I always wonder about this:
Will land always have to be defended in order to stay yours?
And if so, what is the best way to defend it? Through state-membership, private security, or some other way?
This is such an important question for me, but I can never seem to find or imagine a satisfying answer.
I think fundamentally yes, property has to be able to be defended for true ownership. This is true historically where the strongest armies under the most aggressive rulers took effectively all the land and property they could through force. True in Europe, Asia, the Middle East Japan and Russia. Many accounts of conquest in north and South America too.
I think the nation state model proliferated so well bc it was a property defense network whereby citizens had the assurance of property defense by their nation state. But of course this is problematic bc individuals are at the mercy (variable taxation and otherwise) of the nation state with no recourse.
I’m hopeful technology can become so advanced and asymmetric that a city state can economically defend itself from nation states (combination of strategic defensive and offensive capabilities). If this can be achieved then I think nation states will slowly cease to exist and city states with optional membership will become the norm.
I like Sun Tzu's "first, attack the enemy's strategy".
If your land can't be profitably invaded/extorted, it probably won't be. And if it is anyway, for some other reason, the invaders' elite will eventually get bored and leave.
This usually requires defending it, but you could construct situations where it doesn't.
🔫 —Defend what’s yours!
