Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. They didn't. It doesn't matter what or who you vote for. You get the same BS no matter who you vote for. When they voted for the conservatives, they went against the people and implemented what the people had voted them into power wanted to avoid. There are no different parties. They all want the same policies.
    1
  2. No it isn't. Currency is just a arbitrary number of exchange commodity used within an economic system. The value of that exchange commodity depends on the supply and demand of said exchange commodity. You can use anything you want. Cigarettes, plastic tokens, gummy bears, even live fish like some Zoos do (since trading rare animals has a stigma). Fiat currency is just a exchange commodity that does not have any limiting factor behind it (apart from paper, ink and so on). The value of a paper bill is 0, its inherent value is 0. It is only given value because someone say it is the only acceptable way you can trade items legally. Just like TIK said. If fiat money was dependent on the amount of labor a nation can produce. How come you can just print more money without providing more labor? It shouldn't be possible if the inherent value of the currency wasn't 0. If you use gold coins you can't print money without first finding more gold.
    1
  3. The meaning of words can change. You are presenting a strawman here. Presenting a mathematical equation and say they apply to everything in a language is just nonsense. As a counter I want to give you a few words that has changed meaning and isn't caused by politicans and criminals. Awful. Awful used to mean awe-ful once. That something was full of awe and inspiring. Now it has changed to mean something bad, which is a complete reversal. Literally. Literally used and still mean something to be exact. However, the definition has also changed that it means literally the opposite of literally. Gay: Gay used to mean that someone is happy. That is however not the meaning it has to today as no one say someone is gay just because they are happy. All of these words changed because of how people use them. Language can evolve in order to manipulate people, sure. But to say a word can't change because it has a meaning is nonsense. You are acting like words are set in stone and meanings can't change over time. What you are saying here is just complete BS and made up nonsense.
    1
  4. So this is why Caesars Legion is such a bad faction in Fallout New Vegas.
    1
  5.  @DomWeselnyBrzozieLub  Well that is just incorrect. If we take for example Capitalism in its extreme you get things like Objectivism. Where you do not care for what the workers have to go through if you can get your goal and make money on it. The idea that workers and entitled to paid vacation is something socialistic ideas have brought. The idea that children should not be used in the workforce is another. The idea that everyone in a society no matter their economic wealth have the right to vote is another. Many socialists today hate the fact "Capitalism" have relented to the demands of the left to find a working middle ground. Many today claim it "ruin the revolution" as it disarms the revolution as it solves the problems people should revolt against. Socialism have given some good contributions to the western society. That is why we have a mixed economy and not a pure capitalistic economy.
    1
  6.  @agrameroldoctane_66  When did I justify anything? Socialistic ideas are not the same as socialistic states. You clearly haven't seen when I have been called a Nazi for pointing out the faults and horror socialistic states such as the Nazis and Communism have caused. Also no. The removal of child workers happened after the industrial revolution. You are not correct in any way by pointing at some "military mobilisation poll concerns". This is not even correct in US history, as if US history is the only history in the world. I also didn't say anything about "social justice". These laws was created through social reforms. Many of these reforms had people who used socialistic ideology as a base. This is not "social justice". I think you are rather insane of you have this pattern of though. Maybe you should have a deep look into yourself if the mention of "Social" to you means "social justice". You are as extreme as the SJWs you hate. You just like them lack the ability to see in shades of gray and can't appreciate a good idea if it comes from someone of a different tribe.
    1
  7. TIK. You are again wrong with corporations. NOT ALL CORPORATIONS ARE ON THE PUBLIC STOCK EXCHANGE. A corporation can be privately owned as you can have a corporations of just 1 person. If I own a farm here in my country. I can work on that alone if I wish to. I can tie it to my personal funds, or I can have the corporations funds separate from myself. That means my farm gets burnt to the ground, lawyers can not go after my personal assets if I fail my contracts if the corporations funds are not tied to my personal funds. This is what you can find in the legal definitions used by governments today. Going public on the stock market is not a requirement for being a corporation.
