The core false assumption underpinning Faux Libertarianism is the assumption that 'land ownership' and 'governments' are two completely separate and unrelated concepts, or even that 'land ownership' is an older concept that pre-existed 'governments'.
It is quite clear to anybody with a vague grasp of history that land ownership in any meaningful sense is impossible outside an (1) organised society, (2) which is at peace, (3) which has a dispute resolution system with popular support that it enforces, and (4) which is capable of defending its external borders. Historically, the whole point of 'governments' was to enable 'land ownership' within its borders, not the other way round.
Take away any of (1) to (4) and land ownership is impossible. The starting position is of course that the land is just there, and was there long before humankind evolved. Nobody 'owned' it. That only happened once items (1) to (4) were in place, and where we are right now, we would call something that exhibits all four characteristics a 'government'.
The Faux Libs will come up with all sorts of supposed counter examples which superficially might not fit the pattern, but they refuse to address the underlying pattern. One Faux Lib tactic is to sub-divide each of (1) to (4) into ever smaller slices, pointing out (for example) that you can't compare governments in modern developed countries with a few thousand Vikings settling on Iceland. You have to judge them by the standards of the time.
Here endeth.
Debate Magazine
