I gave you the benefit of the doubt in this scenario by assuming that you own your own property. If you do own your own home, then it's nothing like a 'tenancy'. You can sell your Deeds to someone else as an owner only, not as a tenant.
Except people are really selling their tenancy and not actual ownership in that case, since the land carries a rent / tax and other prohibitions imposed by a central authority.
Ok, specificity for you. The Native American family can trace their roots back to the exact spot you occupy. They move in when you're out somewhere. You support their use of 'defensive force' against any of your attempts at 'interacting' with them or trying to reclaim your house from them?
Thank you for being specific. About how far back would a persons ancestry have to go, for their claim of ownership to be valid? For instance what if that Native American familys ancestors took it from somebody else one thousand years ago. what then ?
Ultimately though, would it matter who took your things from you? You should be against any form of government intervention in anything, because the whole setup is 'involuntary' (your words, not mine). Why should there be any laws protecting your property, but no laws protecting the rights of children?
I didn't say children shouldn't be protected. I've said people who CAN consent to something, can't possibly have their rights being protected if another party strips them of their right to self ownership. You and the jackals here, conflated that into something else. Derp.
Libertarians love to cherry pick self-serving government policy even though they 'hate' government.