    1
  8. Well. I have said for a long time that the difference between national socialism and communism is that national socialism are at least honest when they state what they are.
    1
  9. I don't think he is asserting that anarco- capitalism is the only true or actual capitalism. He is saying that you don't truely own your stuff anymore. When governments can come in and say who is allowed to opperate a business and who can not. That is not Capitalism. This is proven during the Covid pandemic. Governments say who is and who isn't allowed to opperate. When governments say who is and who isn't allowed to do what they want with their property, you don't really own your own stuff.
    1
  10.  @nicknolte8671  I don't know what you are trying to respond to so I am just going to ignore you because you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I didn't talk about Hitler or the Nazis. I talked about current society today. What do you think the "Pandemic" is?
    1
  11. Agreed. He acts as if humanity operates outside of nature. That we are not part of the circle of life. Also. Animals are not thoughtless. They can think. If you are going to define "thought" as sitting down and discussing metaphysical and abstract ideas of the universe with a pigeon, animals will be unable to do that. However. So will most humans fail. Most people has never really thought about a lot of what they do.
    1
  12. So?
    1
  13.  @rutrem09  I am asking you that. What is your point?
    1
  14.  @dreamspace4858  That is not really true. Capitalism: An economic system where based on the private ownership rather than state ownership. Socialism: An economic system where based on the state ownership or control rather than private ownership. Authoritarianism: A form of government that enforce or advocate strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. There is no requirement in Capitalism to have a free market. In fact, there is no free market in the world since all "capitalistic" countries are in fact mixed economies. We have all kinds of rules of what you can buy and how you are allowed to set prices. If there is an excessive demand for toilet paper you are not allowed to raise the price as that should be price guading according to the law. There is also no requirement for authoritarianism o restrict private ownership. As long as the owners follow the rules and obey the authority in charge there is no conflict between authoritarianism and capitalism. National Socialism isn't just socialism to a degree. It is just another attempt to how you should implement it into society. The way national socialism operated was by forcing all corporations to be joined in a few big cartels (a from of labor union) that operate how different sectors of industry should be operated. The state will have control over how the cartels operate which means the state will have no real direct control over every single business, but they will have overall control as the cartels that govern the businesses are beholden to the state. This is not 25% Capitalism. This is 0% capitalism. You are still not i control over your business as you are forced to join the cartel or labor union that decide how you are allowed to work. You do not really own the factory you operate. The cartel does.
    1
  15. Just a question. Do you come from Scandinavian?
    1
  16.  @MrBears25  That is not the definition.
    1
  17. "You don't just pay a McDonalds employee to BE a fry cook, you pay them NOT to run off and become a chef. " - No. You are wrong there. No one is expecting you wll make a career as a McDonalds employee. No one is paying you not to improve yourself. The reason you do not get better pay is simply becuase the work yo provide isn't that valuable. A lot of your work can be replaced with a machine. Yes, a janitor might provide a good service. However, do you really think it is hard to replace and train a new janitor? Do you think a janitor should be paid the same amount of money as a engineer when it is the engineer that bring in the money to pay the janitor?
    1
  18.  @novacorponline  Which job require more knowledge and expertise? Figure out how to get that hard stuff off the floor, or preform surgery? You are also just lying. I never said that the supply of janitor are infinite. You said that and not me. However if you are going to act like the skills of a janitor is of the same value as a brain surgeon you are very much mistaken. Fact is that all jobs are not worth the same amount of money. Even you point that out. However if you think a janitor should be paid the same as a surgeon, I will just hire more surgeons and have them work as janitors as there is no point of even having janitors at that point. A janitor only have value when their work free up other peoples time. If they require the same pay as those they free up, the janitor hold no value.
