Yuyutsu, have you heard about our 'Prince Leonard' from Hutt River Province here in WA?
A loony toon from way back who lived the lifestyle you seem to think a lawless, non-government Australia should live.

Yeah right...

Dear Suse,

My point was about being ALLOWED to live like Prince Leonard (and in many other variations of life-style), rather than actually living like this.

The fact that groups of people MAY secede from Australia should keep the government in check regarding individual freedoms, which in turn will mean that people will not actually have a reason to secede.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Any state in its right mind - including the states of Australia - exerts the authority, by virtue of being sovereign over the land within its responsibility, to declare that it is the ultimate, underlying, 'owner' of all land. We hold the land from the state. We use the land on conditions that the state lays down. Like it or not, that's how it goes. There is no allodial land in Australia.

Prince Leonard of the Kingdom of Hutt River can hold his lease, as long as he pays his annual lease fees, and abides by the conditions that the WA Pastoral Board or whatever decides. Apart from that, he can call himself whatever he likes.

He also has to abide by whatever conditions the national government orders, like the rest of us.

When we 'own' land, no, we are using state land for specified purposes. We rent it from the stage. The state formally is the ultimate landowner, on behalf of the populace which it has responsibility for, including King Prince Duke Lord Leonard of the Ancient Kingdom of Hutt. The only 'absolute' owner is the state. Feudal as it may sound, that's how it is.

In return, the state is supposed to guarantee our security, allow all of its residents access to benefits and services, permit their free movement and guarantee their rights. That's what we elect our representatives to do, with all the imperfections of a democratic system. It's a package from which none of us can opt out, not even you.

Joe

Dear Joe,

First I need to correct your error: The only absolute, ultimate and underlying owner of all land and seas, heaven and earth - is God. While we can still opt out of the state, even out of all states, say by jumping off a bridge, no one can opt out from God even if we were to jump off a million bridges.

Now there is no need to lecture me about the existing situation, Feudal as you describe it and born of violence. At the end of the day, a state is nothing more than a bunch of people and there is nothing mystic about it. Why would you approve the violence of one group but not of another (say the "Islamic State" or the feudal lords of the dark middle-ages), is beyond me and seems to defy all logic.

A state could TRY to provide security, but it is bound to fail, if nothing else then due to the fact that we shall all die one day (or night or twilight). While it is possible for people to seek its limited protection and other services, that never happened. If that's a package, then we must be able to agree or disagree to it, yet no such offer was ever presented.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Okay, you got me there - states hold the land from God. We hold it, on precise conditions, from the state which we are living in and under its government. hat government has political sovereignty over the affairs of the state, including the operations of land tenure.

We elect parliamentary representatives, imperfect as that process may be. Our representatives come together in parliaments, state and federal. The majority in each of our parliaments chose governments. The governments are thereby acting in the name of the state, AND of the people who elected them and whom they are supposed to represent. End of.

Joe

Dear Joe,

You are confusing the internal processes of governance within an established group of people (in this particular case, representative democracy) - with the way that group relates to those outside.

So long as one does not belong to a given group (in this particular case, a state), then the internal processes of that group are irrelevant to them.

No group may force itself on others, including on the pretext that they have included them in their group - it takes two to tango, so if a person never consented to belong to a group, then they are not in that group and so group's internal mechanisms do not apply to them.

Now anyone can CLAIM that a land was bestowed on them by God, but was it and why?