[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Try holding 'your' land without a government. You can only hold as much land as you can defend, and that's not very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone robs me at gunpoint, that doesn't give them the "right" to my property, it only gives them control of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus you have absolutely no right to it since you've only claimed it; you have no context to claim it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I've added my labor to the land, which gives me a property right to it. Now if someone else already owned that land, or if I used illegitimate tools to improve the land, I would not have a legitimate right to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights therefore cannot be absolute since there is no judge to adjucate propety disputes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I need someone else to adjucate? Where does this judge's power come from?

[ QUOTE ]
However, without eminent domain, a necessary and unjust rule, we would not have superhighways through cities, and many other necessities to function as a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a demand, the market will provide. Why is government, and it's abusive emminent domain thuggery, needed to build a highway?

[ QUOTE ]
Holding an idea like 'property rights are absolute' is not only anti-society, it also contradicts the world you and I live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Emminent domain is a fact of life. Saying it's wrong doesn't contradict the world we live in, it just points out that there is injustice. How is stealing someone's property LESS anti-social than holding property rights as fundamental?