Gov't NOT Coercion?

Ian Goddard (
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 20:25:56 -0400

John K Clark (

>>Not recognized by who? As far as the US government is concerned,
>>every single driver in this country is liable for the "Implied
>>Consent Law," without having signed anything.
> Yes, that's their claim, by breathing the air on any land mass on
> the Earth's surface you have in effect signed away your rights and
> "voluntarily" given some government the power of life and death over
> you. It matters not at all if you or I think this reasoning makes the
> slightest sense or not because they have the power to enforce it
> regardless.

IAN: So, if I walk into someone's property
I get to stay rent free so long as I don't
sign any contract: "You can't throw me out,
I never signed the contract." What a deal!

The scenario you cite is not resolved by
every inch of land being "privately" owned
with every landlord having a set of rules,
regulations, and rent. Hence, complaining
about a fait where all land is claimed is
weighing in for or against libertarianism.

You suggest that governments have this unique
attribute that if you stand on gov't property
you are subject to gov't law, but the same
holds for private property; therefore the
alleged unique attribute of gov't that is
bemoaned does not actually exist as any-
thing unique to this thing called "gov't."

There are claims upon land and the claimants
demand a rent/tax from other people who
inhabit the areas within the claims. When
I got to the Earth, every inch was already
claimed, so I have to agree to pay the fees,
try to evade payment, or overthrow the claim.

Libertarians want to evade payment to large-
scale land holders, while socialists want to
evade payments to small-scale land holders.
Now there's funny twist that we uncover
from this line of inquiry. Hmmm....

Aren't socialists for the little guy?

Ian Williams Goddard ---> (not up yet)