Incoming feminists

Further point! When systemic barriers are removed, additional personal inequalities or hinderances may come to light. They were there before, but the general access limitations caused them to be pushed to the margin. Now there is a better environment and we can work on these other issues.
It’s not a failure when new issues crop up after progress is made, in other words. It just means more work is needed, and that the progress was good.
It can be easy to dismiss progress because it can feel like there are still complaints. But they are “better”, less extreme complaints. That means they can be both celebrated as progress and addressed as important issues to be solved.

See what I mean? Authoritarian.

Dude. Glasses are not authoritarian. They are an aid for people to see, because their eyes are shaped wrong.
I think you might consider if your definition of authoritarian is not unnecessarily draconian.

And where are these glasses coming from?

One can be both. An Authoritarian would say that if you need glasses, you MUST have glasses. Offering support to people who need support isn’t authoritarian. That support doesn’t have to come from government either. Two neighboring farmers, one is injured and can’t harvest their field; the other helps them harvest enough to survive the season on- there’s nothin authoritarian about that. Saying that the neighbor MUST help under penalty of law is authoritarian.

Thank you for summarizing my point.
You want to donate your own time and money to help people? Great.

But that's not good enough. You want the powers that be to take my time and money, too.

Now, we have social services. In this scenario our injured farmer has no neighbors. They will starve if they can’t make the harvest. Social services provides them aid to survive. Now- is it authoritarian to say that taxes should subsidize that support? Perhaps. But then again- that implies a system where people are FORCED to give versus a system where people are incentivized to do so- there is nothing that says we have to force people to contribute to social infrastructure.

You pay taxes that fund schools even if your kids don’t go to school. Well... YOU went to school. You didn’t pay because you were a kid. Time to pay for another kid to go through school. You may not own a car, but 99.9% you ride with someone else, take public transit, bicycle or walk on those roads right? So shouldn’t you have to pay for them? But not all roads are toll roads are they? To make them toll roads would cost enough that you could build more roads and better roads. So instead of pissing money away with toll booths every mile you just pay a fee on the back end.

I can live with infrastructure. But at this point I'm not going to get any returns on social security or Medicaid. That was all a pyramid scheme from the start, and we're either going to have to make a painful choice before it's made for us.

But when we talk about removing social and systemic barriers to success we aren’t talking about who has to pay for a wheel chair ramp or who has to pay for glasses. We are talking about changing social perceptions and modifying existing regulations. It isn’t authoritarian to say that a rule should say X instead of Y, the rule already exists. Now- you might claim that there is a degree of “thought police” involved there and THAT is authoritarian. That it’s illegal for a person to not rent their private property to a person of a certain race because they don’t like people of a certain race. That THAT is authoritarian and “right” or “wrong” their personal rights are being violated.

Nobody has any right to another person's property or services unless offered explicitly by the person in question.

Well.... there is a problem there. It’s called the constitution. See- nowhere in the constitution are you granted the right to bigotry, and it’s very mum on the rights of property owners too. Your rights to personal property are that you annoy be deprived of property by the government, and search or seizure are protected. Well... you’re renting your property. The government isn’t making you rent it. It is protecting the rights of fair use and equality of its citizens by preventing you from discriminating on grounds that aren’t consequential to the commerce being conducted.

The same basic rights that give you any ability to own property or rent property protect those looking to rent property. Those laws say that a human being who can pay the bill has a right to a home. No Len is saying you can’t still hate this group or that group. You can. But what is key here is that you aren’t being FORCED to rent to them. You can refuse on any legitimate ground, you can decide that you just won’t rent out your property if that means having to rent to people you don’t like. You can not own property and avoid the whole mess.

The idea that social and health insurance are a pyramid scheme is so 100% you that you should get a tattoo of this. You're a child who hasn't seen shit in his life which wouldn't be so bad in itself, but your oblivious know-it-all attitude makes you a pathetic smarty-pants.

We are a civilization. A society. If you do not want to rent or hire or do business with women- don’t live in a society where women can rent or work or do business. There are a whole lot of countries on the great big world that would support this. But your participation in society is OPTIONAL. If you CHOOSE to participate in society, there are rules you must follow. These rules are not to restrict your personal freedoms, they are to ensure some measure of equal freedom to all members of society. There is no functional example of a large scale and prosperous society that doesn’t have some level of authority. Without authority you have anarchy, and anarchy isn’t society- that is nature, where the rules are simply the laws of physics and nothing more. If you want to live that way you can. You can leave society and make your own path in life without cars or electronics or tools or protections made possible by society.

