My garden? Not because I say so, but because I can justify it. I built it, planted it, and tilled it. If you can justify why it is yours, perhaps you can have it. — NOS4A2

Shit, the appeal to justice? Let's invent a court and make with the justification - your private justification has no sway over me. But anyway, you lie. the garden was already there, all you did was tidy it. I liked it the way it was and you ruined it. Now get off my garden and stop ruining it with your wretched building and cultivation of my lovely wilderness.

Your description of a community formed through agreements amongst neighbors strongly resembles what Locke called the State of Nature. He takes up the question of how societies formed before explicit bodies of law appeared when he was challenged to show how the state of nature existed before civil structures.

100. To this, I find two objections made.
First: That there are no instances to be found in story of a company of men independent, and equal one amongst another, that they met together and in this way began and set up a government.

101. To the first there is this to answer---That it is not at all to be wondered that history gives us but very little account of men that lived in a state of nature. The inconveniences of that condition, and the love and want of society, no sooner brought them together, but they presently united and incorporated if they designed to continue together. And if we may not suppose men ever to have been in the state of nature, because we hear not much of them in such a state, we may as well suppose the armies of Salmanasser of Xerxes were never children, because we hear little of them till they were men and embodied in armies. Government is everywhere antecedent to records, and letters seldom come in amongst a people, till long continuation of civil society has, by more necessary arts, provided for their safety, ease, and plenty. — John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Beginning Of Political Societies.

Locke joins Hobbes and Rousseau in using the concept of a state of nature to propose how we transitioned from a prehistory without politics to a life lived through polity. What is your account of the transition? Or was it born directly from the forehead of Zeus?

Alright. We have a big long discussion. We still disagree. Now what? Fisticuffs?

Do you really disagree, though? Would you actually lay claim to a garden someone else has built and cultivated, and upon disagreeing, physically take what he has built and cultivated?

But yes, if theft is your aim, you’ll just have to take it, won’t you?

Like Rousseau says, family is the first society. I suppose kinship could be considered natural, but then again to say “state of nature” is redundant, because every state is one of nature anyways.

Do you really disagree, though? — NOS4A2

Ah! The old 'you agree with me really though' argument. I wondered how long it would take to get there.

That you can't wrap your head around anyone thinking differently is your problem, don't project it onto others.

Would you actually lay claim to a garden someone else has built and cultivated — NOS4A2

Yes. As @unenlightened had already speculated...

stop ruining it with your wretched building and cultivation of my lovely wilderness. — unenlightened

I think the wilderness belongs to those who look after it best, so your crappy efforts fail to secure you your right of ownership I'm afraid.

upon disagreeing, physically take what he has built and cultivated? — NOS4A2

Of course. You ruined my wilderness. I'd definitely use what force I have at my disposal to requisition it and return it to its proper state.

if theft is your aim, you’ll just have to take it, won’t you? — NOS4A2

It's not theft, your claim to ownership failed. It's my garden.

Ah! The old 'you agree with me really though' argument. I wondered how long it would take to get there.

That you can't wrap your head around anyone thinking differently is your problem, don't project it onto others.

It was a question, actually, as evident by the question mark. Your efforts to skirt around it are obvious, because no one is stupid enough to act like a question was an argument.

Of course. You ruined my wilderness. I'd definitely use what force I have at my disposal to requisition it and return it to its proper state.

Why is it your wilderness? Is my garden on your property?

Those political philosophers used the phrase 'state of nature' to distinguish it from life as a citizen with expressed rights within a state. They did not mean to suggest the latter was outside of what is possible by nature.

Your citing of Rousseau reminds me of Thatcher's view of society:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. — M Thatcher

Not much interest in the history of communities there.

Nor should they be. It’s a brute fact that such abstract terms are without a referent. As intimated, the collectivism in Hobbes or Rousseau, statism in general, is nothing to be proud of.

Why MUST you be governed? Why— WHY?

