What’s to resolve? If they think they’re claim is legitimate and we don’t? Not because we dispute the facts of the case but because we interpret them differently. I would freely acknowledge, depending on the tribe, that they were in the area previously. That would not be the same thing as acknowledging their claim of ownership to the specific land in question. If they think being in the area prior to my family does mean that then there is an impasse and if neither side is willing to relinquish their claim a conflict. And once the first person is killed then it’s about murder. Specifically if they killed a member of my family that’s murder as far as my family is concerned since my family member would have been defending a legitimate property claim in our eyes. Likewise if my family member kills one of them in self defense, defending in our eyes, our legitimate claim that’s murder to them since their person died attempting to protect their legitimate in their eyes claim. Then we would really have something to fight about.
They give up or got us outgunned. There was never a settlement on the property prior to us as far as I know. If they can’t provide proof of one I would never view their claim as legitimate so we won’t be leaving.
And doesn’t that just sum up Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Regardless of how any of us feel about the property claims of either side.
I’m peaceful. That doesn’t change the facts though. In the absence of a large force with a monopoly on violence people will be there own protection. Which is fine as far as it goes. You don’t get that without having conflict when two parties have different interpretations of how property rights are applied in a given situation. Like I said sometimes one or both sides will decide not to enforce their claim to the property right. But that won’t always happen. For instance if someone came up and said they had a claim to acreage that’s been in my family for centuries we got a problem. I use that example because in my view property rights are established by homesteading specific acreage. Not by roaming through an area without ever approving it. The descendants of people who roamed that land hundreds of years ago or thousands of years ago before the groups that were here then might feel differently about it. In the absence of the governments of Lexington County, the state of South Carolina and the United States of America there is nothing to stop either side from using violence to enforce or defend their claim as they see fit.
It’s not about being pro or anti violence. It’s about the fact that violence is inevitable to the human condition even if everyone lives by the NAP. By virtue of the fact that there will always be different interpretations of circumstances. Sometimes one or both sides will walk away because they think it’s not worth the cost. That won’t always happen though.
Yep. That’s a great plan if you’ve the stomach for it.
That would also be where duels come in. Sometimes people just have to have it out. Doing so in a culturally proscribed and accepted manner lets the kin of both parties accept what was done. There might be hard feelings but a feud? Probably not. There likely would be over a lynching or back-shooting.
Yes and those systems are kept honest by the knowledge that if they stop being honest Clan A might very well decide to burn it all down if you push them far enough. Sure they might lose but that sort of fight is likely a Pyrrhic victory when you don’t have a large outside force coming in to spread the costs out or wipe out Clan A before they can kill enough members of the other clans to make it a Pyrrhic victory. Leaving aside of course that most of the clans are probably interrelated at some level if they have been in the area any length of time.
Just like it’s easy to say this injustice or that injury should be righted when you get to have that action subsided by society. Absent that? Every resource even time you put into those actions costs you and your family resources. Ukraine? You sending your sons to fight? Leaving them without a father or cutting them down to one meal a day to pay someone else to do it? Israel and Gaza? Same thing. On either side.
That kid down the block that’s getting beat by his parents? I mean *beat*. You risking getting shot in the face trying to take him from his parents? That’s a significantly different ball game than calling CPS and the cops. You taking the kid in and feeding and clothing him? Can you afford to do that and feed and clothe your own kids? Does the kid want to leave or is he going to run back. You probably don’t have the ability to make him stay gone or continuously recover him.
It’s amazing how many libertarians and libertarian adjacent people don’t understand that people don’t process information the same way at a fundamental level. This means that even people who use the NAP to govern their actions will not interpret the NAP the same way in a given situation. So yes. Both sides in a conflict can actually think the other side violated the NAP on them and they are acting in self defense. Both sides. At the same. The chaser? You probably aren’t changing most people’s minds about their interpretation. Especially if their wellbeing is tied to their interpretation.
Nothing stopping you from defending yourself in any situation of course but when you and yours have to bear all the costs win, lose or draw against them and theirs, I hope it was worth it. Especially if your talking about a group local to you. The reality is if someone decides to end you and isn’t a complete moron about it you are done. It’s a rifle shot from 300 yards. Its a ball peen hammer to the back of the skull while you are walking down the street. Don’t forget that the family of the person you self defensed is still in the area and their response will be governed by their interpretation of events. We lose sight of that several generations into a society where the government has power enough to put the kybosh on most of that and people being used to using the state to handle disputes with one another and retaliating for wrongs.
Which is another reason to favor doing things at the familial level. It makes having several communities in the area more feasible.
I’d prefer the second. It means kids with shitty parents are at a serious disadvantage but that’s the case under the current system. The benefit is it’s a lot harder to kill local culture through indoctrination that is possible with centralized schooling. Even if members of the community are calling a lot of the shots. In my community it’s at the point where people not from here drastically outnumber those of us that are from here.
I’m on board with all that. As a heathen. I been to Dachau. I would encourage that visit as an example to the evil that’s possible when power is ceded to the government.
Back then you could just change your name and likely not be found if you had the control to never contact anyone from your old life again. That’s harder now. For good and for ill.
Schools are also decaying because parents aren’t the customers. The government is. Same with the police, military and courts. The trade off to user pays regardless of relative wealth is the state taking money from people and then purchasing the services. That makes the government the customer. Which is why those institutions are resistant to change and engage in behavior contrary to what private citizens want.
And because the government pays the bills and on the surface everyone is taken care of, people’s neighbors and families don’t intervene. In a society without that government bail out? We can’t stop you from walking out on your spouse and children but you better have a very good reason. Otherwise you might end up without any friends in town and family that has nothing to do with you. Without the above mentioned money printing, how many people are moving around at a whim? That’s something that is enabled because developers can borrow billions of dollars, in aggregate, and build millions of prefabricated houses. Without that? Moving and starting over somewhere else because you burned your bridges in the community you were born in just became harder.
Finally. Some global warming. Not even a record but whatever. That would be 113. 113 Freedom. Not 113 Commie. 
What scares me is all the first class fighters on all the losing sides that lost through no fault of their own, but have nothing to go back to. The ones that need to make a living now and know one way to do that.
I wanted a Swiss watch/razor combination. 40 bucks shipped.