If you want to enjoy the benefits of society then you must participate in society, and part of that participation is to enable and support society and the ability of others to participate because without others- there is no society. The “authoritarian” label applies to a METHOD of achieving a philosophy, not a philosophy itself when said philosophy is neutral or relates to social change. The authority in social change is the will of the majority. I can’t see it as authoritarian to follow the will of the people. In fact- I posit that it is an extension of totalitarian authoritarianism to resist social change.

To a libertarian the core belief is a freedom of choice. If people do not have the freedom to choose to eliminate inequity, then that isn’t libertarianism is it? Libertarianism is skeptical of STATE power, and supports individual judgment. Nothing about abolishing road blocks to individual success inherently gives power to the state or draws power from it, and social change is rooted in individual judgment. The whole idea here is to empower individuals and to ensure individual choice. When faced with a choice to deny choice to one person and ensure choice to another- that isn’t an issue of libertarianism vs authoritarianism. It’s a question of ones beliefs not politics.

A person's property is theirs to do with as they please, so long as it is not directly impeding on another's rights or wellbeing. I wouldn't much like being denied rental for arbitrary reasons, but it ain't my property.
Now if the State were saying that I couldn't rent, that's another issue. If it were my property I'd want to control who can or cannot live on or otherwise use it.

The question you face isn’t wether the state should have the power to interfere. It’s wether you would support the right of a person to refuse another person work because of their race and nothing else, or wether you’d support a persons right to an honest job and a wage. One of them will be denied the opportunity to make a choice. So do you think the one who will be denied should be the one who just seeks to live life, or the one who would take a choice from another? I think the answer is pretty clear. To protect freedom, just as we incarcerate criminals (very authoritarian measure...) we take the freedom from the person who would take another’s freedom- harm society- not from the person who is trying to contribute to society.

Let employers and service providers deny employment or services by whatever standards they wish, or none at all.
Let society punish them through patronage, reviews, or simply poaching potentially upstanding employees or customers from them.
Racist piece of shit or not, any measures that ultimately end with a gun pointed at them for actions that aren't inherently harmful is wrong.

But then... what if I own a gun? Is it the right of the state to tell me what to do with my gun? If someone refuses to hire me and I choose to use my gun to shoot them, the state would come after me wouldn’t they? So isn’t that wrong- that the state would end up pointing a gun at me for shooting a guy (or beating his ass let’s say?) HE made choices that resulted in that. HE could have trained harder, had better security, been more vigilant etc. The fact I got the drop on him is HIS fault and the quarrel was between us. Why does the state need to get involved?

If people don’t like it- can’t they show it by refusing to do business with me? Refusing to shop where I work etc? Can’t they apply social pressure to me if they don’t want me shooting people who don’t hire me? Why does the state have to be involved at all? Why even have prison then? That’s just the state getting involved in other people’s business. Why judges or police? Why can’t people distribute community justice?

What vested interest or ownership does the state have in my life or safety? If a grown up touches a child- isn’t that between the child’s parent, the child, and that grown up? Why do we even have laws on the book telling parents what they can and can’t do with their children? If mom and dad need the extra cash, why can’t JR. work in the coal mine? Why can they give me a speeding ticket? If I’m going 150 in town, if I die that’s my choice. A driver should be able to drive as they want no? It doesn’t matter that their decision hurts other people. People have a choice not to be on the street right? They took responsibility. You can’t stop a driver from drinking and driving to protect someone else can you? That takes away THEIR right to choose just to protect someone else’s right to walk around or drive without worrying about getting hit by an irresponsible driver doesn’t it?

Somehow I doubt you support lost of those statements. Somehow- I don’t think you believe in exploiting children or allowing drunk driving. Somehow I believe that your views on personal choice have limits. That you do believe there ARE places where law must exist. So if we examine these choices- the ones that are insane to think are ok to allow and the ones that are sane and reasonable- what do we see?

We might be able to agree that a helmet law or a seat belt law could be over reaching in authority. A law that says you can’t eat fast food more than a couple times a week. These are laws that take YOUR ability to make choices about YOUR safety. They force you to make a personal decision. Ok. But those other things I named like drunk driving child abuse or murder?

Like discrimination- those AREN’T choices that arguably only effect you. Those are choices that effect other people. Those are choices that take away another persons right to security and to live life. The “basic” standard of living in a developed country is a place to live and a job to earn a wage to live off. Denying those to a person is like denying them a life. A basic right to live. We DO deny people these rights those. Convicts- people who have acted in a way that we HAD to take those rights for the public good.

