However, the property claims/grants that predate the formation of the US
Government are not subject to US government law as a matter of the
landlord principle. Of the 13 original states, the only property which
could possibly be construed as belonging to the Federal government is
the District of Columbia (and a fine example of landlord stewardship
they have made of that, eh?). There are also property grants to
individuals that predate US claims in the Lousiana Purchase, Sewards
Folly(Alaska), and the original Northwest Territory (the area north of
and between the Missisipi and Ohio rivers up to the Canadian border).
In any event, for the origianl 13 states, since their state governments
predate the US government, they hold original claim on property in their
jurisdiction, except for that property granted to individuals directly
by the King of England. For the present owners of these properties, they
have inherited or bought the free association rights to maintain or
secede the relationship of their property with the state and federal
governments.
As for states relationships to the federal gov't, New Hampshire, for
example, has a Constitution that predates the US Constitution, and
recognises the right of the state and local governments to secede from
the union.
> You do not have to sign the contact to be
> compelled to abide by it. When I walk into
> a store, I still have to abide by their rules
> even if I did not sign a contact. Entry =>
> agreement with the terms of the property.
> Thus to enter a preexisting claim is to
> agree to the rules therein, or not, in
> which case the landlord can use force
> according to libertarian moral theory.
>
Ininformed consent is not recognized. Unless the conditions of entrance
are posted at the entrance, and the property owner will not allow
entrance until conditions have been read and agreed to, there is no
informed consent.
> Also, if a child is born in an apartment
> and its parents die sometime thereafter,
> the landlord, in accord with libertarian
> theory, has the right to evict the child,
> to use force against the child, even as
> the child did not sign any contract.
SO you are saying that since the parents died in the apartment, in
effect abandoning the child, then under the lease, the landlord can
claim the child?
>
> Libertarians seem to think that they have
> an inherent right to property upon which a
> preexisting claim has been placed: the U.S.
Libertarians, as citizens, have the ultimate right, since the US is
nothing but responsible to and exists with the consent of the citizens.
The population was here before the government was.
>
> The only difference between the smalltime
> landlord and Uncle Sam is that U.S. is big.
> Yet there is no libertarian rule that places
> a limit on the size of an area claimed. Yes,
> force was used to wrongfully remove preexist-
> ing claims of Native Americans, but none of
> the guilty are alive today. If we say that
> therefore the U.S. property is forfeit, so
> too all land claims, for your dwelling pro-
> bably stands on once Indian territory.
>
> I think the importance of libertarianism
> lies in the utility of private property,
> such that people are more prosperous when
> individuals are allowed maximum control of
> areas that they purchase in exchange with
> others. In short, if a landlord (Uncle Sam)
> that owns a vast area wants his tenants to
> prosper, he will allow them a very high
> degree of liberty. He will allow them to
> control parcels of land and trade them.
>
> What makes the market work is the ease with
> which customers can exit a given establishment.
> What makes government not work is the difficulty
> with which customers can exist the country. This
> difficulty makes it a "landlords market," putting
> the customers, or citizens, largely at the mercy
> of those who are the de facto landlord. So it all
> comes down to size. This places emphasis on the
> need to expand beyond the Earth, beyond this
> fixed and limited parcel of territory.
Since the sovreign power of the US gov't is delegated by the people as
individuals, if the people decide to abolish it, break it up in an
anti-trust action, or make its role entirely voluntary for each and
every individual, allowing people to "go armadillo" in Vinge's terms,
then its legal. Since this voluntary principle already exists in the tax
code and in the Social Security Act, its not unprecendented.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?