7 votes

Isn't Land Ownership Aggressive Use of Force?

I haven't really heard this concept addressed within either the Liberty, or the Anarcho-Capitalist movements.

How do you justify forcing people off a given plot of land which you did not create?

Thomas Paine pointed out the we "did not create the land" and thus, the very practice of Land Ownership was a government created Right, and that to compensate the rest of society (which you are using force, or the threat of violence, to keep off "your land") we pay a property tax that, according to Paine, was suppose to be directly redistributed back to the Citizenry (not to fund Government).

I personally believe Public Banking can eliminate the need for Property Taxes, but that still doesn't address the issue:

Why do you own land? What right do you have to claim a specific section of land.

Other animals claim territory, but they constantly have to fight off unwanted guests.

I understand owning your house, you built it. Or any other possession (we could go into a debate as to what right do you have to claim any material as your own, because in doing so, you must us force to stop someone else from using something you may have simply found).

This is very esoteric I know, but really, what gives you the right to extract resources and claim them as your own?

Isn't all property rights a use of force? Don't we need government to support our property rights?

How do AnCaps handle this issue? Without government, won't you need to use force to stop someone from eating out of your garden, something you build by using natural resources that you had no part in originally creating?

If you break a rock, why are those pieces now yours? Why shouldn't someone else be able to pick them up? And hold onto them?

I definitely support the idea of being able to claim a plot of land, build a house, start a garden, and ask government, or your community, to help defend that, and keep people from taking it. But what "right" do we have to do that? And is it possible to do this without the use of force?

What right do you have from stopping a Natural Man from walking through "your property?"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No

I just understood something. I understood that two wrongs necessarily don't make a right. Which is what many deonts think.

The boy stole. He violated property. He was wrong.

But I also have a moral responsibility not to cause large evil because the kid engaged in a small evil.

The fact that I don't have a government to protect me from the repercussions of creating a large evil will disincent people from doing so.

I can scold the kid, maybe hire him, maybe confiscate his bike and send him home telling him that his parents need to come talk to me to get the bike back.

Or I can shoot him or otherwise cause grievous harm.

Lets say I do that and his parents come shoot me. You live in the community. Would you trouble yourself with the matter? Feel like some grave imbalance of justice had occurred?

Because something is wrong, it doesn't mean every sanction is just.

Because a sanction is unjust, it doesn't mean the act sanctioned is made right.

I suspect you want it to be that the hungry boy didn't steal if some sanction was too harsh, and maybe any sanction would be too harsh. It's fine if you want to believe that, but it contains both logical and performative contradictions. As importantly, ownership becomes subjective based on comparative need, and this requires a ruling class to adjudicate. Property really ceases to exist and we just have nihilism.

But we don't need to do that. We can admit the boy stole, but we can also admit that some sanctions are too harsh and unjust. We can admit property exists (as we all know our own property) but that we do not have moral authority to act in any possible way to secure it or punish violators.

contrarian view

My suggested principle of land ownwership:

One owns land by virtue of the fact that he is connected to it and *sustainably* derives his life from it.

This includes the function of defending it as a steward. This is a part of the right to life. One corollary is that each individual has a right to own some land---but just as much as he sustainably derives his life from.

-------------

The matter of "resource extraction" (which you mention) must be considered carefully. There is a difference between sustainable extraction and destructive extraction. Are your gardening practices "mining" the fertility of the soil, or are they sustainable? If they are sustainable, and someone extracts your labor in the sense of mining, taking the resources elsewhere, you have the right to put a bullet through his head. If someone comes to replace your exploitive "mining" practices with a connection to the land which preserves resources for future generations, he has the right to run you off or put a bullet through your head to stop your exploitation.

The ultimate immorality is to kill a farmer in his field where he sustainably supports his community. The ultimate morality is the work of the farmer in sustainably supporting his community and being a steward of the land which he *owns*.

So, yes, we need land ownership. It is not aggression, but it is not easily justified. It is aggression against future generations to destructively mine, i.e., to destroy resources.

There are many other aspects to consider...everyone likes to talk about "defense" of course. Let me just say that the phrase with which we are familiar "to provide for the common defense" was no more than a smoke screen for the exploitation of humans through slavery. That much is clear. Slavery is a somewhat different issue, but to me, both the question of human resources and natural resources have to be considered together, and one needs to pursue "kindly use" of both. Kindly use is voluntary and non-aggressive by nature. But it is currently far from most of our natures.

