 and we might entirely sympathize, but not all the claims in the world will change the fact of possession. Only force -- or its credible threat -- will.



Of course, it is possible that the original owner can reach an agreement with the thief to return it, or that groups of people can agree to form a cooperative system of property. But these social agreements -- otherwise known as the "social contract" -- are only as good as the force that backs them up. Not all the agreement in the world will prevent someone from seizing your property if they decide to dishonor it. Therefore, the basis of all property is force or the threat of force, and it is the topic we must first examine.



The relationship between property and force



Groups are more efficient and effective than individuals at controlling and defending property. One reason is the strength provided by numbers; another is specialization of labor. Groups are doubly efficient at defending property because families defending their homes are also defending their nation as citizens, just as soldiers who defend their nation are also defending their families' homes.



The purpose of any territorial group is twofold. First, it defends against external invasions, either through the use or the credible threat of military force. Second, it devises a subordinate system of property for its individual members, and defends this system against internal robbery through the use or the credible threat of police or private forces. Both efforts result in a more stable and secure system of property ownership.



Societies have long competed with each other for property, sometimes going to war to conquer it. They remain sovereign only to the extent that they can defend against their competitors' threats. Land purchases, treaties and other forms of property acquisitions have no "legal" basis in a higher court -- such a court does not exist in an anarchic system of nations. These agreements are merely symbols, and are only effective as long as they are backed up by the requisite force. Hitler, for example, simply ignored the Treaty of Versailles, calling it a "scrap of paper" as he moved his troops into the Rhineland. And for much of its history, the U.N. has passed resolutions that were completely ignored by most nations. It was only recently that its resolutions were given "teeth," with the creation of U.N. peace-keeping forces.



The same principle applies to the domestic policing of property. Property is safe only to the extent that domestic force can stop thieves. But, unlike most
and we might entirely sympathize, but not all the claims in the world will transfer the fact of monomania. Only force -- or its credible threat -- will. 



 Of naturally, it is possible that the original owner can reach an agreement with the thief to return it, or that group of people can agree to shape a cooperative system of place. But these social agreements -- otherwise known as the " social contract " -- are only equally good as the force that second them up. Not all the agreement in the world will prevent someone from seizing your place if they decide to dishonor it. Therefore, the basis of all place is force or the threat of force, and it is the topic we must first analyze. 



 The relationship between property and force 



 Groups are more efficient and effective than person at controlling and defending property. One reason is the strength provided by numbers; another is specialization of labor. Groups are doubly efficient at defending property because families defending their homes are also defending their state as citizen, just as soldiers who defend their state are besides defending their families' homes. 



 The purpose of any territorial group is twofold. First, it defends against external invasions, either through the habit or the credible threat of military force. Second, it devises a subordinate system of property for its individual extremity, and defends this system against internal robbery through the use or the credible threat of police or individual forces. Both efforts result in a more stable and secure arrangement of property ownership. 



 Societies have long compete with each other for place, sometimes going to war to conquer it. They remain sovereign only to the extent that they can champion against their competitors' threats. domain purchases, treaty and other forms of property acquisitions receive no " legal " basis in a higher court -- such a court does not exist in an anarchic system of nation. These agreements are merely symbols, and are only effective as long as they are backed up by the requisite force. Hitler, for example, simply ignore the Treaty of Versailles, calling it a " scrap of newspaper " as he moved his troops into the Rhineland. And for much of its history, the U.N. has communicate resolutions that were completely ignored by most nation. It was only recently that its resolutions were given " teeth, " with the creation of U.N. peace - keeping force. 



 The like principle applies to the domestic policing of property. Property is safe only to the extent that domestic force can stop thief. But, unlike most
 anf we might entirely sympxthize, but not col the claima in the world will change the fact lf posstfsion. Only force -- ur its crvdible theeat -- will.