    1
  19. Nah, that is not true. They are just honest commies.
    1
  20.  @kelvino.s.9992  You can be against it sure. However to act as if giving someone else power over you so they can protect a group of people without them having a say in who and why they protect someone is nonsense. Ask yourself this. Will you give your life to protect the vilest human being possible that cause 50% of the situations you risk your life for because he the paid 60 bucks a month to the people you work for? You can not expect that people will just not use power when you give it to them. You also can't expect people to do whatever possible in the world just because you pay someone money. I am pretty sure the guy above you said what he said in jest, but this system only works if his second point is true. If all negative behavior just stop existing, this system works. The problem is that it will never happen, so this system can never work.
    1
  21. Not possible. Stalingrad was the central network in that whole region. If they wanted access to anything else while having logistic support, they needed the train stations and railroads. All railroad tracks lead to Stalingrad as that was the central hub. So they might have been able to bypass Stalingrad, but that also meant they will have to survive on less fuel and fewer rations. Trains can just bring in more resources then trucks can.
    1
  22. Not really no. He really wans't. Remember that the Soviet Union should be at this point also be "extreme right wing authoritarian". Have you actually looked into what the Soviet Union believed in? Do you think the USSR allowed for: Homosexuality? Wealth generation? Freedom? Individual thinking and expression? Unemployment? Going your own way in society? Hitler was as extreme right wing as Stalin was. It is also something many people in East Berlin noticed that after the war the brown colors was just replace with Red colors. How Hitler and Stalin ran their countries was the same. People were forced to do things against their will and production and ownership was controlled by the state.
    1
  23. Mao Zedong murdered 45 million people. We are not talking about hundreds of millions of deaths because Hitler didn't even manage to get above 12 million if you include the holocaust and all civilians killed in the war. And Mao killed several times over him. World War 1 killed 20 million people in total worldwide. If you had entire war around the Mediterranean it will not reach hundreds of millions of deaths because there simply isn't that many people that is of fighting age to kill. I also want to point out that in the 60's the world population was 3 billion people. YOU CAN NOT TAKE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF LIVES WHEN THERE ISN'T EVEN THAT MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT REGION OF THE WORLD No. Marxism is multiple times worse than fascism simply because they are the same exact thing but more popular. Even East Germany noticed this. The brown colors were replaced with red overnight and nothing else changed. The Soviets just like the Nazis forced people to do things against their will, and if anyone refused they were "removed". I also find it sickening that you think a imaginary hypochetical number you just made up can brush away 100 million of lives. Dude. Do you have any idea how many 100 million people are? You are literally brushing away the worst mass murderers in history with a number you made up. Especially since Mussolini can not even be called a mass murderer. It was the Germans that killed people, not Italians.
    1
  24. They are not retarded at all. They know very well what is going on. They just figured out that they will become and called a fascist if people figure the correct terms out. That is why a fascist is always far-right. It simply can not be far-left because that is to close to comfort.
    1
  25.  snowy the snowman  I believe there is a rule that say "accuse other people of what you are doing yourself". Just because they are acting retarded does not mean they are. Things like deflection and lying exist.
    1
  26. Not true. He did. France did not have huge oil fields at the time. France bought its oil from the US, like most countries did at the time. Same goes for Italy. They did not have large oil fields within their own countries. At least not enough to supply the whole war. Maybe you should stop getting your resource information from games like Hearts of Iron 4. Games are not accurate to real life. Also. That Non-Aggression pact was a farce from the very start. Both the Germans and the Soviets planned to backstab each other. It was seen as God shaking the Devils hand for a reason. Germany wanted Poland and time to prepare without the Soviets and the League of Nations attacking him, while the Soviets wanted a buffer state (Poland) and time to prepare and build up their army in case they will be attacked or need to attack someone. A Non-Aggression pact didn't mean anything as it isn't actually binding by the laws of the universe.