Being born a certain race or gender, these sorts of things- these aren’t things that society agrees are crimes- they aren’t things that hurt other people or society.

So if the criteria in common here are things that are personal choices directly effecting you, and things that are personal choices directly effecting others rights; I ask you @famousone- what criteria are you using to determine what freedoms should and shouldn’t be impinged by a government? You aren’t an anarchist- so you believe in things like a justice system- but if you believe a man should be free to decide wether he wants to refuse another a place to sleep because of his race and you don’t believe that a man should be free to decide what to do with his children it isn’t freedom that is really motivating your choice. If you believe in unrestricted personal freedom you believe in both those things equally. So there is a reason that you feel as you do that isn’t just about personal choice. Some part of you has some other motivation to feel that way.

"...so long as it is not directly impeding on another's rights or wellbeing"
"...for actions that aren't inherently harmful is wrong"
I've been entirely consistent. The purpose of the state is to safeguard individuals' rights and liberties from foreigners and eachother.
Child labor? That's a nuanced issue.
Daddy is raping his children? Make daddy go away.
Man refuses service? That's his right. Person A want's to kill him for it? Person A needs to go away.

Alright, so let’s be very clear then: Do you believe desegregation was a mistake and an authoritarian over reach? The government telling private businesses that they cannot seat patrons as they like, forcing private businesses to allow people to use their bathrooms against their will, etc?

I believe segregation itself and everything else to do with Jim Crow was overreach.

Let’s rewind. I’m not asking if you believe that segregation laws and Jim Crow laws were overreach. I’m asking if you believe that private owners who wished to continue segregation should have been allowed- if you believe that outlawing segregation was over reach.

Yes. The state should have no power to force anyone to do business with someone they don't want to.
I can promise you, however, that as those businesses refuse to serve blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims, or whatever, me and mine will never give them so much as a single red coin.

So then, keeping in mind all the major businesses that are known and or boycotted for things like discrimination, slave labor, abuse of employees etc- and how much Jeff Bezos loses sleep at night over all the people who won’t ship Amazon because of their business practices- the net effect (which we saw in the Jim Crow south since most of the “laws” to that effect were popular sentiment of the people:

It’s perfectly alright to have entire cities or regions of the county where a US citizen can’t buy or rent a place to live or even a bed to sleep in? That a company like 3M could refuse to sell its products to anyone who would use them to service people of a given race? Because the market doesn’t self correct. We’ve seen it because we’ve lived through it. It’s not a case where someone says “well, if this company won’t take their money I will!” Many times another company can’t. There are things that you can’t just “start up” unless you’re already a multi billionaire. There are many things on this earth that all come from one company or lead back to them.

If Monsanto put into its contracts that its products couldn’t be resold to XYZ people as a condition to deal with them- most of the food in America would be off limits to those people. And no, it doesn’t work itself out. Monsanto has already gone to great lengths to strangle growers. On PAPER it’s easy to say “just do this or that...” in reality that isn’t the case or else all the people who vehemently hate Monsanto wouldn’t write them checks. You play by their rules or you more or less don’t play.

Laws are laws. Regardless, what would happen if Bezos did enact Crow like policies? Refused to service any person or organization that isn't %100 non-Irish white Christian?

I'm sure you've encountered my arguments to curtail the government regulations that historically big companies love. You know, the ones that essentially preclude startups and competition.

Yes. But those laws exist. Even if those laws didn’t exist, without some sort of laws, incentives, etc. the outcome is generally the same regardless once the inequity is established. If every single law which gave advantage to big business was abolished- do you think someone out there is ready to topple Google or Microsoft or DuPont or a host of companies you’ve likely never heard of who control 90% of the raw materials processing and the components and infrastructure that are necessary to run most any business, and all that’s been stopping them is government support of big business?

You are of course familiar with the concept of conglomerates I’m sure? Unless the government is going to interfere in private business by breaking those up or regulating them- you aren’t going to usurp these corporations. The General course of things is that new and threatening businesses are bought up or put out of business anyway. If there was no regulation of the private rights of a business at all- in the natural order the biggest and strongest tends to stay the biggest and strongest. It’s momentum.

The guy who invented liquid hand soap in the little pumps? He knew that as soon as his stuff hit shelves it would be copied by bigger companies. You can’t protect the IP to soap in a pump. He went to what at the time was the only manufacturer of pumps and used all the money he had to buy their production run for several years. That way no one could copy him without building their own factory and he’d have the market to himself for years. The big companies found out, and so they bought him out of the rights and the supply.

