Chile Forum

...the water from wind has been tried with various degrees of success

Fog contains about 0.05 grams of water per cubic meter[1], with droplets from 1 to 40 micrometres in diameter. It settles slowly and is carried by wind. Therefore, an efficient fog fence must be placed facing the prevailing winds, and must be a fine mesh, as wind would flow around a solid wall and take the fog with it.
The water droplets in the fog deposit on the mesh. A second mesh rubbing against the first causes the droplets to coalesce and run to the bottom of the meshes, where the water may be collected and led away.
Limitations
Fog fences are limited by the local climate and topography. Their yield is affected by local weather and global weather fluctuations (such as El Niño). Windborne dust can cause contamination of the collected water. The moisture collected can promote growth of mold and other possibly toxic microorganisms on the mesh. Birds and insects can also be sources of contamination.

nwdiver wrote:Not possible without documents, and they will think you obviously don’t belong if you rejected (how does one do that????) Canadian citizenship, they will think you a nutter and send you packing as you have no documents.

nwdiver wrote:Oh, non mineral producing areas in to north are very cheap by my standards, the water from wind has been tried with various degrees of success. But as you don’t have documents you won’t be able to own any land.

I filed an affidavit asserting that I never willingly accepted Canadian citizenship, and that I refused to recognize Canada or do any business with the government of Canada or any of its institutions.

Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and governments. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of sovereignty, such as the Anarch as a sovereign individual. Salvador Dalí, for instance, talked of "anarcho-monarchist" (as usual for him, tongue in cheek); Antonin Artaud of Heliogabalus: Or, The Crowned Anarchist; Max Stirner of The Ego and Its Own; Georges Bataille and Jacques Derrida of a kind of "antisovereignty". Therefore, anarchists join a classical conception of the individual as sovereign of himself, which forms the basis of political consciousness. The unified consciousness is sovereignty over one's own body, as Nietzsche demonstrated (see also Pierre Klossowski's book on Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle).
See also self-ownership.

Arguments for self-ownership
It has been argued by Austrian School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe that self-ownership is axiomatic. His reasoning is that a person contradicts himself when he argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a "performative contradiction" because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who he is trying to persuade have a right to disagree. If they have a right to disagree, then they have legitimate authority over themselves. However, it has also been noted that attempting persuasion in place of force does not necessarily acknowledge a right to disagree but may be a rational economic choice, as using force may have unfortunate consequences for the speaker as well.

The person argues that self-ownership is an undesirable condition, and currently he is only authorized by law to argue against the status quo that allows self-ownership. Moreover, someone that argues against self-ownership does not necessarily do it in an absolute way. Sovereignty does not need to be a black-and-white issue: for instance, the person could be sovereign to have opinions, but not to perform any kinds of acts. For instance, a person that thinks the consumption of drugs should be always illegal is against absolute self-ownership, but not necessarily in favor of full subordination.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that 100 percent self-ownership is the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person - a "universal ethic" - and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man. He says if every person is not entitled to full self-ownership, then there are only two alternatives: "(1) the 'communist' one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another - a system of rule by one class over another." He says that it is not possible for alternative (2) to be a universal ethic but only a partial ethic, which says that one class of people do not have the right of self-ownership but another class does. This, therefore, is incompatible with what is being sought - a moral code applicable to every person - instead of a code applicable to some and not to others, as if some individuals are humans and some are not. In the case of alternative (1), every individual would own equal parts of every other individual so that no one is self-owned. Rothbard acknowledges that this would be a universal ethic, but, he argues, it is "Utopian and impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man." He says the system would break down, resulting in a ruling class who specializes in keeping tabs over other individuals. Since this would grant a ruling class ownership rights over its subjects, it would again be logically incompatible with a universal ethic. Even if a collectivist Utopia of everyone having equal ownership of everyone else could be sustained, he argues, individuals would not be able to do anything without prior approval by everyone in society. Since this would be impossible in a large society, no one would be able to do anything and the human race would perish. Therefore, the collectivist alternative universal ethic where every individual would own an equal portion of every other individual violates the natural "law of what is best for man and his life on earth." He says that if a person exercises ownership over another person, that is, uses aggression against him rather than leaving him to do as he wills, "this violates his nature."[8]
Arguments against self-ownership. There are various lines of criticism:
The first and most serious one revolves around the point that the concept of self-ownership implies a cartesian mind-body dualism. Mainly that there needs to be something external to one's body that controls the body itself. There are serious contentions against dualism however that attack the basis of this position. Furthermore, even if one accepts a mind-body dualism, then if one accepts that it is immoral for one to own another's body, the self-ownership proposition becomes inconsistent as the act of the mind controlling the body become immoral in turn. Another contention, again based on accepting mind-body dualism, is that it would imply that an intangible entity (the mind) would own a tangible entity (the body) that is metaphysically impossible in reality (a thing without a tangible existence cannot act on a thing with a tangible existence).
When self-ownership is not based on cartesian dualism it creates an arbitrary separation within one human, i.e. within yourself and yourself. It implies that an entity can be owned by itself, which is impossible given the definition of "ownership," which explains the relation between two different entities, a subject and an object. Thus it would mean that one human is both the owner and the owned at once and therefore turning self-ownership into an oxymoron.
Another vector of attack is the chicken/egg issue. Specifically self-ownership manifests a property rights concept and then defines self-ownership on the basis of those property rights. However it simultaneously the case that self-ownership tries to justify the existence of property rights as if they are stemming from it. This in effect creates a circular argument fallacy. To put it short, if property rights justify self-ownership, then the latter cannot be used to justify the former on the basis of someone owning the result of their actions. If self-ownership is used to justify property rights on the other hand, then a different justification must be found for the concept of self-ownership itself that does not rest of people owning themselves (thus presupposing property rights).
Finally an argument can be made that self-ownership rests heavily on the way the English language is formed, which uses words such as "my hand" or "myself," which imply ownership. The way language is formed, can be used to start arguing for the concept of self-ownership (e.g. "Why do we say that this hand is mine?"). However, different languages or even different phrasings of the English language can avoid such a dualistic implication. For example, one can say that "I am my body" rather than "I own my body". This directly assaults the axiomatic conception of self-ownership as supposited by Hoppe.

greg~judy wrote:Doesn't that "beg the question"...
With whom did you file the affidavit?
The Canadian gubmint...

greg~judy wrote:Do your homework dude... before you start walking
And remember... the border police haven't read this shit
Hey.. this has been FUN.
But as g~j said on another thread...
Sure hope ya have a "Plan B"