Best Yet! We are Stewards.

"One owns land by virtue of the fact that he is connected to it and *sustainably* derives his life from it."

Let's drop the idea of ownership, and look at it this way:

By living off/with the land, in a sustainable fashion, you build a living relationship with the land, and the other life inhabiting it.

Thus, defending the land against those that would disturb that relationship, and thus the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" enjoyed by the life forms and land itself (healthy soil is alive), you are no protecting property, but protecting life.

You are a Steward of the Land, so to speak.

Now, how do we inspire more stewardship?

Jack Wagner

P.S.

The very notion that "government" can protect property rights is contradictory.

So, no, we don't need government to protect property rights. Community *is* probably needed---unless you just happen to be overlooked by aggressors/exploiters.

Government is just a larger community.

Isn't their a breaking point in which a community must have institutions to maintain cohesion?

A neighborhood could function largely without having to even hold meetings, if those that do the work regularly interact. I lived on an unincorporated street, in which I mostly picked up the litter and a neighbor fixed the pot holes, and we regularly ran into each other and talked about Stewardship. We were both able to "fund" our own particular contribution. Only because it was so small a community.

Jack Wagner

I disagree

"Government" is the idea that certain designated people can do things that would be wrong for "regular" people to do.

It's a wrong idea. It is simply an error.

It has no more to do with community than rape has to do with romance.

"Institutions" are not "government" either. Institutions may involve the (error of) "government" or they may not.

Picking up the litter is not government. Anyone can do that.

When you are carrying a license/badge and a gun explicitly to assault, harass, and trouble people who have done nothing to deserve it without repurcussion or responsibility, then you have fallen into the error of "government."

We don't need no stinkin' badges!

Government does not have a monopoly of using guns and the intimidation of violence to bully people and extort from them.

And, the "authority" to do so hasn't always stopped populations from rising against such authoritarian regimes.

My "argument" is that the type of institution, whether a mob or State, government or corporation, is irrelevant. That it is all a reflection of our society, and us as individuals. And that we are in the wild, no matter how many badges, bills and ceremonies you want to have.

We are all ruled by Natural Law. And we choose whether we want to be granted the blessing of following God's Law. The greatest act in that, is to realize that we weren't promised anything.

We weren't owed a world without Governments. No government is not the standard. In fact, governments occur in the majority of communities. People create them (not Aliens, lizard people or the Devil). They create them, and manage them, and thus, they are governed by the moral compass of people.

Some people need only the smallest assurance to commit violence, some people will resist even the most demanding pressures to commit violence.

The error is blaming government.

Jack Wagner

Then let's put it this way: No government is God's law.

So that is the standard. I may not be promised it, but I do not want any badges, bills and ceremonies, so while it may be a reflection of (the current evil) society, it is no reflection of me.

Yes, government is a bad idea of people. I object to your suggestion that it reflects me as an individual. I reject that idea, as does God. The statement that "government reflects *us* as *individuals*," is a contradiction. Nothing can represent a group of people as individuals unless there is unanimous agreement. I do not agree; I do not even consent.

As you point out, *people* create (the idea called) government. Your error is in not blaming such people.

It's People!

Is it not then on you to see God's blessings?

This is hard to get across in person, let alone in writing.

I don't "blame" people, but I do see that people are the cause, not "government."

Government is inanimate. In fact, it isn't even material. It's an association of people.

Now, I get the point of "It was a select few people who then ruled over others." But how did it get to that point?

I remember talking to a man in Iowa right after the crash and the whole Occupy thing. He said something about the fact that a group of people could bring the economy to its knees. I asked, "Why? How is it that a group of people can do that?"

How can anyone rule over you if you are ruled by God? Is government not simply the "trip" of that group of people? And don't we play into that trip when we allow it the power we do?

Like you said, God's law is beyond government. The only true Kingdom is that of God. The rest is made up by men to justify actions.

With that said, as a steward, are you not then responsible to deal with the reality of your "flock"?

