So return the land you claim (if you’re really in Pennsylvania). Do I misremember that your Chain of theft goes back to George III of England? Do you not know where to find the current monarch of England?
“though if you're pansy enough”
“you were an ign'ant hillbilly”
Who is it that’s made the most accusations about ad hominems on this thread?
“Luckily, that more rational majority will resort to arbitration,”
You’re the one who keeps defaulting to violence, shooting and so forth because of definitions others have not agreed to.
“lack of a government implies that the world turns into the "Wild Wild West"”
Nonsense and once again an attribution to me of a position that I did not take. People can get along perfectly well without a government, in some circumstances at least.
“ it was also surprisingly peaceful and civilised.”
Because the people mutually agreed as to how to interact with each other. They had something like what I would call a social contract, something you will not acknowledge and I think you won’t do so because it means you don’t get to make all the rules and set all the terms to suit yourself and the heck with everybody else. (Can you spell “socielpath” ? Ign'ant hillbillies don’t know how to spell them there kinda werds.) By the way, anybody reading your posts on this thread, might conclude that in the Old West or any similar society you’d either straighten up or cause need for the “He needed Killing” defense.
“I make no rules, terms or conditions,…”
Who’s been posting in your name?
“You keep trying to apply the argument against social contracts, and use it against the existence of property rights themselves.”
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect. You have no right to attribute that position to me. I am not trying to do what you write I’m trying to do. We can’t even get to an intelligent discussion of property rights because you can’t get over the delusion of grandeur that allows you to think things have to go your way and everybody else can go hang. You have shown me no foundation. You demonstrate to me no understanding. And IMEO I’d have to say your reading comprehension sucks.
To who? I can only return my plot of land to the rightful owner himself.
Who is it that’s made the most accusations about ad hominems on this thread?
You claim that your culture launches a blood feud to avenge one of your own when he died in the course of committing a crime. I'm sorry if you don't like the word "hillbilly", but that"s the only culture I know that behaves that way. I've known hillbillies when I went to grad school in Syracuse.
However, even if you feel personally insulted, none of that is "ad hominem". Every mention of the other guy, nor even every insult, is an "ad hominem argument". Apparently you don't know what one is.
You’re the one who keeps defaulting to violence, shooting and so forth because of definitions others have not agreed to.
For the record, you are saying that a man's property is not his, and you do not regard him as having the right to defend it. That's intellectually dishonest, since you do not so believe. Nevertheless, when I speak of "shooting", I speak only of my right to use deadly force in self-defense; if I personally choose to use other than deadly force, that's my prerogative. It's up to the property owner. Smart property owners will usually not use deadly force, contrary to your John-Wayne fantasies.
Because the people mutually agreed as to how to interact with each other. They had something like what I would call a social contract...
Strong claims. Naturally, you don't even try to prove them...
Who’s been posting in your name?
Self-defense is part of the fabric of the universe itself. I claim that apart from self-defense, which is itself an unalterable force of nature, there are no rules at all. You believe there are lots of rules. Oddly, you find my view to be the more restrictive.
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect.
You're very repetitious. If you leap from a cliff, you'll fall down go boom. If you attack me, you will face the consequences. Two true facts that don't require your permission.
We can’t even get to an intelligent discussion of property rights because you can’t get over the delusion of grandeur that allows you to think things have to go your way and everybody else can go hang.
That was an example of ad hominem, if you're interested in learning how to spot it. However, it would be quite helpful if you tried to identify precisely what it is that I'm supposedly dictating to the universe. I mention that anyone you attack will defend himself and his property; other than that, I claim that nobody has any right to attack you, regardless of what you might say or do.
You, on the other hand, believe there are all sorts of rules which, unless I follow them, I'm subject to capture and incarceration, or worse. Which of us is dictatorial around here?