Don’t you want to be free from Big Brother? Yet you never choose freedom…you MUST go with being scrutinized, watched, collectivized. Why, why??

If only we could be more like John Galt.

But you yourself frame your concept of 'statism' as a violation of a preexisting condition. It is at least as abstract as any idea employed by Locke.

Note how no one can answer why they themselves need to be governed. I expected as much. It’s always someone else who needs to be governed, like the murderer in your condescending fantasy. — NOS4A2

It was not intended to be condescending. You missed the point. The murderer does not think they are wrong. The murderer does not believe they need to be governed. They think they have no blind spots or need for others. But this simply isn't the case. No one is a one man perfect army. You and I are no different in our personal blindness and bias. WE need governing, because WE are no different from one another in our myopic view of our own perfection, capabilities, and self-sufficiency in relation to other people.

The only people who do not need governance are those who live in the woods somewhere away from other people. Whenever two or more people have to interact, fledgling governance begins. Perhaps its a mutually negotiated outcome. Perhaps its one person overpowering the other. Whatever happens, implicit and explicit rules in how you both interact with one another begin. And if one of you doesn't follow it? Consequences of some kind ensue.

As to why people use examples of others and not themselves, is because no one wants to admit their flaws. Because then the reply will be, "Well YOU might have those flaws, but I do not." This is incorrect. You have flaws Nos, plenty of them. I do as well. Our flaws and desires are different, and if we have to interact with each other, there are spoken and unspoken expectations and behaviors between us is there not? If you or I behave a certain way on these forums, will we not be reprimanded? Do you honestly think the forums would be a better place if there were no rules or moderators? That is basic governance. And it is absolutely needed for groups to work together with a mutual benefit.

Now, to be fair to you, perhaps you observe there can be negative consequences of governance. No one would dispute that. There are positives and negatives to almost every system and choice we have in life. To ignore the negatives and only see the positives, is as foolish as the other way around.

Governance is an absolutely needed tool/descriptor of relations between humanity. Like any tool, it can be used incorrectly. But its incorrect use does not mean we do not need the tool when the job calls for it.

Your efforts to skirt around it are obvious — NOS4A2

The question...

Do you really disagree, though? — NOS4A2

The answer...

Yes — Isaac

Not sure in what way that counts a 'skirting around'.

Why is it your wilderness? Is my garden on your property? — NOS4A2

Yes. I've explained that land rightly belongs to the person who will look after it best. In the case of your garden, that is me (I'm an excellent gardener), you've already done enough damage with your 'cultivation', so you should leave immediately.

But you yourself frame your concept of 'statism' as a violation of a preexisting condition. It is at least as abstract as any idea employed by Locke.

I would say the State itself was a violation of sorts insofar as it was the organized means of exploitation imposed on others, but only that the preexisting condition to the state was no state. If I were to get concrete about it, I would point to those who act out its functions, it’s written laws, and so on. Statism is rather a belief or ideology, and I would argue the prevailing one.

Would you actually lay claim to a garden someone else has built and cultivated
— NOS4A2

Yes. As unenlightened had already speculated... — Isaac

And as is happening right now to indigenous people in the Amazon, sanctioned ironically by the government, and as has happened on every colonised continent over and over. This tyranny of property is exactly the social contract that @NOS4A2 thinks he is rejecting.

"Property is theft." Proudhon proclaimed. Because all property is stolen from the commons which is the Whole Earth. But Nos uses Proudhon only as it suits him, he is no anarchist himself as he admits, but an involuntary non-autocrat whining about his impotence.

There we go. You believe you are entitled to the figurative and literal fruits of another’s labor because you think you can do a better job. The corollaries of such a sense of justice are profound. A man has no right to use nature to provide for his own survival. The superior man has rights to the nature, the efforts, and by extension, the bodies of lesser men. And this sense of justice and property is why you need to be governed.

Do you not believe that a man has a right, as a matter of dignity and survival, to put effort into a place of nature for his own living?

It’s a stupid question. The better question is: why do we create governments?

Plenty of answers.

