could you build a house in the forest and have a chance to survive in your cunt?
Could you build a house in the forest and have a chance to survive in your cunt?
Other urls found in this thread:
I hope there won't be any wild furries out there UwU
I have a wood cabin in the forest with no electricity, it's pretty comfy.
It's illegal to do it here
Yes, I'd probably die though.
of course it is... fucking brazil
yes. the government owns all of "public" land
we need to establish worldwide libertarianism to facilitate a return to feudalism
Bitch, there is no forest here, just plains and plains, and the Amazonia is a fucking dangerous giant forest, not like the Comfy european's forests
It's illegal here, too.
There are actual hermits in Russia, in fact you don't even need to build a new house, you can just live in an abandoned village without electricity like most of the hermits here do, but some of them really build their own houses in forests.
I'm indeed a neo-feudalist though.
I think it's by far the best system
park rangers are based user
Yes, that’s how we did it a a century or two ago. We still build timber cabins all around in the woods and on the mountains. Read growth of the soil.
the only way to justifiably assert oneself over others is when they depend on your property. assblasted libtards fail to realize feudalism is the ultimate justice and that without a lord's resources the 'oppressed' wouldn't exist at all
There’s also some who build and live in these hidden cabins which the government aren’t aware of.
Why do you think a feudal society would let you have a house where you want dumbass, the forests belonged to the nobility so they could hunt in there
because I own property? duh you moron
me and the american guy there would be the nobility.
You, on another hand, would have all of your property confiscated and forced to leave the country with nothing
how do they protect theirself from punks? what kind of food you could find in your forests?
is it warm?
>because I own property
Only the nobility could own land in a feudal society, you own property in a democratic society.
Sure you will, King Kong.
>Only the nobility could own land in a feudal society
This is a lie.
nigga do you think that a new nobility would suddenly arise from nothing and sieze peoples' shit? No, my land that i earned entitles me to dictate what heppens on it, and THAT is the foundation of feudalism; not some arbitrary classification of people into different categories you yiddish fiend
i envy you i would like to do that as a prove of resistance, don't you think on do that for some years?
Yes most have a stove or a hearth inside. They bring some supplies from town and hunt/fish living off the grid.
it gets fucking cold in the winters though.
>my land that i earned entitles me to dictate what heppens on it, and THAT is the foundation of feudalism
Are you.. are you really baiting this terribly?
It depended, the nobles had the army that kept you safe from raids, rapes and looting but at the same time taxed you. If I recall correctly there were some instances on commoners owning land, such as the British Yeomen. But whatever, I don't see how feudalism would be the desire outcome of a libertarian
you're a jew
take the yid to the gallows brethren
By guard dogs of course. Usually they grow their own food, also fishing, nuts, wild berries.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>but at the same time taxed you.
Much like our current socciety.
stop being jewish
i can infringe on whatever i want in my land, and on nothing in yours. is simple
Yes, you dense fuck, that's why I said "I don't see how feudalism would be the desired outcome of a libertarian"
There’s also very many remote places where people live all by themself in nature around here. Only reachable by boat and stuff. I might get a little place like that to retreat to.
Who the fuck cares about land laws anyway?
no reason to be rude
my first post explicitly stated libertarianism ought to be a transitional period
That is quite a weak philosophical position. Land is finite, at some point there won't be enough; therefore people will start to fight, and violence is undesirable.
>and violence is undesirable
i almost got killed by a bear a few years ago so probably not a good chance
the 'underprivileged' in this scenario would be the ones whose existence depended on the system in the first place, any suffering which may result from their existence in such a position can not be attributed to their benefactors
I understand nothing of what you typed. Could you clarify?
you shut up and go back to the field.
the wheat won't be harvested by itself
if you don't own the land, even in a democratic system, you rely on others. now it is a landlord, in feudalism it may be a LAND LORD. but regardless if you aren't sufficient for yourself you basically owe your existence to other assets. and i don't mean living in the woods providing for yourself, but as in today's society, you have to provide something. resources, land, etc..
No da gubament would for you to live a homeless life in a shitty, put you in prison for trespassing on gubament property or put you in a mental hospshital for being insane for living an "antisocial life". All of these options can get you to contract any number of diseases.
Great, you started a political debate where every party is retards. I hope you're happy.
Lol all of you faggots would get dirrahea or a mild cold and die after 2 weeks. There is a reason we came as far as a civilizations and it has nothing to do with our hut building skills.
you fool, join us
and that is the measure of a man. if I die when placed under my own care then I can only say I deserved such a fate
I agree with this man. Everyone of us, myself include, would die in the first 2 days. We would probably fall on our own axe or something
typical unresilient modern louse purporting basic survival to be a feat of the gods
Watch out, Bear Grylls is here to chew ass and kick gum, and he's all out of ass
what? it wasn't my fault
>if you don't own the land, even in a democratic system, you rely on others
I think your definition of selfsufficiency is somewhat mild, dare I say lukewarm. It's obvious that if you own land but do nothing with it, you need to grow your own food. Having others to work for you it's depending on others.
>you have to provide something. resources, land, etc
Yes, it is very hard to achieve complete autarchy. Since the individual needs a LOT of shit. You need to either be specialist on everything or be a total ascetic to be in complete lack of need of anyone else's help. And this without taking in account that you stand alone not only against other individuals, but diseases.
I think The Walking Dead explores this issue in depth.
it's what you call the "new deal"?
If you indirectly murder 24 kids, it's still kinda your fault
you're right, which is why the current population is far in excess of what can be provided for in all events and why this surplus is not necessarily entitled to any security or living standard.
i'll end up in jail? oh no it's happening again
>not necessarily entitled to any security or living standard.
Political requests are just the nice way of asking for things. What I mean is that this "excess population" now votes for politicians that offer welfare, but in other times, they just conquered another place and took what they wanted by force.
Sir, did you murder those poor children?