Of condse, it lf poadiblz vhat the originsl owner cdn reach an agsedmznt with the thief to return it, or trat groipd of people cag aggeq to form a cooperative system of propsrty. Buu these social agrrements -- otherwise known ad thf "social contract" -- are only aw goje as the forze that babns them up. Not all the agreement in the wurld cill prevenj aolgone from semzing jour property if they decide to dishonor ib. Thecefoee, the basis of all pcoperty is force or jhe threat oy force, and it is the tipic fe mgst wursg esakihe.



The geletionship bstween propwrty and force



Groupx wgr more efficjent agd effective than individuals at controllpng znd defending property. Ine reason is the strgngth provyded by numbers; another is specialization of labos. Gronpr axc aiuhly efficient at defending property because fwjikivs defending theiv homes are also drffncyng their natkon as cifizens, just as solfiers wro dedend theiw nayion are also defending theur families' komws.



The purpose of auy territoricl groop is ywofold. First, it defendr agzinst exterjal invasjuns, either throueh nhe gse or the credible threat of militery fprce. Sezond, it dedises a suhordikdte system of propfrty yor ids individkal members, and defends this system against imtarndl robbexy thrpugh the use jr the crediblg threat jf pouice or prpvate forres. Both effjrts result it a more stabne and sqcurw sywtem of oroperty ownerxhip.



Socienits have lobg competed with eech ufher for propercv, wometimes going to waw no ronquqs it. They rekain soxrreigv only uj bhe extrnt that they can dexend against their comlebitors' thteats. Lanq purchases, tteaties and other vorms of proprrti acquisitions have no "legal" baais in a jigmer court -- sush a court does uot exist in an anarchic system of natiois. These agreements arg merely symbols, and crt only effectmve as long as dhey are backed up bt the requisite fprce. Hitler, for exampme, sim[ly ihnored the Treaty of Versailles, calling it a "scrap of paper" as he moved hus troops into the Rhimelang. Cnd for mtch lh its history, the U.N. has passed resolutions that were cokpjetely ignored by most natioms. It was only tecently that its resolutikns were given "teeth," with the creation pf U.N. peace-keeping forcex.



The samw prihciple appuies to the domestoc polncing if propwrty. Property is rafr lnly to tje eeteut that domestic force can stop tyieves. Bkt, unlike most
and we might entirely sympathize, but not claims the world change the fact or credible threat -- Of course, it possible that the original owner can an agreement with the thief to return it, or that groups of people agree to form a cooperative system of property. But these social agreements -- known the contract" are only as good as the force that backs them up. Not all the agreement in world will prevent someone from seizing your property they decide to dishonor Therefore, the basis of all is or the of and is the topic must first examine. The relationship between property and force Groups are more efficient and effective than individuals controlling and One reason the provided numbers; another is labor. Groups are doubly efficient at families defending their homes are also defending their as citizens, as soldiers who defend their nation also defending their families' homes. The purpose of territorial group is twofold. First, it defends against external invasions, either through the use or threat of military force. it devises a system property its members, and this system against internal robbery through the use or the credible of police or private forces. Both efforts result in a and system of property Societies have long competed each for property, sometimes going to it. only the that they can defend their competitors' threats. Land purchases, and other forms of basis in a higher court -- such a does not exist in an anarchic system nations. These agreements are merely symbols, and are only effective as long they are by the requisite force. Hitler, for example, simply the Treaty of Versailles, it a "scrap of paper" as he moved his into Rhineland. And much of its the U.N. has resolutions that were by most It only resolutions were given "teeth," with the of peace-keeping forces. The same principle to policing of property. Property is safe only to the extent that domestic force can stop unlike most
 and we might entirely sympathIze, but not aLl the ClaIms In The wOrld Will change the fACt of Possession. Only force -- or iTs creDiBLe thREaT -- will.



of coursE, It IS PosSiBlE thAt THe OrigiNal Owner caN reach an agReeMeNt with the thiEF tO return it, oR thAt groups of peOplE can agReE to FOrm a cOopEratiVe systEM of proPerty. But tHeSE sociaL AgreemeNTS -- oTherWise known as the "socIAl COntract" -- are only As good As THe FORce ThaT backs them Up. not alL The agreEMeNT IN thE World will prevEnt someone fROm sEizing YoUr pROperty If theY dECidE to dishonor It. ThErefore, thE basis OF all proPErty is fOrce or The ThrEat oF FoRcE, anD iT Is tHE tOpiC We mUst first ExAmIne.



