That is irrelevant. We do not exist to be productive for the state; we are productive for ourselves. We are productive by choice. "Productive citizen" implies that it is some obligation to be productive for the state. In a true free interaction system ( a free market), people are free to not work (and should be) if that is their wish. No! I said I agree that community contribution is a good thing, not forced contribution. Contribution by willing choice. This is a different case because the mcdonald's establishment (ew, mcdonalds??Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) is legitimate property. The state, however, does not own all of the land and has no legitimate claim to it (as it does nothing to the land and in fact only "owns" it because of legal decree). That is why the state cannot use the "love it or leave it" argument...it isn't their property to begin with. The McDonald's you ate at DOES own that land. In other words, the difference is that the McDonald's belongs to McDonald's whereas all the land of America does not belong to the gov't of America and thus the gov't cannot say "leave if you dont' like it". I don't like it and I still get to complain and stay, because it is NOT their land. If you wonder what theory I am referring to for property legitimacy, I am referring to the homesteading principle. This is the United States. I understand that you both love everything about it, save for its government which you hate, but no one actually gets separate the two. It's like saying, "I am a Catholic, save that I think the Pope is wrong about everything." There are no "cafeteria Catholics," there are just bad Catholics, and the same is true for Americans.[/QUOTE]
I thought all land within the borders of a certain country belongs to that country and is under that country's jurisdiction. I could sell my house to someone in Russia, but house doesn't become part of Russia, it's still on "American soil". Or am I mistaken?
Oh it does and is; but this "ownership" is a land monopoly enforced by violence on the part of the state. That is why it is illegitimate You are mistaken. That land would belong to the person in Russia, and it previously would have belonged to you. The gov't doesn't have business in this. Your land is YOUR land not the state's land.
But another country could not enforce it's policies there could they? For instance say (I'm making this up) It's legal to chop up children in this country. So the person who lives there could gather up children and chop them up and the US wouldn't be able to do anything about it, because the house is owned by someone else from another country? That's sounds crazy. Which ever country your in, regardless of who privately owns the land your standing on, you have to follow that country's rules, laws and regulations.
You're missing the point. The gov't isn't involved in the first place. It's private property and thus you make the rules, laws, and regulations for your property, regardless of where it is.
I guess I am missing the point. I have no idea what your talking about. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My point is that the state has no business in it, so it isn't relevant to mention where the property is. If it is private, it isn't national. Therefore, Russia or the US it is your property and not subject (ideally) to the Russia or US control
I don't see how it is irrelevant. Even if someone from another country bought the house, if they went inside of said house they would have to follow all of the same laws I did, because they would be in the US and subject to US control.
