Property Title in a Stateless Society - and Royal Prerogative

A stateless society is not by any means, de-facto, a society without a legal system (an arbitration system). Independent arbitration services will be able to offer judgements over matters, and establish a tested common law, which will then allow individuals to act with legal confidence.

Just sticking a flag in to the ground will likely be judged not sufficient, by an arbitration court, to support a claim of ownership of land. Taking good title through inheritance or purchase is probably going to still be the most common means of acquiring property. Usage, or homesteading, will be an other legal means for having a valid claim to land. If land is claimed to be owned by a first party and that ownership is to be challenged by another party, staking a claim, the first claimant is likely going to have to show a court both: 1. good title and 2. exploitation/usage. That usage can be argued to be as a wilderness nature reserve, or some such, but it will likely need to be an evidenced assertion.

Generally property that is not exploited in some demonstrable way could be up for adoption if you can get a court to agree with your claim and defend any further appeals attempted against that judgement. It is not so different in the UK today. If I maintain land or live in a building for ten years, without challenge, I can claim title and, if successful, that title awarded is as good as if I purchased the property.

If some clown wants to pay an Inuit tribal elder for a tract of ice covered land in central Greenland and for thirty years never does anything to care for or utilise that land: does he own it? If between times the Inuit tribe demonstrate they continued to exploit the land in every feasible way: to hunt across the land, live close by, manage wildlife, lead expeditions and assist scientific research; when it then comes about that natural gas reserves are found there the Inuit tribe are going to have a good case that they have the best claim to rights over that land.

If the clown can show he sold the Inuit annual hunting licences, rented the areas to them where they built their settlements, had studies carried out to direct wildlife management programs and paid for the proscribed work to be undertaken, commissioned local services for assistance with leading his client's expeditions into the landholding and requested that any other such activities were duly referred to his offices for permissions, then he will have maintained a good title.

The Royal Family in GB can likely prove better title to the land, rivers and sea bed of the Crown Estates than any other party, (with the exception, perhaps, of holders of freehold titled land within their curtilage). So if it was that 'the state' in the UK ended, the Crown could well argue that: everything still belonged to the Royal Family, as proven by descent. The Royal Family may need to consent to allowing property that was sold with a 'freehold title' was not reasonable to retain; but even so: if there were no heirs to an estate on the death of the freeholder, the Crown could then well argue they had better title to the land then any other party.

It could be argued that Royal Family land was obtained by illegal force but it would have to be proven precisely who the true heirs to the title of the stolen lands then would be, that their original title was true and correct, for those parties to demonstrate better title to a court of arbitration. (An argument just that the Norman Invasion caused 'the people of North Wales' to lose their land on Mount Snowdon would not be sufficient).

It is true that the Royal Family could argue that they did correctly own full title to the land of GB and that they were therefore entitled to dictate the terms of usage for people who chose to operate within the curtilage of their estates (state). Instead of openly 'spelling-out' to the population the true nature of the arraignment they are 'subjects' of, and then risk being violently overthrown by revolution, the British Royal Family have greatly distanced themselves from the process of Government and generally from the working processes of 'the state'.

And what is interesting in respect of America is that title to the land of America is dependent upon that assented in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which means that the tile upon which 'the state' in American depends is only based in that which was granted by the British Royalty - much like the 'freehold title' of privately 'owned' property within GB itself. That means the property of America could prospectively, in the right circumstance, legally revert to the British Crown. So watch it OK!

The End of the State is Not the End of Governance (since Individuals Self-Regulate their Property Ownership Interests)

The phrase 'public property' is indeed an oxymoron, a nonsense, (one in which also an important 'something' of the nonsense of 'the state' is relieved).

In GB, where I live, not only is 'public property' actually described as 'Crown Property', (distinct from the personal property of the Queen, such as Windsor Castle), additionally 'The Crown' is considered the ultimate owner of all property, so, for example, if a property is found to have no title holder it 'reverts' to The Crown.

I consider it proper that the owner of land should be entitled to make whatsoever demands they should prefer of those who, duly informed, choose to be within that property's boundary. That could included everyone calling the owner the King, establishing an elite group amongst favoured tenants and such. A 'King' could even require that a tax was payable on all tenant's income and spending - if such a system could be made to actually work.

It would not be permissible for anyone, including a self proclaimed King, to obtain property through force nor to force people to move in and then remain on their land, their realm, or suffer conditions if they did not wish.

Within ourselves, our minds, our bodies and the product of our labour we all are sovereigns too, so whilst a self-proclaimed 'King' can demand people within their realm act as though they are they are the only sovereign if the 'subjects' are of clear mind they know that whilst they may be required to act in such a way, in that estate, it is not true and they can move.

This proposition is only apparently so quizzical when it is a question of scale. If the King's realm is a large island we can see it to be very much like a ruling monarch and if it is a modest building on the edge of town we see it is very much like an eccentric boarding house.

I call not for the end of 'government' although I presume that with the end of 'the state' the specific management system of 'the state' will be dispensed with too. That does not mean there would not be systems of governance, every organisation beyond a certain size employees some such system.

An individual employs self-governance and a group of self-governing individuals have a system of governance which is perhaps only the combined effect of their individual self-governance but that is their system of governance none the less. Every functional system must employ a system of governance of some type and form - be self regulating. There will always be systems of government in human society but the duties and appearance of systems of government in a stateless society will surely just be something unlike those of 'the state'.

'The state' is a different entity to a government. The government of a 'state' derives its supposed power only from 'the state'. It is the authority of 'the state' that is illegitimate and immoral and its implementation unnecessary and of no proper utility. A government without power is only able to govern by voluntary subscription - more like an association of some sort or other. Government then is simply 'the system by which affairs of human society is conducted' whatsoever that may be.