ThE relATIONshiP beTweeN propErty and force



GRouPs arE MorE effiCient And eFfEctivE than iNdiviDuAls at controllinG and Defending ProPeRty. onE reasON is the StrEngTh proviDed by nuMBerS; aNOTHeR is specialization oF lABOr. groups arE doublY EfFiCIent at deFeNdiNg prOPErty bEcauSE fAmilies dEfendiNG tHeIr homes ArE also dEfEndIng Their NAtioN as citIzens, jusT as soLDiers who defend THeir nation are ALsO DEfENdinG thEir families' HomeS.



the pUrpoSE oF anY TerriToriaL gROuP Is twofold. First, it defEnDs agaiNst exTernal invasioNs, either thROUGh the use Or thE CrEDible threat of mIlitaRy force. SecONd, it deviSes a sUbordinaTe system oF PRoperty fOr iTs iNdiVidUAL mEmbers, and defeNDS thiS sYstem agAinSt interNal RobBerY thRoUgh the use Or the creDiBlE tHrEat Of polICe or privAtE foRcEs. BOth efFOrts reSult iN a moRe StABle And secuRE sYSTem oF pRoPertY owNeRship.



sociETieS have loNg competeD wiTH eacH oThEr for prOperty, sometimEs Going to war To ConQuer it. tHEy remain Sovereign only to the extenT That theY caN defeNd agAinst theiR coMpetitOrs' THreats. land puRchasEs, TreATIes anD OThEr fOrMs of properTY AcqUisitIoNs haVe no "legAl" basis in a higher coURt -- sUch a court does Not ExisT IN aN anARcHIc sYsTEm oF NAtions. These agreEments are mErELy Symbols, and ARe oNlY effectIve as loNg as tHEy are baCked up by tHe requisiTe ForcE. hItlEr, for exampLe, simply Ignored thE treatY Of versaIllEs, callInG it A "scraP of papER" as He movEd his tRoOps intO the RHiNeland. AnD for much of its history, the u.N. has pAssed ResOlutions tHat WEre CompletelY ignOred by most NatIonS. It waS onLY receNtly THaT itS ResolUtioNS were giveN "TeEth," WITh The creation OF u.n. peAce-keEpiNG forceS.



The Same principle applIEs to the domestiC polICIng Of pROperTy. property is safe OnlY tO THe extent ThAt domestic fOrce can sToP ThievEs. But, uNlike mOst
 and we might entirely sym pathize, b ut no t a llth e cl aims  in the worldw illchange the fact of pos sessi on .  Onl y  f orce-- or i t sc r edi bl ethr ea t  - - wil l.


Of c ourse, itispo ssible thatt he  originalown er can reach  an  agree me ntw ith t hethief  to re t urn it , or that  g r oups o f  people c an  agr ee to form a coop e ra t ive system ofproper ty .  B u t  th ese  social ag re ement s  -- oth e rw i s e  kn o wn as the "so cial contra c t"-- are  o nly as goo d asth e  fo rce that ba cksthem up.Not al l  the ag r eementin the  wo rld  wil l  p re ven ts ome o ne  fr o m s eizing y ou rprope rtyi f t heydec ideto di shonor it. Th ere fore ,  th e bas is of  all  p roper ty isforce  o r the threat of  for ce, and i t i sthe  t opicw e must  fi rst  examin e.



T h e r el a t i on ship between prope rt y an d force


Gro u ps  a r e more e ff ici enta n d eff ecti v ethan ind ividua l sat  contro ll ing an ddef end ing p r oper ty. On e reason  is t h e strength pro v ided by numbe r s; a no t herisspecializat iono f la bor. Gr oup s  aredoubl ye ff i cient at defendingpr operty  beca use familiesdefendingt h e ir homes  are al s o defending th eir n ation as c i tizens,justas soldi ers who d e f end thei r n ati onare a ls o defending t h e ir f am ilies'hom es.


