Distributing lands to the citizens

One of the things that are necessary for the gradual process of the elimination of the state is to distribute lands to private individuals. The question is, whether all the state lands should be distributed, or only the parts that were homesteaded? Probably most an-caps will say that only the homesteaded parts can be justly appropriated by the citizens. However in Israel for instance it would be somewhat suicidal because all the Arabs will swam into unowned lands and use those lands to launch terrorist attacks and vandalize the private properties nearby. Jews in Israel must have a significant buffer of empty land to defend themselves. Now I know many of you are pro-Palestinians, so I am not asking you this question, I don't want to start another flame war. I am asking the pro-Zionists or at least the neutrals on this forum what do they suggest to do.

Thanks.

You can attack people setting up missile batteries next door, even if the land is "unowned". See you only get homesteading rights if you're peaceful.

Also, an important distinction. I'm pro-isreali, which means I don't want them to die. The easiest way to accomplish this is just for them to leave isreal and set up their own country somewhere else. Then there's the other camp who are pro-isreal, who are not primarily concerned with the safety of innocent people. Their fetish for having a particular ethincity occupy particular GPS coordinates seems to outweight any respect for anarcho-capitalist values, so a more expedient resolution to your question is just to point out that they don't care.

 

I'd just like to make the distinction that you don't "get" rights. You certainly do not get your rights accepted if you use aggression, but rights aren't given.

 

Also, sieben: what if they have not launched them? Do we also have the right to attack people who have nuclear weapons? Automatic guns? People who hoard hanguns?

Wheylous:

Also, sieben: what if they have not launched them? Do we also have the right to attack people who have nuclear weapons? Automatic guns? People who hoard hanguns?

Can I put a gun in your face? Even if I promise not to shoot? The relavent question is whether weapons are threatening. You can't put a gun in my face any more than you can block out my sun or vacuum up my oxygen. I've homesteaded the right to do something - in this case, live in peace.

But yeah there's grey area and theoretically rights can conflict. What if <rights> conflict with <rights>? Dunno. Nobody does. The question is why I should care.