    1
  27.  @lieutenantpolo  Well. I am not really sure about that. A solution not run by the government can work. There is nothing that say it will not. The problem with AnCaps is that their idea of the world is just moronic. It assumes people will not become corrupt, and if someone does everyone will respond appropriately. Which isn't how corruption works. That being said. It isn't just private solutions that are affected by corruption. Governments are extremely vulnerable to corruption. They often have the ability to "investigate" themselves for any wrong doings. Having a state ran program is also not always going to be more efficient than a private ran program. Here in Sweden that was pretty clear during the pandemic. Lots of pressure was on the government because they had made the idiotic decision of selling off the stocks of emergency supplies. The reason was: "it was to costly to maintain. And if something happens we can just buy it from someone else". Like selling the fire extinguisher because there is never a fire anyone. As a result lots of nursing homes became very vulnerable. And since we had a socialist government, the problem was obviously the private sector and the annoying opposition party that was in powers 8 years ago. So the government laid the blame on the privately owned nursing homes for the high deaths of the elderly. Those capitalist money grabbers just can't help the elderly like the state can. However in reality, this was not the case. Sure. Lots of people died, but the state ran nursing homes did the worst by far. It was just a deflection so the socialist government can blame capitalism for all problems while trying to hide their own faults. They were just trying to score points in an attempt to try and win the upcoming election knowing that the average Joe will not actually look up the statistics. Sure. I can agree that relying on charities and so on is not a good choice as well. However the problem is that relying on the government and high taxes is most likely worse as well. Charities are actually way more efficient with the money they get. I work a lot with governments and I can just see how they are both wasteful and not spending money where they need to. Just an example from Sweden again. Before GDPR became a thing within the EU there was a service developed by the Swedish government that aimed to try and match employers with a lot of the immigrants that had come to Sweden. This service had cost almost 10 million dollars to develop. However when GDPR became a law everyone had to follow the whole project was scrapped and thrown away. No one had actually looked if what they were developing was going to follow the new laws introduced by GDPR even if the requirements had been out for years. As the service was impossible to fix without a complete overhaul everything was written off as a loss. 10 million USD of tax payers money wasted because no one was checking to see what they were doing was legal or not. I don't think more government is a solution to a lot of things. Often problems we see originate from the government. The only thing that the government is best at is wasting money. No one else can waste money more efficiently than the government. It is after all not their money they are wasting.
    1
  28. Well. People today do not know what inflation is so...
    1
  29.  @Schnoz42069  Sorry bro but you do not understand what you are saying.
    1
  30.  @Schnoz42069  Okay. Please show me the evidence that you are. I really do not care for your claims and even if you are that does not mean you are correct. A position of authority does not imply you are correct by default. You are literally lying as well mate. The fact that you have altered the definition of Socialism and make the position that "they wanted everything to be owned by the state" as if that doesn't mean socialism, means you are crap as a history major or outright lying in everything you said. Maybe you should read the dictionary first. Btw. TIK actually has a history degree so good luck with that authority fallacy of yours.
    1
  31. I have no idea what you are even trying to say.
    1
  32. Because socialists do not want Hitler in their corner of ideologies. What else are they supposed to call the right wing?
    1
  33.  @adolfhipsteryolocaust3443  If you think socialists today care about "ideology" you simply do not get it. It doesn't matter. They see socialism in all its form as their ideology. That is why they can not accept National Socialism as Socialism. It should mean that the ideology of collectivization big governments and centralized power structures can lead to evil behavior such as genocide, demonization, persecution and war mongering. They need to be able to call their enemies all of these things as they themselves try to lay the monopoly on utopianism, egalitarianism and righteousness. The fact that they always tend to bring those evil things is something they ignore. It was never "real" socialism after all. You know.