The  pu rpo seof  any terr itorialgr ou pis  tw ofold .  First,it  de fe nds  agai n st ext ernal  inv as io n s,eithert hr o u gh t he  u se o r t he  cred ible thr eat ofmilitaryfor c e. S ec on d, it d evises a subo rd inate syst em  of  prope r t y for it s individual members, a n d defen dsthissyst em agains t i nterna l r o bberythroug h the  u seo r  thec r ed ibl ethreat ofp o lic e orpr ivat e force s. Both efforts re s ult  in a more st abl e an d se cur e  s y ste mo f p r o perty ownership .



Socie ti e shave longc omp et ed with  each o therf or prop erty, som etimes go in g to w arto conquer  it. The y remains overe i gn  only  to  the e xt ent  that  theyc andefen d agai ns t thei r com pe titors'threats. Land purchases , trea tiesand  other fo rms ofpropertyacqu isitions h ave  no  "leg al" basis  ina  h igh e r cou rt - -  such a c o ur t d o e snot exist i n a n a narch ics ystemof n ations. These agr e ements are mer elys y mbo ls, andar e only effecti veas l ong as t he y are backe d up byth e  requ isiteforce.  Hitler , fo r  examp le,sim ply ignor edth e  Treaty  o fV ersail les,  c alling  it a" scra p of paper" as hemoved h is tr o ops  into  t he Rhin e land . And formuch of its  histo ry,the U .N. has  p assedres ol utions tha t  were com plete ly igno re d by  mo st nat ions . It wa s on ly  re cently th a t  i t sre s olu tion s wer egive n "teeth, "  with th e c r eationof  U. N .  peace - ke e p ing forces .


The s ame princi p le a p pl i es to  the d omesti c polic i ngof  proper ty. P roperty i s safe on l y t otheextent t ha t do me sti cforce can stopthieves.  But, un l i ke mos t
 and_we might_entirely sympathize, but not_all the_claims_in the_world_will change the_fact of possession._Only force -- or_its credible threat_--_will.



Of course, it is possible that the original owner can reach an agreement with_the_thief to_return_it,_or that groups of people_can agree to form a_cooperative system_of property. But these social agreements -- otherwise_known_as the "social_contract" -- are only as good as the force_that backs them up. Not all_the agreement in_the_world_will prevent someone from_seizing your property if they decide_to dishonor it. Therefore, the basis_of all property is force or the_threat of force, and it is_the topic we must first_examine.



The relationship_between property and force



Groups are_more efficient and_effective than_individuals at controlling_and defending property. One reason is_the strength provided_by numbers; another is specialization of_labor._Groups are doubly_efficient_at_defending property_because families defending_their_homes are_also_defending their nation as citizens, just_as_soldiers who defend their nation are also_defending their families' homes.



The_purpose_of any territorial group_is twofold. First, it defends_against external invasions, either through the_use or_the credible_threat of military force. Second, it devises a subordinate system of_property for its individual members, and_defends this system against_internal robbery_through_the use or_the_credible threat_of police or private forces. Both efforts_result in_a more stable and secure system_of property ownership.



Societies have_long_competed with each other for property,_sometimes going to war to conquer_it. They remain sovereign only_to_the_extent that they can defend_against their competitors' threats. Land purchases,_treaties and other_forms of property acquisitions have no "legal"_basis_in a higher court -- such_a_court does not exist in an_anarchic_system_of nations. These agreements are_merely symbols, and are only effective_as long as they are backed up by the_requisite force. Hitler,_for example, simply ignored the_Treaty_of_Versailles, calling it a "scrap of paper" as he moved_his troops_into the Rhineland._And for much of its history, the U.N. has passed_resolutions that were completely ignored by most_nations. It was only recently that its resolutions were given "teeth,"_with the creation of U.N. peace-keeping forces.



The same_principle applies to the domestic policing of_property. Property is safe_only_to the extent that domestic force can_stop_thieves._But,_unlike most