Voluntaryism isn't the red pill. You have to understand the current paradigm is the result of 2000 years of governmental adaptation; that Turning our nation into an unsustainable utopia where people interact in a State of Anarchy each as sovereign beings, is not going to make America better.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"unsustainable utopia where people interact in a State of Anarchy"
This is basically the free market concept -- not at all utopian.
Voluntaryism actually doesn't necessarily argue from the point of practicality (e.i. utilitarian results.) It argues more so, that anything else than voluntary interaction must be: theft, assault, rape, kidnap or murder. It argues that any initiated uninvited force must be immoral.
And who enforces morality? A co-opt of armed men who've sworn fealty to the fictional morality that your group created.
Negative rights, such as self-ownership and property, can't be enforced but only defended. You can't enforce "non-invasion" of property, you can only defend it from invasion.
Positive rights, such as healthcare, must be enforced and can't be defended. You must enforce someones right to healthcare. Healthcare isn't defended from invasion, such as a negative right - it's defended from "non-invasion." To enforce healthcare, you must force a person to perform it.
Thus, no person will enforce these morals, but defend them form invasion. That is, property is necessarily defended, and not enforced.
In practice, this could be either self-defense or hired defense (private defense agencies.) Such agencies could sell insurance contracts to clients - essentially a private police force (but with competition.)
Semantics. If a court grants me title to lands based on a tax deed am I the invader or the defender? Does it matter?
It's not just "semantics" it's the difference between negative and positive rights.
If the land you were granted by the court is the court's rightful property, then you would become the new owner, or "defender," of it. If the court did not own the land, but stole it from someone because he didn't pay taxes to the government, the land was stolen, thus you become the invader of it.
It does matter if you violate another's NAP or not. The outcome of either to actions may be equal, but that doesn't make the methods equal - one would be exchange, the other theft.
In the Americas we own the Native American lands by Right of Conquest (by Force). The Corporation of the United States retained jurisdiction over all lands and sold it Fee Simple retaining the sovereign right to collect taxes on it and delegating part of that Sovereignty of certain parts of the Country to the 50 States foregoing the right to collect property taxes to the States and Counties parishes and districts themselves and authorizing repossession for failure to pay those taxes. So when the previously owner tries to invade; the fealty that the police have is to the law not the previous owner.
Property rights are the exclusive right to control physical things.
If person A has property rights to thing X, and person B takes it without permission from A, he has stolen it. Person B is thus exercising unjust control of thing X, and his ownership claim is therefore not rightful.
The State has done just this, taken the rightful property of the Indians, and thus has no rightful claim to it.
You need to define property before you can define rightful property.
Link:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/jurisdiction-where-does-it-come-from