>>15331818
No
>>15331860
>i'd write more, but my body would kick my ass.
I'll try to keep it brief
>it's totally *predicated* on the idea that the country REALLY IS the property of the government because "logic", it's totally predatory, it's wrong, it's unfair, etcetera.
Correct. I'm not sure why you're quoting logic, it really is how it is. Certainly the tacit consent of the social contract can be considered unfair, and has been criticized as such. However, specifically about land, if you look deeper, countries have gone to war and have had millions of soldiers die for valuable scraps of it. There certainly is a basis for this ownership. Governments have to back up claims with legitimacy and force. When in contention, it's mostly the latter. If they don't have sufficient force, they get run over by other governments that do. To think that they won't is a hippie pipe dream. And wars are materialistic and expensive.
You've mentioned violent shitholes before and I think perhaps you're underestimating the amount of work needed to keep a place from becoming violent and a shithole. To the former, a government monopoly on violence, and to the latter, taxation to fund infrastructure and public goods.
I understand you have a distate for these kinds of societies, but alternatives on a similar scale simply don't exist. Game theory says that these countries that don't engage in these kinds of behavior, or at the very least submit to one that does, won't last long. If there is no government and country you'd rather live in, your options are to be small and insignificant (some pacific island no one cares about) or to be remote and far-removed (mars, space).