Underdog victories are rare. That’s what makes us love them. But in the end- the product still landed in the hands of big business and the “small business” was dissolved. It’s not the government solely standing in the way of big business- it’s reality. It’s scale. Corporations are now massive world wide multi conglomerates and partnerships. The technology and the complexity of things has scaled up to the point that getting a seat at the table already has a huge cost. With all the VC out there, there’s a reason most of it goes to imaginary shit like software and services. Competing in a physical marketplace against giants is not something that even the combined wealth of multimillionaires in a high risk funding game want to do often.

But we are again, off topic. The United States Constitution, the document every US citizen is bound by and by virtue of willing citizenship sworn to; states very clearly two important and relevant things. 1. ALL people are to be granted equal protection under law by the state. It is the responsibility of the state therefore to ensure all people have the equal ability to enjoyment of their legal rights. When an individual is discriminated against that is a private matter. When a group of individuals is discriminated against- that is an impediment of a sub set of citizens rights to equal enjoyment.

2, and by far the more important: The constitution of the United States has, IN THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE of the Constitution; the right to regulate commerce of various sorts. Congress may regulate commerce in the interests of upholding the constitution and protecting the citizens and interests of the United States of America. Every shred of constitutional evidence, the bill of rights, the Declaration of Independence- ALL support the fundamental idea that it is NOT American to turn away a person from legal commerce solely on the grounds of their race, religion, gender, or some other inherent trait that doesn’t bear upon their ability to function in lawful society.

Sure, google and Microsoft probably aren't going to be toppled. Why keep the laws that prevent any competition from even putting up a fight?
And it ain't just the giants stepping on the competition. It's medical facilities being forced to have a doctor vouch for an already licensed and trained EMT's ability to start an IV (raising prices for basic medical procedures). It's state laws using Gun Free zone laws to put legitimate businesses out of business (expanding a school zone from 500 yards to 700 yards to shut down a gun store). It's people being fined for collecting rainwater, donating leftover foodstuffs, or not putting a peanut allergy warning on their "Peanut butter stuffed" products.
And who knows, without a state backed monopoly, maybe someone will manage to stand up to Disney or knock Intel off there pedestal.

The Government cannot discriminate, and they can regulate interstate and international commerce, but saying that private entities cannot choose to do or refuse business with whoever they please is to say that they are not in control of their own time, money, labor, or very person.

National security is one issue, but having the state impose on individuals is no different from a religion or corporation impose their values.

*unfollows comments*
Also whoever is downvoting famousone's actually thought out arguments should stop it.

I don’t know who is giving DV’s. I use words. But we have already established that you are against government meddling in personal affairs- and by and large I support that philosophy. The examples given however generally have nothing to do with discrimination and a few I just can’t wrap my head around. Allergen labels? If a company makes a product like say.... toilet paper, or toothpaste, or a chocolate covered pretzel that a person would have no reason to believe would have any ingredients that would trigger a peanut allergy: but is made or processed in a way which could literally kill a person- you believe it’s an infringement of personal rights to require them to label it?

If a product is poisonous, contained uranium 235- you don’t think that it should be required by law that the person selling it... tell people what they are buying and that it is potentially dangerous?

Just a frustration that "Coconut Crunchies" need to a coconut allergy warning.
That's like putting "Caution: Drowning Hazard" and ever canned or bottled drink.
As for the rest, I digressed from discrimination in particular to overreach in general.

You acknowledge the constitutional right and responsibility of the United States government to regulate commerce and protect the rights of its citizens including the basic rights of life and liberty- but at the same time believe that laws preventing a home owner from refusing to rent to a Turkish family for being Turkish are against those freedoms? That a private home owner should be able to evict a tenant with no notice, keep all their money, and sell their belongings without telling them because that is a personal freedom of a private property owner and things like tenant laws shouldn’t exist. If your contract doesn’t specify you can’t be evicted even if you paid your rent- if it doesn’t promise running water or that the owner won’t also rent your studio to 16 other people- that’s all ok?

Companies shouldn’t have to tell you what you’re actually buying, what is in it, if it might kill you- heck- if they want they can poison you for fun because consumer protection laws are all authoritarian over each? You don’t believe that a hospital should be required to hire certified professionals- or that the standard for such should be in the hands of the government- but that if I wanted to open my own hospital and do plastic surgery in my bathroom with no medical training that is ok because to tell me I can’t is both a violation of personal freedom and a hindrance to small business?