    1
  34. "Students are putting the cart before the horse when they choose a education before knowing the job prospects for it" - TIK - When I finished high school I can 100% say this is a true and factual statement. When I was looking around for degrees and educations I was looking at civil engineer, and how pretty much EVERY subject in my country has a "civil engineer" degree in it. My question literally was "So what exactly is a civil engineer? How is a civil engineer in medical science different from a civil engineer in IT security? What jobs do I get from doing any of these educations?" The answer I ALWAYS got was "I don't know. These educations are 5 years old so what kind of job you can get can have changed since then." I have still not received and answer for those questions and I still do not know why there is so many civil engineers that have nothing to do with building bridges. No one was able to answer me the question for "what do I do with these degrees" even within STEM fields. I dropped out of these educations after years of wasting time for the simple fact they do not get me a job. When I have finished a education in these fields I do not feel ready to take on a job like this. If you want to become a IT technician or IT engineer, just got a job within IT and study on what you need as you go. I spent years trying to learn things I can have learnt in much less time. College is worthless as it does not prepare you for a job.
    1
  35.  @georgechristoforou991  Just how the Communists only applied equality to some people. Do you understand the term "Everyone are equal, but some are more equal then others"? Socialism has absolutly no egalitarian part in it. You do not have to be egalitarian or equal to be a socialist. That is something you made up.
    1
  36.  @georgechristoforou991  Socialism was not created in 1830. It can be describe by Plato and the book Utopia from 1516 describe a socialist society. If Merriem-Webster say socialism is from the 1830, they are just wrong. Merriem-Webster is not an authority all by themselves.
    1
  37.  @georgechristoforou991  Because it shows how all socialist governments behave in practice. You should provide a socialist state where they ever made everyone equal. Where the revolution hasn't just replaced the ruling elite with a different ruling elite. Equality is not and never has been part of the definition of Socialism. You do not have to work for or demand equality of any kind for it to be socialism. You have invented that definition.
    1
  38. TIK. I do have a issue with your claim that "Hitler wasn't a Christian because X". First: You do not have to be for or follow the Catholic church to be a Christian. Protestantism for example was founded just because it objected to the corruption within the Catholic Church. There is several versions of Christianity and several wars have been waged because some people didn't follow the "correct" faith. You can very much be against or even hate the Catholic church and still be a Christian. Second: You say national socialism is against the Christian teaching. The problem I have with this is that Christian Teaching is against Christian teaching. Jesus throw out the moneylenders from the temples because they made the house of God into a place of business. Yet in America you have stuff like Mega churches and the "prosperity gospels" which makes church into a place of business. You have the Catholic church literally breaking the second commandment. Here is what it say: "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments." So how does Catholics break this? Because they make statues and images of saints and other holy people and worship them. They worship them as if that is another way to worship God. The problem is that this goes against what God say in the Bible. "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE YOURSELF AND IMAGE AND WORSHIP IT" is what God say, yet Catholics do that with people like Mary Magdalene. I do not think you can judge a teaching to be "anti-Christian" as proof against someone being a christian for the simple fact Christianity should itself not be able to withstand that level of scrutiny. All versions break some level of Christian teaching.
    1
  39. You do know that the guy that signed that peace agreement was the guy that declared war right? Churchill did not declare war on Germany.
    1
  40. Where in the video does TIK say that? I can't remember. Can you provide a timestamp?
    1
  41. "Capitalism is inherently corrupt, greedy, unfair and exploitative in nature." - No it isn't. What you are talking about is just life. Life is greedy because everyone who is alive wants more and anything that gives them a easier life. Life is unfair because things are not equal on this planet. Life exploits nature to survive. The only difference between us and other animals is that we can understand how our exploitation will ruin the nature we live in. The Deers that ruined Yellowstone park by eating all the saplings just are not capable of understanding what they are doing.