You believe you are entitled to the figurative and literal fruits of another’s labor because you think you can do a better job. — NOS4A2

No. I'd turn your garden back to a state of nature. No appropriation of any fruit (figurative or otherwise), in fact a rejection of the fruits of your labour.

A man has no right to use nature to provide for his own survival. — NOS4A2

Too right he doesn't. See . The 'use' of nature without proper constraint is just about to wipe out the planet's lungs.

The question is about what happens when we disagree over the proper treatment of some piece of land.

It’s a stupid question. — Xtrix

Yes, but I'm about to nick @NOS4A2's garden, so don't pull the plug just yet.

Do you not believe that a man has a right, as a matter of dignity and survival, to put effort into a place of nature for his own living? — NOS4A2

A right? Where do they come from? God? You get more and more desperately ambitious in your pronouncements. No, it is an insane suggestion that any man has a right to fence off land and reserve it to his own use without the agreement of his neighbours - which is to say, without entering into a social contract with his neighbours to mutually grant each other such and such rights and such and such redress. And should you wonder who is your neighbour, I refer you to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

No. I'd turn your garden back to a state of nature. No appropriation of any fruit (figurative or otherwise), in fact a rejection of the fruits of your labour.

You’d destroy my food, then, and any food-bearing plants I created, because you are a superior gardener. I still fail to see how one justifies the other. .

A right? Where do they come from? God? You get more and more desperately ambitious in your pronouncements. No, it is an insane suggestion that any man has a right to fence off land and reserve it to his own use without the agreement of his neighbours - which is to say, without entering into a social contract with his neighbours to mutually grant each other such and such rights and such and such redress. And should you wonder who is your neighbour, I refer you to the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Rights come from men. That’s why I’m asking you and not God. Will you destroy my garden, should there be no “social contract”? Is this why you need to be governed?

Rights come from men. — NOS4A2

Oh, a social contract.

Will you destroy my garden, should there be no “social contract”? Is this why you need to be governed? — NOS4A2

I don't need to be governed. I said at the outset that I am an anarchist. But you need me to be governed.

Oh, a social contract.

We have not agreed to anything. No social contract. Just you coming upon my garden and deciding what to do next: destroy it, steal from it, or leave it alone. There’s always that other niggling option of voluntary cooperation, where we can work together towards a solution. How does one decide?

I don't need to be governed. I said at the outset that I am an anarchist. But you need me to be governed.

I don’t want you to be governed, nor want to govern you.

We have not agreed to anything. — NOS4A2

Rights come from men. — NOS4A2

Therefore you have no right to your garden.

That there is logic. Allow me to sell you some.

I still fail to see how one justifies the other. — NOS4A2

I don't.

Now what?

How does one demonstrate that having no government doesn't automatically generate some other form of tyranny or overarching organizational process?

There’s always that other niggling option of voluntary cooperation, where we can work together towards a solution. — NOS4A2

Hang on. A minute ago you had s right to your garden because you tilled it. Now you're saying we could come to some arrangement?

What about the rainforest? Cycles the oxygen for everyone on the planet. You're going to need an awfully big hall to hold that meeting...

If only there were some system of representatives to simplify this mass negotiation process... Oh well, one can only hope...

Therefore you have no right to your garden.

That there is logic. Allow me to sell you some.

I’ll pass. I am by now we’ll aware that you will not afford anybody a right to their own garden. What do you say to the Amazonian, then, given that they have stolen their village “the commons”? They have no right to keep their village?

Hang on. A minute ago you had s right to your garden because you tilled it. Now you're saying we could come to some arrangement?

What about the rainforest? Cycles the oxygen for everyone on the planet. You're going to need an awfully big hall to hold that meeting...

If only there were some system of representatives to simplify this mass negotiation process... Oh well, one can only hope...

Yes, just ask. Maybe we can trade, maybe I can donate, maybe we can till it together. Maybe I’m naive but I thought theft and robbery would be the last resort, so consider me surprised.