You’ve said you’re ok with prison but when asked explicitly to explain how you justify a government run criminal justice system to arbitrate disputes of individuals you never actually answered. You either don’t care to actually disclose or examine the reasoning which brings you to your conclusions; or don’t actually understand why you believe what you believe. You’ve said in this thread that you’ve been consistent but failed to explain or in many cases even attempt to explain how your seemingly disconnected conclusions are consistent. Why can the government tell me it is not ok to kill a man on private property with a weapon I own or that I can’t steal private property from a private citizen? Why are those things government business and not discrimination?

Contracts, negotiations, and personal choice. Tempered by laws AGAINST THINGS INHERENTLY HARMFUL, and doing nothing to infringe on self-defense, private unions, or simply refusing to do business.

Murder, sabotage, and bio-warfare seem inherently harmful.

Why can I be required to have a drivers license or a federal agency can stop me from bringing a weapon onto an airplane that they do not own- why can they stop me or punish me for driving drunk but they cannot make me put an allergy warning on my candy without crossing a line? Why can’t I buy, sell, or own as much Heroine as I want as a private citizen? Why can’t a person make pornos with little kids of their parents sign a consent form? What yard stick are you using to measure where the state is and isn’t allowed to tell a person “you can’t do that” and have it e ok vs not ok in your book?

Assault is inherently harmful the the INDIVIDUAL being assaulted. Any other harm is social or secondary- emotional harm in the distress of loved ones or loss of material support to dependents right? The social harm of the instability caused and loss of POTENTIAL of people or property to contribute correct? So... when you deny a man the right to work because of his skin color- the harm is direct to him. But the secondary harm to his dependents, the emotional harm, and the instability and loss of potential contribution are all still there the same as with assault aren’t they? Why would protecting a persons PROPERTY such as sabotage not be a personal issue- and how could we justify treating property under protection of law but not human beings and life?

Who's forbidding the man from applying for work elsewhere? Who's keeping rival employers from making a deal with him?
Do I have a right to work? Yes. Am I entitled to a job with google? No.
Do I have a right to speak? Yes. Am I entitled to a captive audience? No.
Do I have a right to bear arms? Yes. Am I entitled to a priceless luger once carried by General Rommel himself? No.
Nothing I've said affords property more protection than human beings. You cannot kick in a neighbor's door, nor can you kick him. On the flipside, you needn't allow him through your door, nor must you tolerate him kicking you.

If I kick in your door, you a free to buy another one. If I keep kicking in your door, you are free to move. If I assault you when you see me at school, you are free to enroll in another school are you not?

Yes. If for whatever reason I was too weak to defend mine and my own, too unlikable to get help, to poor to hire help, and somehow unable to reach out to law enforcement, then I would have every right to leave the problem behind. Or even if I just felt like leaving.
Of course, that doesn't make trespassing, breaking and entering, assault or battery any less wrong. Nor does it strip me of the means to defend myself and mine.
I really don't see what point that was supposed to communicate.

Law enforcement? Wait... why would there be a law? Why involve the state? The matter is between you and me. If you can’t defend yourself or get help, you have the freedom to leave. So why involve the state and trample my freedom to kick doors? You say it’s wrong? Wrong or right doesn’t matter. Legislating morality is authoritarian. Laws that protect morals at the expense of personal freedom are something you don’t support right? For your protection? I thought that was authoritarian? For the state to make laws that protect a person agains the personal choices of another?

Don't recall saying anything about abolishing the state entirely. I believe I've explicitly stated that the state's purpose is to punish actions that are inherently harmful.
In essence, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt another.
Hardcore drugs? Go for it. Stealing for another fix? No.
Religious rituals? No problem. Spilling heretic blood? No.
Selling cookies? Have fun. Poisoning people? No.
Machineguns? Hell yeah. Mass killing? No.
Kick doors? Good fun. B&E? No.

But what if I don’t harm you? Touch you, or even touch your property? What if I buy all the property around yours and build a wall so that you can’t leave your house without touching my property? You are stuck in your yard. Can’t get groceries, go to work- without trespassing on my property?

