One day I hope someone can give me a good argument for anarchy that doesn't lead directly to government.
Yeah the political horse shoe theory just a different way of saying "different wings same dam turkey"
The redistributing of land is difficult.
1:The land currently held as private by individuals represents the the fruits of their labour and redistribution would be theft.
2: Given that the land I own is the product of my labour any attempt to redistributed it would require threat or coercion which would be an effort to exercise authority over me that would leave me financially worse off. So we can see that any government that attempted this could not legitimately claim anarchism and that first act would dissolve any honesty and integrity.
3:Pretending that we lived in a world where land ownership had not existed and we could divide it in a fair manner.
Clearly we can't divide up the country into lots and randomly assign lots to individuals because not all land is equal so the alternative becomes I guess is establishing a standardised lot sizing and providing everyone with a vote weight on every lots use.
The number of issues with such a strategy are immense but the biggest is are these two 1. The shear volume and responsibility of voting on such a massive scale is overly cumbersome on the individual and so incredibly inefficient as to be a negligent waste of the resource. 2.It does not fundamentally change the status quo the vote of the majority over powers the minority anarchy by any other name is democracy.
The closest we could come to anarchy would be the Flux party. Any other method would require coercion or force which would represent power through violence as per the debates question.
All land in common law countries is owned by the crown. There is no no true ownership through alodium title. And i didn't say your land should be re-distributed, what i'm saying is that you should have the right to hold title to your land and not have to pay fealty to the crown ie "TAX" This is something @wwf is currently trying to achieve. If you do not wish to own land, then the income from renting that land "TAX" should be re-distributed to the people. i don't think you understand what anarchy is and the purpose of a right wing government is to decrease in size until it is no longer required. @wwf lives a true anarchistic life, there is no force, show of power or violence. Anarchy needs no political party or government or religion. We believe in peace, love and harmony. :)
Private property and equality of land ownership appear to be in direct conflict.
@wwf by living of grid has an amazing privilege to be able to free himself from much of the usual issues faced by many however if tomorrow the whole of Canada was to demand anarchistic equitable distribution of the land could Canada's land mass provide them all with same privilege he has?
If not then then life wwf has is immediately brought into conflict with with a fair and equitable redistribution with out even adding the fact that all land is not equal.