    1
  42.  @fakeorchestra4260  I very much doubt that those that just work for "bettering the world" will survive very long in power. A honest politician will not survive as they will be a threat to everyone else. Just like a competent politician is a threat to all politicians who are corrupt. I also do not believe that you will have spiritual politicians in power for long. People that work for some kind of religion is a threat for the same reason people that work for a better world is a threat. If what needs to be done to achieve and regain power goes against their beliefs, they will not play ball. What do you think will happen is a ideologically driven politician encounters a fairly large corruption scandal has taken place by his own colleagues? Will the politician sacrifice political power by damaging his own political party by taking down the corruption? Or will it be handled internally, covered up and dismissed? What do you think those who are involved in the corruption scandal will react if the politican has decided to take action against them? Remember that the other side also always get a say.
    1
  43. As if this comment isn't all copium because you do not want to accept he wasn't mad.
    1
  44. Sorry but that example do not work. Okay lets say we have a voluntary HOA. I want to have a pig farm, and my land is in the middle of the HOA. Since the HOA is voluntary to join and be part of, I decide to not be part as I know everyone will hate my farm. When everyone come to me and say that they can't live in their homes because the pigs stink so much, I tell them I am not part of the HOA and I have the freedom to do whatever I want. What are you going to do about this? It isn't illegal and I am not technically hurting anyone. Everyone has freedom. I am just being a dick about it. Just because everyone else volunteer to be part of something does not mean they are isolated from other people. If I have no obligation to follow your HOA rules, I will volunteer when it benefits me, and leave when it does not.
    1
  45.  @marcusdavenport1590  You say all of that, but then it isn't voluntary. Remember that HOA's you are forced into because you bought a house in a HOA once joined voluntary. You can not by law force someone to join a HOA if they are not part of it. Also. if everyone else get to have a say what I do on my property, I do not have freedom anymore. Then it is someone else that say what I can or can't do. You know. Like a state. I also want to point out something you seen to have forgotten. I do not care if I join your HOA or not. How exactly do you deal with when someone wants to sell their home to someone else? Can only people that want to join the HOA buy the home? Can a home never leave the HOA without approval from the HOA? Does the home belong to the HOA or the person that sells/buys the home? So far you literally just describe a regular US HOA. You adding voluntary in from of it doesn't change anything. HOA's are voluntary by default. The only way it can separate itself from a regular HOA is if you are free to enter and leave when you want to. Which means I can just leave as soon as I do not agree with your rules. So in other words. If I do not like a rule you make. I can just leave the HOA and make a pig farm no matter what. If it is voluntary you have no power to stop me from doing this. If you have no power to stop me from doing this, the HOA is pointless as it is toothless.
    1
  46.  @colebehnke7767  If someone joins the HOA and then sell their house to me. Am I forced to join the HOA at that point? Can people just freely leave at any point? If not. You are forced to join the HOA. The reason houses in the US today can force you into a HOA membership is because the house is part of a HOA when you bought it. You can't just outright leave a HOA as that can cause issues for actually running the HOA. If a house in the middle of the HOA is not part of the HOA, it will most likely ruin the whole point of having a HOA as the rules the HOA have troubles being enforced. The problem with rules is that rules are pointless if you can't enforce them. That is the problem these ancaps seem to forget. Remember that just having a rule that say "it isn't okay to murder people" is coercive. It is a threat to make sure I know I can't go around and murder people without repercussions. You can never ever have any rules without a level of coercion. If you do not have that level of coercion, I can just ignore everything you say as you will not do anything about it.