Like Plato's cave. Sports might by silly, but if you want to relate to your fellow humans you might want to watch a game with them from time to time, if that is what they are into.

If you family goes to church, even if you don't buy all the dogma, how hard is it to just go to church with them, for them.

If society is all in on some governmental trip, what good do you serve as a steward attacking them for it?

If you are a steward, and a man (or woman) of faith, how are you so disgusted with your neighbors?

And if government is so below you, what are you doing here? On a political forum?

Jack Wagner

Let's start with the last question:

This, in my view, is not a political forum.

To be clear, my definition of "politics" is participating in rituals which lead to someone, say individual A, being forced to do something that no other individual has a natural right to force him to do through the actions of some other individual B (or group B).

This forum was created, as I understand it, in honor of Ron Paul who operated in the sphere of politics but has been criticized for not really wanting to win, i.e., actually participate in the purpose of politics (see above), and being a failure (for not getting any major legislation passed). By his own admission, furthermore, he advocated a voluntary society and considered "winning" a "danger" of participation. His motives, consistency, and a host of other things can be endlessly debated, but he created a bridge for people like me who will not participate in politics or government, people who might have spent most of their lives wondering if there was anyone else who thought the same way, to interact with others and participate in changing hearts and minds with those who might listen and reason.

I now know several people who thought they might be crazy for most of their lives and now understand that they were simply right when most everyone else they knew was wrong. As Ron Paul said: I didn't know there were so many of you out there.

Yes, we could just start killing aggressors left and right. The problem is that we wouldn't last long and wouldn't have much impact. We would be either killed or otherwise silenced. The situations of Scheaffer Cox and Irwin Schiff demonstrate that we even have to watch what we say.

Next question from the bottom:

> If you are a steward, and a man (or woman) of faith,
> how are you so disgusted with your neighbors?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. How could one not be disgusted with destructive aggression?

> What good do I do by attacking them for it?

I have to ask what you mean by "attacking?" Trying to talk sense to them? Filming their evil deeds with a phone like Schaeffer Cox?

Let me ask you a question:

What good does it do to advocate aggression?

As far as sports and church, it's a question of what is effective. You're correct that maybe I don't relate so well, but my question is what is the effectiveness of participation in such things?

I'm involved in a number of voluntary associations. Some have politics involved and others not so much. If I can keep clear of the politics and I think they are useful, then I participate. One such association is The Revolutionary War Veterans Association.

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

I won't pretend; there are huge levels of BS politics involved in the association, but I am able to steer clear of them, so far, and do some good I think.

I talked about being a steward of land and land ownership. That's quite different from being a steward of a "flock" of people and people ownership. I think there is a possible use of the word steward with regard to people, but it doesn't involve ownership. We need people in society who have understanding and give good advice. We also need people in society to take that advice and probably pay for it too. But this needs to be kept strictly voluntary. People pay for all kinds of things they need.

Getting to the top of your post, and a point of agreement: You're right. If an individual's mind is free, he can not be ruled by others. That is precisely the point. When we govern ourselves, we are not governed by others.

We still, however, have to deal with the psychosis of the majority. We have to do it carefully or we will find ourselves caged or killed.

Finally, I think you are mistaken that "it got to the point where a select few people ruled over others." That is how it started. Those select few found that the "others" (that is the livestock) were more productive if they allowed the livestock more liberty. That is why many people have some vague idea of liberty in their minds and there is as much liberty in society as there is. But the foundation of slavery remains the same. And God didn't create that foundation. You're right that people created it and government is just their tool.

We simply have a society built on slavery. Do you think it would be possible to start with a different foundation?

I'm sorry but your question is convoluted.

You talk about land then you talk about some ones garden then you talk about natural resources.

God gives me the right to own land.

I grew my garden and I can say who gets to eat it or not.

I do NOT need government to protect my property rights.

Let me make this simple. If I pick up a rock and claim it then what right do you have to come and take it out of my pocket? NONE.

If some were to eat from your garden...

And you did not approve, would you use force to stop them? Is that force justified?

Jack Wagner

It's defense of your life, so

It's defense of your life, so yes. I've put my time, the most precious resource in human existence into that garden. If you wish to steal my life from me and condemn me to your service than I will use reasonable force to prevent you from doing so.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Your life is more than your garden.

