Political Theory

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Clayton — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 04:34:31 GMT

The Vatican does not collect taxes. It is not a State. However (lest I be suspected of sympathizing with the Vatican), it is evil because it clearly works with States in a cooperative manner. The Church has long been an accomplice of the State.

Clayton -

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Fool on the Hill — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 03:38:21 GMT

Sorry, is Vatican City a legitimate anarchist community?

Re: Legitimacy of the state

DanielMuff — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:51:51 GMT

Fool on the Hill:

Might we consider Vatican City a legitimate state under ancap principles? I don't think anyone is born there, it's entirely homesteaded, and everyone voluntarily works for the Catholic Church. I don't think anyone claims property there other than the Church.

What makes it a state under acap principles? In other words, given your evidence for the Vatican being a state under ancap principles, what do you consider a non-state under ancap principles?

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Wheylous — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:49:31 GMT

If the property was voluntary contracted away after homesteading to the current owners, I suppose so. But was it?

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Fool on the Hill — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:40:58 GMT

Might we consider Vatican City a legitimate state under ancap principles? I don't think anyone is born there, it's entirely homesteaded, and everyone voluntarily works for the Catholic Church. I don't think anyone claims property there other than the Church.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Wheylous — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 01:20:13 GMT

Assuming inheritance, your last statement is correct.

Not assuming inheritance, I still agree the USFG can't redistribute the lands.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

MaikU — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 00:36:04 GMT

Eugene:

MaikU, if the United States government can distribute all empty American lands to the 300 million American citizens, who else can contend? These are empty lands.

If US government owned the land (major problem for any state apologist), then theoretically it could distribute lands... but since there is no real owner, only arbitrary gang of thieves who get re-elected once in a term of years, that is just a fantasy tail.

Furthermore, empty lands not always were empty (well, at least not all of them). Some were taken from first inhabitants with force. So if it were possible to backtrack the heirs of those people, then it should belong to them, probably.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:33:56 GMT

parts of the earth already belong to a lot of people.

And a lot of parts don't. Now what?

The fact is that the territory of the U.S is surrounded with fences

Proof?

Use of land is not a requirement for homesteading.

At the very least intention to use the land. Even if the Ultimate Fence you claim exists around the US, it was not created to homestead the land.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Eugene — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:22:11 GMT

1. The fact is that the territory of the U.S is surrounded with fences, so it was homesteaded by someone.

2. Use of land is not a requirement for homesteading. You can homestead land to build a mall 5 years later for instance.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:13:13 GMT

1) They didn't fence it. People just de-facto built their own fences so that there is a fence there by chance.

2) They never used the land.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Eugene — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:10:58 GMT

The fence example is wrong since parts of the earth already belong to a lot of people.However if I fence a virgin land that no one cares for, then I do believe its just. After all no one claims the land besides me.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:07:41 GMT

That's not a complete condition for homesteading. There must also be a use of the land. Otherwise you can put a fence around the earth going through the prime meridian and argue that both sides of the fence are yours :P Ok, that's a bit silly, but fencing off without use is not homesteading.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Eugene — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:05:47 GMT

But they were homesteaded because fences were errected in all the borders of the U.S.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:00:56 GMT

If they're empty, gasp, no one homesteaded them! No one actually put them to use. So there is a problem. Just like the US can't give away the moon, for example.

Re: Legitimacy of the state

Eugene — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:37:23 GMT

MaikU, if the United States government can distribute all empty American lands to the 300 million American citizens, who else can contend? These are empty lands.