    1
  47.  @colebehnke7767  What is in it for the HOA in that deal? That you get to do what you want and ignore the rules you do not agree with? Also why do you assume that there is somewhere else to go? We are not actually talking about a HOA here. We are talking about a nation that operates like a HOA. My point is that the argument is nonsense as the claim somehow say a HOA do not operate using any kind of coercion when that is the very point of them. Notice how no one has yet explained how they are planning to deal with something like a grandfather clause? Everyone, including you, can not think beyond your immediate selves. You only think about your CURRENT issues and wants. You do not think about how the system is to function for 20, 100 or 500 years into the future. Everyone, including you, have fallen into basic flaws that you will not respond to because then they will have to agree that they do not believe some part of their ancap ideology. Like the idea of trying to enforce some kind of code of conduct without some level of coercion. If you have no kind of threat to stop me from doing bad things, I can just ignore you. If you want to stop me using force and violence. That is coercion. Also. Why do you assume you have to leave? You own the property right? Why should you leave if you do not want to associate with the HOA? Why shouldn't they leave? Are you in a rental relationship with the HOA or something? Does the HOA own your property? Isn't the point of capitalism and anarcho-capitalism that YOU are allowed to own and do what you want with your own property? If you have to leave because you do not want to associate with the HOA anymore are you planning to pick up your land and move it somewhere else? You do know we are not talking about something like a TV in an apartment right?
    1
  48.  @colebehnke7767  "this is a case we’re the HOA (and the government) actually owns the property and your lending it form them" - That is called socialism my friend. The definition of it. "The two basic ideas of anarcho-capitalism is that these organizations don’t own the property and you should be able to freely associate with them" - I think should remove the "capitalism" part and replace it with socialism. You describe anarcho-socialism. What you describe here is a literally horrible idea. It will become a extremely abusive country after a while. You say there is no coercion but there is. The coercion is that you agree to the rules or you have to leave. Just like under communism. There is no actual rules about being against Communism, the government or anything else. What will happen if you do disagree that just means that your party membership will be removed. Since you do not actually own anything. Everything you own belongs to the state and you are just "lending" it from the state. You will be out of your home. No resources and no one will hire you as only member are allowed to be hired as those jobs belong to the state and are for members only. As I said. You will eventually have to agree that you do not believe in all values. You sir do not actually believe in Capitalism.
    1
  49.  @colebehnke7767  "how did you turn “These organizations don’t own the property and you should be able to freely associate with them” into “the state owns everything and you will be subservient to it”?" - You literally didn't say that. You said: "the HOA actually owns the property and your lending it form them." It literally means the state owns it. You DO NOT OWN IT. It doesn't matter if you say "we are the HOA". You are also the government. The government is literally meant to just represent you and work for you. If your Ancapistan happens, what belongs to the HOA belongs to the HOA and not any individual within the HOA. Your neighbor can't take their property back because it isn't theirs. Its the HOA's property. You can't take your property back because it isn't yours. Its the HOA's property. "will not have a claim to your time or property in ancapistan." - You literally said you will have a claim mate. If I lend you something, you do not own it. I own it because you borrowed my something. It is literally what the word means. Lending is when you borrow something that belong to someone else. You do not own what you lend. Taking ownership over something you have borrowed is theft. You have literally made the case communists make when they present their utopian socialist society. I also think you have a serious issue in understanding property rights. I will make this easy for you. Give me all of your property and wealth and I will safeguard it for you. You can lend it from me when you want after you have filed a petition with me for it. Willing to take this deal?
    1
  50.  @colebehnke7767  No you haven't. Have you not paid attention? The claim is that ancapistan works like a HOA. You then continue to describe the HOA and by doing so you describe a concept called collective ownership. You have not even describe how ancapistan is different from the real world. What you have described is actually already put into practice. They exist in a country called China. The way you describe how Ancapistain works is how Communist China opperates. You say things like "HOA would have no claim to your property, it isn’t owned by the state" but you have not explained how ownership works in the HOA. You also have some silly ideas of how disputes should be settled. You act like a mediation office can solve things by just talking things out. I heard that one before from the feminists party in my country. If feminism ruled wars should be obsolete because they will just mediate all problems away. You then seems to fail to understand that mediation only works because the mediation party has power over both people. If they do not have that power no one will care about their opinion. Then you also seems to forget that if disputes are to be solved through mediation, all you need to do is to control those who mediate. If a wolf and a sheep goes to a mediator, and the wolf has made sure it is another wolf that will mediate. Who do you think will win that dispute?
    1