You feel as if you worked for nothing if someone ate an apple without asking?

And you feel as if that makes you a slave, as if they have that power over you?

I can see how that is scary, if you believe such things.

I assure you. Your life is more than your possessions and the time you put into them.

No one has the power to make you a slave.

A bird does not die when its nest is destroyed by the winds. And he would be a fool to never fly again because of it, in some desperate attempt to spite the wind.

It's not that these things, your garden, your time, your nest, aren't important. It's that the moment is much-more important. And that holding onto them limits you.

I gave an Occupy attendee a lesson in property, after he said "there should be no private property." At the time I was playing his guitar, and he had a pack of cigarettes sitting on the arm of a chair. I picked up his cigarettes and began to walk off with his guitar and he said, "wait."

Now, he got what it meant to have private property, in the most undeniable way, because he committed to it in his mind the instant he felt a lose.

If that sense of lose drove him to violence, then he is holding onto too much. But by showing him he had some attachment, I got him to respect the attachment of others.

It is that balance, respecting others' attachment while letting go a little bit of yours, that will find us with the best practice.

Jack Wagner

The Land has been Purchased

Since we all believe in the principles of life we can assume that your labor and the fruits of such are part of your life. If you spend part of your life to purchase land, that land or any property is a piece of your life and should be protected as such.

Now I guess the big question is what gave the first owner the ownership of the land? Basically someone else's rights were violated. Natives were conquered, countries invaded, etc. It isn't right, but it is the reality. Wrongs were committed in the past, but we should not continue committing the same mistakes.

"finders keepers"

is what gave the FIRST person the right to claim it. it all stems from claims and finder's keepers.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

what about

losers weepers.

The difficulty I have with your question is

it can be granted that some of the land in this country (even land not owned by the Feds) was gained by folks who did not abide by NAP. So you make a valid point asking the question. Defending your own property obtained by a fair trade, OTOH, is not 'Aggressive use of force', it is recourse against an aggressor.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

This is what every post on the DP should look like

Highly productive thread

"Property" is only in step 3...

First of all, like gravity in physics, there is a rule that is always present: the right of the strongest. It's always there. In nature, in primitive societies, even on distant planets if life would develop there. Deny it and I'm not even interested in whatever reasoning follows.

Step 2: humans found out, a few thousand years ago, that grouping up means more strength. Groups of sometimes even millions of people joined up to claim pieces of land. That's how countries came into being.

Step 3: to have a thriving group of people and thus a thriving country, it was discovered that things go most smoothly when the people agree that a bunch of common laws and concepts is the way to go. A very successful one appeared to be "property rights", enforced by the "government". It's so good that there's even a philosophy in which it plays a central role: libetarism.

However, property rights only exist as long as the country exists, and only as long as the people agree to the concept. You want examples when property rights are not working for the so-called "owner"? Whenever:

1) a country is invaded successfully.
2) the people of a country don't like the distribution of property anymore.
3) the government breaks down.
4) the government doesn't enforce it (so the law of the jungle becomes default again).
4) the government decides to steal the property and nobody opposes it.
5) ... I'm sure you can think of many more!

So... Armed with this knowledge you'll know the answer to the original poster's questions. It's upon the citizens of a country to decide what land ownership rules are good. If they agree to anything, hooray! If not... too bad for your country.

Property is the foundation of Social Agreement

Excellent video. It is an agreement, much as our "rights" are a social agreement. They allow society to be productive and enjoyable.

Our rights aren't true because they are in the Constitution, instead, they are in the Constitution because they are true. True as in, the best way to live together. They are the most important components of a social agreement.

As is property.

The question still remains, is this then a justified use of the threat of violence, to repsect the Social Agreement? Can Property and Rights exist outside of government, including a Tribe as a form of government, or community.

And how do you empower someone to be judge of rights violations, and to empower them over the violater, so that they may enfore the agreement?

Jack Wagner

It is an agreement, much as

It is an agreement, much as our "rights" are a social agreement.

Oh hell no. My rights are not an agreement with anyone else, they persist beyond anyone else's existence. If you cede that your right's are a social agreement then you also agree that your rights can be modified by said agreement. This is incorrect, my rights are absolute.