If all property can only be that which belongs to individuals, sovereigns within their property if you like, and the system of governance best suited to optimising any and all property is the self-regulation of the individuals who are owners of property then I think we can derive that such a system of governance will be the one that is both best for individuals and the optimisation of all property.

In the Cult Religion of Evil - Beelzebub Rules

The system of 'the state' is a system only of perversion. 'The state' is based on a monopoly of violent force, a right which no individual can legitimately or morally hold and so, in turn, no collective of individuals can hold either.

 No matter what percentage of people say they want a monopoly of force to be placed in the hands of 'the state' it is a perversion of morality and of legitimacy. So therefore, being a permanent condition, 'the state' has this fundamental perversion at its very core.

The only way to eradicate the perversion permanently is to reject the belief in the morality and legitimacy of 'the state'. The belief in 'the state' is irrational. It is not that belief in 'the state' is 'like' some kind of religion, with 'the state' just an all powerful but imaginary God, it is a religion with 'the state' a God that believers believe is real!

'The state' only appears to exist because of all the people who believe it to exist and act as though it exists but as soon as those people stopped believing in the existence of the God of the state, poof! It would be seen to have never existed. So we can accept 'the state' does not exist. We can accept 'the state' only appears to exist whilst people believe in it and act as if it is real.

 

We can also see that; as a religious belief, the religious belief in 'the state' is not one people just come around to understand and accept, it is a belief that is rooted in indoctrination. About the only thing that 'the state' is really good at is indoctrinating the public into unquestioning belief in the legitimacy and morality of 'the state' and in the necessity and utility of 'the state' too - the process is fundamental to the schooling system and much else besides.

The belief in the state is so deeply indoctrinated, so widespread, so all encompassing across human society, so unquestioned and so apparently fundamental to almost everyone's perception of humanity that it is nothing less than being a cult. A religious cult. A religious cult belief in a false God.

The wish to find and elect only good people is not the solution, has never worked, will not work and cannot work. How can the all powerful cult of 'the state' always make sure that: people who are not good people, 'bad people', (or good people who turn bad) do not get into, (or remain in), positions of power to then abuse that power. The power allowed by 'the state', having an apparently legitimate and moral right to use force, is a power most attractive to 'bad' people.

Good people, really good people, do not want that power strongly enough to fight their way past the clamoring of 'bad' people, the corruption, the lies, the aggression, the compromises necessary to gain and hold effective 'state' office. 'The state' is a bad person's game. To stop the perversion from setting in permanently the only solution is to bring about an end to the religious belief in the cult of 'the state'. Nothing less.

P.S.  Please excuse the rather vulgar URL - I was trying an experiment in building traffic only to now find it less easy to dispense with than originally envisioned (and slightly amusing too).

Separation of the Economy from the State

Whilst we have 'the state' I do not see how it can release the control it effects over economy if only because politicians, businesses and other special interest groups will always have control or influence over the government and therefore the institutions of the market. It is not possible to have those acting as 'the state' submit that status because, by the very existence of 'the state', there will always exists a means for 'special interest groups' to have influence and control, especially influence and control over the economy.

It is not possible to have these institutions of the market and of government constructed and enforced in such a way that there is a separation of the economy from the State. The cause is not the 'way' the institutions of the market and of government are 'constructed and enforced' but rather, simply, that 'the state' and its institutions exist and therefore have influence and control. Clearly: if we did not have 'the state' we would not have that means for special interest groups to influence and control the economy or need to attempt to construct and enforce a government in such a way that there is then a separation of the economy from idea of 'the state'.

Restitution And Incarceration in a Stateless Society

In a stateless society justice would be that which found restitution for an offence caused against another's property (property being in self or material possession). What form a restitution took would be for a free-market 'dispute arbitration service' (call that a common law court if you like) to establish. A 'court' could establish that, (if an offender was unable or unwilling to make sufficient restitution to compensate for the damage they caused to another's property), it was a legitimate act to capture (kidnap) and imprison (hold hostage) an offender until sufficient restitution was made.

Restitution should not take the form of just holding the offender against their will, imprisoning them, until a sufficient period has elapsed that the harm then cause to the offender's 'property in their self' was the equivalent to the harm they had originally caused in committing their offence. That is not restitution but rather it is only punishment or revenge.

Should it be apparent that an offender will evade making restitution if they are not incarcerated, it is a legitimate use of force to 'hold them hostage'. This is because it is legitimate to use force in defence of self and in defence of physical property. It is, therefore, legitimate to use force when seeking restitution for harm caused to property because, until restitution has been made, the offence against another's property is still present and ongoing.

An incarcerated offender should be given every practical opportunity to be able to make due restitution though they cannot legitimately be directly forced to do so. The offender has to make the decision, come to the understanding, that to end their incarceration they have to make the restitution found due. This is not a process of prison slave labour but rather just a process of prison labour in order to robustly ensure offenders will, and are able to, make restitution.

Such an internment could be paid for without having a 'state' that takes money from the public via taxation to pay for prisons and there are many possible mechanisms that could provide such a service, for example if offenders were incarcerated (and we trust helped where possible to get on the 'right track') policing and insurance providers could see economies in their operational costs.

Victims of property offensives could also wish to fund an offender's incarceration and, if they did, clearly it would be in the victim's interest that their offender was willing to work, at least sufficiently, to cover the costs of their time 'inside'. This would require a replicable understanding between victim and offender where perhaps an offender could enjoy better conditions and more freedoms if they agreed to such an arraignment.

Whilst thinking through such scenarios I was interested, and amused, to realise that the treatment of such an incarcerated offender, to encourage them to be willingly productive, is not so very different to the optimum management of a human tax-payer resource (the human herd of tax-cattle) in 'the state', (the modern nation-state tax-farms).