Firstly, I'm not going to purchase land without either having public access to leave, persistent and documented agreements with my neighbors, or some otherwise secured means of egress.
Let's say I'm an idiot, or you find some kind of workaround.
If you purchase the land around me I will seek to establish communication to get an agreement. Can I purchase a track of land? Can I leave at my leisure through a particular trail? We're both reasonable men and neither of us want me to starve or be imprisoned.
If you are negligent or busy and do not respond, then I document and record my attempts to reach you, before trespassing anyways. My justification is necessity.
If you are maliciously trying to entrap me, that changes things. You're effectively taking away my property, my liberty, my means to live. You're trying to steal from, enslave, or kill me. In which case I will eliminate the threat to my life, liberty, and labor, and inform what authorities there are.

The way I see it, trapping me is kinda like locking me in your backyard toolshed. I'm not too keen on ending up like countless little girls who have been trapped in a stranger's toolshed. You will let me leave, or I will act in the interest of preserving my own life and liberty.

Ok- but what if I only own one house, but I wall it all the way around on my part of your property borders, and all the other home owners around you all do theirs in too- so now it isn’t MY fault you can’t get out. It’s not JUST me stopping you. Why should I have to let you out and not the neighbor next to me or across? I’m not doing anything wrong am I? I built a wall on MY property.

C'mon, man

Don’t come on man me. You already said how you feel. If someone traps you, keeps you from coming and going, getting to work, getting fed- that’s the same as locking you in a shed. So naw man. We already did this. Like I said 17,000 posts ago- if you examine what you’re saying it isn’t about the freedom or the state interference. You just can’t see it for yourself no matter how in front of you it is.

Your own moral code says that stopping a man from living his life is the same as locking him in jail, that if you felt trapped like that you’d think that YOU had the right to call the law to help YOU or that you’d have the right to fight the person(s) blocking you in. But.... that impinges their freedom to do what THEY want with THEIR land doesn’t it?

They didn’t directly hurt you, even touch you. But they stopped you from living your life without resorting to going out of the way didn’t they? And when it happens to YOU you believe it is a crime or worthy of self defense. But you don’t think that when it happens to someone else it is? Cmon man indeed.

You're taking this too far into the weeds. What if you hurt me? What if you trap me? What if everyone traps me? What if up was left? What if my neighbor's cousin's cat breeder's grandma had a dick?

Being trapped is entirely different from being denied a particular job.

What does me being denied the position of Grand Wizard of the KKK solely because I'm not white have to do with my neighbors deliberately trying to kill me? There's no hypocrisy in responding differently to entirely separate situations.

No single neighbor is trying to kill you. Each neighbor is making a choice that alone, is at most inconvenient. When one neighbor, exercising their free will over their land blocks one access- you can choose to go somewhere else. When a few more do it, you have less choices but still some. When effectively all do it- no single one is trapping you- no one even needs to conspire to do it. Just enough individuals deciding on their own that they’re going to do something that takes an option from you.

You don’t have to die by the way- if you notice the wall before it’s finished you can, leave your house. Of course you ant get back in- but you won’t die either. You have a choice. Remember when you said that? No single person in that example has done anything wrong or inherently harmful. They own the land next to yours. They can’t do what they want with it? And if their choices “trap” you- that’s the price you’re willing to pay for personal freedom isn’t it?

Again, why in the Hell would I choose to purchase land without securing means of egress? I get that the "what if you're boxed in" argument is a favorite for discrediting libertarian property values, but that scenario is a violation of common sense and practicality, completely contrary to what actually goes into purchasing, owning, and maintaining a property. The reality is that if I've been regularly using unclaimed land to enter and leave my property, then that land is claimed by me. If I purchase land that's surrounded by others without securing an agreement with my neighbors, then I'm just a fool who has been parted from his money. If somebody else tries to claim the land I've claimed, too fucking bad, it's already mine.

The law protects your right to enter and leave your land. Just as it protects you from your landlord deciding that you aren’t allowed to use the doors or windows etc. you’ll wriggle and squirm any which way to avoid being pinned to the plain fact that there isn’t a justification to why it isn’t right for others to box you in or impede your basic right to enjoy life but laws protecting people in circumstances that don’t really apply to you are just fine.

As for how unlikely this scenario about everyone building their own wall may be: have you ever done much studying on US history by chance? Were you aware that well into the late 20th century they needed a special guide just to tell black people where it was safe to go in an entire geographic Reston of their own country?

You do realize that it might be a stretch to have all your neighbors decide to build actually walls, but I was hoping you’d realized long ago these are metaphorical walls representing the walls that an individuals choice to block you
From going about your basic life builds, that a person can be metaphorically trapped with their only “choice” essentially to leave the place they know as home.