Property exists as a monetary exchange between me and nature, or other parties. I exchange my work / time for property and therefore it becomes mine. It has absolutely nothing to do with other people.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

i think

violence is only acceptable when in self-defense. that could include a designated area. if everybody was in agreement in said area that defense was necessary. and if it was a singular encroachment, with property rights well established, then yes. i would hope that the property owner would use the reasonable amount of force consistent with the encroachment, i.e., a warning "get off my property" for wandering through, up to shooting an intruder that has broken onto the home. i don't think anybody would think it acceptable to shoot someone who's just wandering through, and i think there would be repercussions for something like that. sounds like this is more a "foreign army on the hill" argument, in which case the use of violence for self-defense should not be an issue at all.

you made a wonderful point that rights are in the constitution because they are true. meaning they exist outside of government, so you kind of answered your own question there. :)

i think every person needs to empower themselves with the responsibility of protecting natural rights. with property rights firmly established, and protected by courts and such (yes, privatized), i think a lot of the confusion would disappear. property owners would also do many things they do now, signs and dogs and alarms and security services. i don't think those are going anywhere.

i think it's hard to see because that's not what this government is protecting. property rights are seemingly laughed at. cops busting through the doors, people not "allowed" to grow gardens, property taxes, owners legislated off their land, etc., etc.

it can be done. it has been done. and it doesn't require what we think of as government.

I'll just leave this here.

Fast forward to 6:26

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

This video is misleading

Why is it misleading?
Because the state is nothing more than a tool.
They say the state owns land and the state will use force, but in reality the state is nothing more than a tool. It cannot function without the will of the wielder.

Our government now is being used by the Globalist / Bankers, but that does not mean the state can do no good when the people use it their benefit. Like National defense, or Liberty and Justice for all, and not subjective liberty, subjective justice, or someone else's opinion of how homesteading gives you a claim to the land.

Anarchy allows people to make their own rules...... Period. If those rules impose on you, then you will have a heck of a time defending yourself. Poor granny wouldn't stand much of a chance in that society.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

The nature of the state

is that there are not always moral or legal people within it. Therefore, it can not always be moral or legal.

I'm not advocating anarchy, I'm a minarchist libertarian. To say the state can own land violates everything we know about how we can acquire and maintain ownership.

Conversely, saying that ownership of property is the exertion of force is also illogical. If i create something form my own labor then it is mine because i have exchanged the one currency we all possess from birth (my time), for the creation of it. It remains my without the interaction of others, only when others are introduced can someone challenge that ownership. The challenge is force, not the ownership.

One of ideals of individualism is that others have no bearing on my life unless i want them to. For all intents and purposes surrounding the morality of life, other simply do not exist.

Violence itself is not immoral, only aggression. As such the challenge of property ownership against an individual is aggression if under the threat of force to remove it. Therefore, we must conclude that aggression may be met with violence in self defense.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

It all comes down to how we treat each other.

And if we can think of a better social agreement, in which we are not constantly under the threat of violence.

But even if we had a Nationalize Public Bank, that required interest paid back on loans in order to fund the government, it would still have to threaten violence against someone who did not pay back the loan, in theory.

Practically, all you would have to do is threaten the loss of credit for not paying back, thus detering someone from doing so under the guise they would lose some leverage in the economy.

Whether we need to use force to protect property is whether or not people respect each other. The reality, is most people don't. So we need to form governments to help protect said property, and thus, us the threat of violence to deter theft.

No matter how "utopian", or, non-violent, a social system becomes, there will always be the potential need of the use of force, as long as we are dominated by the material world. Which from a Biblical stand-point (esoteric) is the dominion of Satan, and thus, we see how such an attachment to material takes us away from the spiritual life, or, a life of Peace with God.

So let's stop attacking each other on principle and start working together to make a better social system that respect the fact that it would create suffering to pull out the safety net, especially until we have mastered the technology and resources to allow people to live with prosperity without money, and that we need government to protect our rights. And that while we attempt to find a way to fund government without taxation (hopefully the policy paper I am working on will solve that), that until then, our priority should be reform are undeniably violent policies, such as our foreign policy, our drug policy, and capital punishment.

Jack Wagner

It's no use asking Ancaps how

It's no use asking Ancaps how they handle the issue. An caps don't have the capacity to handle any issue.

