fill him full of lead.

Libertarianism has a principle which says that people can take over other people's land?

No. Modern land ownership laws do however recognize the principle of adverse possession, which means that if a person occupies property for a statutory period in "open and notorious possession" without objection by the actual owner of record, they may be awarded title to the land as a means of settling title disputes.

For example, if you build your house and it inadvertently encroaches on a property line of another and neither of you recognize this fact, after a statutory period (in Colorado it's 18 years) if the error is discovered you can claim title to the encroached property on the theory that having used it for that long without the objection of the owner, it would not be equitable to force you to move your house because the true owner waited too long to defend his property boundary. This is why one must "beat the bounds" on a regular basis if one owns tracts of land. Patrolling and looking for trespasses and encroachments is one of the responsibilities of owning land. Fixing fences and making objections if someone is illegally using or trespassing is required in order to prevent someone from claiming adverse possession or use. In one case in Boulder County, a couple had been using a "social trail" from their property across a neighboring property to access public open space for more than 25 years. When the owner finally sold the lot to a developer, the developer closed the trail and filed trespass charges against the couple. They went to court and established their regular, open and notorious use (possession) of that trail and were awarded a permanent easement over the property in perpetuity.

If you sit on your rights for too long without defending them, you can lose them.

In some states the period is as little as six months, so if you own rural property you need to check it for "squatters" twice a year.

That's fairly accurate, but not "libertarian" in principle.

[pErvinalia]

The whole concept of property ownership in libertarianism in absence of modern contracts is occupation and improvement of the land over its natural state. Well, more correctly, that's Seth's view of libboism. I haven't heard that in any other setting.

[pErvinalia]

I think homesteading covers it. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

[Forty Two]

The whole concept of property ownership in libertarianism in absence of modern contracts is occupation and improvement of the land over its natural state. Well, more correctly, that's Seth's view of libboism. I haven't heard that in any other setting.

That doesn't sound anything like libertarianism. I think what you are referring to there is the concept of people being able to claim a property right in unclaimed and unowned land, and adding their own labor to the mix. I.e. you can't just point to the land and say "I claim this for me" -- you have to go there and change it or improve it in some way. But, that has nothing to do with the right to go out and take other people's land.

The right of conquest is not a libertarian concept, but rather a longstanding outgrowth of authoritarian principles and the law of nations among the colonial powers -- Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria Hungary, Russia, Japan -- that crew. They advanced the right of conquest. That applied to nations.

I don't know of any place that had the right of one subject or citizen to just take over the land of another.

Seth pointed out the concept of adverse possession, which is a concept of English Common Law which basically said that if for a long time someone possessed the real property of another, and that possession was open, actual, hostile, continous, open, notorious and exclusive, then title to the property could transfer by operation of law. But, that basically means that the person whose land you're taking has to know you are there and not consent to you being there but not take action to kick you off -- he allows you to be there and act as the owner of the property for all intents and purposes, even though he doesn't want you there. It's a very narrow concept. If he grants you permission to be there, then it's not "adverse" possession. But, adverse possession is not a libertarian concept anyway. It's an English common law concept, and the English common law was not libertarian.

[Seth]

But I shouldn't have to. He's improving my land and therefore trying to take over it by the principles of Libertarianism. I am morally right to fill him full of lead.

Libertarianism has a principle which says that people can take over other people's land?

No. Modern land ownership laws do however recognize the principle of adverse possession, which means that if a person occupies property for a statutory period in "open and notorious possession" without objection by the actual owner of record, they may be awarded title to the land as a means of settling title disputes.

For example, if you build your house and it inadvertently encroaches on a property line of another and neither of you recognize this fact, after a statutory period (in Colorado it's 18 years) if the error is discovered you can claim title to the encroached property on the theory that having used it for that long without the objection of the owner, it would not be equitable to force you to move your house because the true owner waited too long to defend his property boundary. This is why one must "beat the bounds" on a regular basis if one owns tracts of land. Patrolling and looking for trespasses and encroachments is one of the responsibilities of owning land. Fixing fences and making objections if someone is illegally using or trespassing is required in order to prevent someone from claiming adverse possession or use. In one case in Boulder County, a couple had been using a "social trail" from their property across a neighboring property to access public open space for more than 25 years. When the owner finally sold the lot to a developer, the developer closed the trail and filed trespass charges against the couple. They went to court and established their regular, open and notorious use (possession) of that trail and were awarded a permanent easement over the property in perpetuity.

If you sit on your rights for too long without defending them, you can lose them.

In some states the period is as little as six months, so if you own rural property you need to check it for "squatters" twice a year.

That's fairly accurate, but not "libertarian" in principle.

That's what I said.

[tattuchu]

Funny routine by Australian comedian Jim Jeffries about gun control. Prolly been posted somewhere before, I dunno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZFLk5L70MQ