>>267074>it is pretty easy to discern public sexual display in the vicinty of minors.
fair enough - it is more difficult when it's media they see, but your point stands.>national socialism is constantly turned into strawmen and bashed.
that's great, kristallnacht is a pretty clear violation of the NAP though.>Yet many of its ideas hold up when examined.
if we were talking about fascism then at least we'd have evola to lean on, but as it stands there's not much there to examine.>>267076>Pic related.
made me chuckle>Certainly there is a romantic idea in living off the land
already I will have to stop you, because I'm willing to bet you're posting this from a room, which is situated on land. >but it's possible to be quite well-off without owning any land.
I should hope so, since I advocated collective ownership of land (or more accurately a government monopoly on land) which would mean nobody would any land, technically speaking. >"Ah-ah," you might say, "what if a cartel of landlords makes life unbearable for their tenants like in 19th century Ireland?"
modern landlords are unlikely to do this, if anything the government's probably more likely to do this, which is certainly a problem needing close examination, but the main issue is land allowing accumulation of wealth that can create monopolies. > Causing misery for tenants is based on motives other than profit
this is fair to say, however in a case where profit is the only motive that can be counted as criminally negligent, it should be pointed out. in most cases, of course, it's harmless. so that is to say, there isn't a problem in terms of it being essential with private ownership, rather that monopolies will form from it because it's a unique kind of property.>We're always going to have "limited" supply of bread by definition.
it's hard to come up with an analogy for land, since unless you're building underground cities or the capital of bespin you're going to run out of it at some point, as you said with your gold analogy, but it's also a useful necessity, which makes it in many ways more valuable than gold. >Some land is better for some purposes than others and so value fluctuates depending on the value society places on it; this is possible only with a private system.
the government should sell and rent land according to market prices and run it as if it were a business, similar to hoppe's aristocratic stockholders. difference being the group holding the land in this case are bound by particular rules and limitations, and specifically exist to, other than maintaining their administration, provide for it's community. >I don't know why if you're concerned about a monopoly buying up the land you want government to own all the land
several reasons, but mainly because unlike the government, the monopoly can buy up other areas of the economy, and as such a free market will cease to exist.>You have no freedom as you can be dispossessed at any point
now this is a very good point, however it is again no different other than that a government is ideally beholden not to do this, of course they may well try to so I can only offer that if this happens even once every citizen must rise up and overthrow them, and perhaps that the government is kept from the ability to defend themselves, which again the citizens will have to enforce, whereas a monopoly could choose to defend itself. >That's completely at odds with the libertarian theory of land ownership, which as far back as Mises is inviolable as a person could willfully secede from a country, just as a state, county, or town could secede.
I don't see a huge problem with an occupant choosing to secede into another entity, save if it interfered with infastructure too much or would lead to enclaves. if a person wants to individually secede with their land, and this would merely amount to not wanting to renew their lease, then they're free to try and remain on the land but the new occupant would be entitled to remove them. >but just because a bridge collapses when a pressure exceeding design tolerances is placed on it doesn't mean it's a bad design.
this is a fair comment. I just think that it's essential that it be confirmed fairly with jews, for example - so without trials simply declaring an entire group guilty and allowing punishment accordingly would be out (I'm not talking about historical/fictional occurrences here, not least since the historicity of a certain event has never been relevant to any discussion since either outcome has zero effect on the position of the debating parties).>From a property point of view it's not objectively illegal or assault
quite - in the classic case it's of principle importance that the defendant intended to do harm, whether recklessly or through design.>Now, call me a cuck, but I do think that individuals conspiring to commit violence against non-aggressors ought to be charged before they can actually cause harm.
that is complicated, since we could be talking about any number of different kinds of preparation. antifa seems primarily spontaneous rather than planned or coordinated, so their conspiracy I think is too broad to be tied to an individual crime. That is, you could round them up if they had a bomb plot, but simply having a plan to replace whites via immigration doesn't cut it unless actual direct harm (or threat thereof) is involved.>This is the idea behind covenants: you can lawfully forbid loud music, strange women, or even cursing on the premises, but you can't stop a person from going somewhere else if he wants.
An occupant may do this to some extent, and as a group they may decide how to internally run their small parcel of land, but so that rule of the mob or rule of the monopoly does not exist I think the powers covenants have need to be limited. i.e they cannot kill someone, political animal or no.