I can handle it for you though.

1. Rights don't exist objectively in reality. Each of us may have an idea of what we think is right, colored more so, or less so, by our own interests.

2. Each of us has a given level of power to satisfy his desires.

3. The intersection between these two things, power and the general right/wrong consensus, produces some equilibrium of conditions, so that at any given time, a particular set of laws is enforced by the political authority.

4. That political authority is influenced both by popular consensus of right and wrong, as well as the economic and social power of influential individuals.

5. It is the set of rules and the stable equilibrium it produces that allows a condition of peace to prevail, rather than conflict, revolution, chaos, or lawless anarchy (followed immediately by arbitrary tyrannies).

6. The economic output of stable, ordered, trading societies with government and markets, trust in contracts, trust in being able to transport goods, to be able to rely on functional division of labor, produces a society more able to proliferate and contribute to defensive and offensive resources.

7. At any given time, the political authority + the mass of people will be persuaded to believe in a certain consensus of right and wrong that relates to laws and political authority.

8. Part of the calculus for whats right is the practical outcome of the laws. For example, a society that coerces people to respect the property of others and restricts violence to a few legal uses is able to sustain far more human beings than otherwise, keeping poverty and hunger at bay, keeping society stable and secure, and providing defense against potential predatory neighbors.

9. Most people alive would not be fed if the property system disappeared because it wasn't 'justified.' Part of what makes people accept a system as 'justified' is how it effects them and their interests. People don't want to die in order for a system to be justified.

10. Outside of a public law and consensus, fully informed by all the facts, the only source of rights would be individual and gang force.

11. The only source of an objective, universal set of rights, wrongs, etc., above human opinion, would be a supernatural entity.

12. The only thing we can arguably be said to 'create' in some sense out of ourselves are other people, and that is the one thing we agree we don't own.

13. Everything that constitutes property is constituted of preexisting natural material we did not create.

14. The distribution of land is indeed largely the result of arbitrary and random historical circumstances, and is unfair on any universal ethics concerned with fairness (in the sense that most of the owned land was not actually improved, like a tool or home you can build).

15. We allow individuals, under a set of fair rules (ideally), to pile up chips to the extent that they are able within the law, to convert into to material things, as a kind of rough approximation of how much 'improvement' they've engaged in. Whatever comes into one's possession legally under these rules can be converted by voluntary trade into other goods for sale, including land.

16. Since the land was never distributed evenly in the first place, but was distributed through force, it can be argued that there is an element of redistributive justice to property tax, but only if it was paid out to citizens as some kind of minimum income like Switzerland passed.

17. Should unimproved, unoccupied land revert to Commons? The government, along with the private owners that employ the government for their ends, won't have that.

18. The people, following the lead and persuasion of their media and political leaders, agree with the existing system and accept it's drawbacks for the stability of life they get for it. Their greater aspirations are sated with television and modern equivalents.

19. Everyone is free to believe some system may be better, fairer, etc. And they're free to use persuasion or force to try to bring it about. Both tend to produce unexpected and unforeseen results, so it's a dangerous game.

20. Revolutions happen when the balance tips to where a preponderance of social power or mass opinion decides conditions are so bad, or promised alternatives so attractive, that the risk is worth radical institutional changes and upset of laws.

21. The new Boss is the same as the old Boss. Powerful individuals and groups with economic and institutional power, tempered by a semi-informed, unpredictable mass consensus. Abuse grows to whatever extent the system can stand and the people will permit, so that more economically productive systems can last longer with greater corruption than less productive ones, and with less use of force/terror. (Contrast USA w USSR).

On # 12, Bill...

...not trying to nitpick on trivialities, but in passing I was wondering how you would view information that comes from one's mind and is imprinted in the material around us, whether it be art, music, literature, engineering designs, etc. Would you consider this something we create?

On # 19, 20 -- yeah, I think in order for a radical departure like voluntarism to take root, it will need to be demonstrated on a smaller scale, in a couple small nations perhaps, to see if they really can be those 'shining cities on a hill'. But sometimes good, radical moral notions, such as abolition of slavery can occur peacefully enough, such as with William Wilberforce's influence in Britain. (Sad it wasn't that way over here, of course.)