Comment: Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

(See in situ)

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

In most societies today everybody has a bit of a claim on everybody else. I call myself libertarian, but the holiness of "property" is one of the game rules I would rather see people here relativate a bit.

The first rule/right/law is the right of the strongest. That's just like gravity, it always applies. The strongest may mean best armed, or most numerous as well. "The mob rules" is the most true part of a certain song.

Next, groups of people (usually millions together) may find it nice to claim a peace of land, call it a country and agree on some rule set to prosper.

Libertarism is just one of the rule sets available. It comes with some advantages. It's a pretty good one. But if the majority (or a better armed minority) rejects them, it remains just that - a rule set.

Michael Badnarik had a nice explanation of the US constitution. In one of his examples, he talks about an (isolated) village where water is found at someones land. "That belongs to him!", he claims. Sure, but he better pleases his neighbors or else they may void the current rule set and take the well by force.