Who Were the Sea Peoples?

Here : "'Smart property,' for example, refers to physical property whose ownership is registered in the blockchain and thus controlled by whoever has the private key. In other words, property rights can be cryptographically defined and self-enforced by code. The owner can sell it simply by transferring the private key to another party." Sure Ronald! When some men with guns show up to take my land, I can show them my "cryptographically defined" property rights, and they will say, "Ooooohhhh! We didn't know you had a private key showing you own this land! Well, we'll just scurry off then." Imagine if Native Americans had only had "cryptographically defined" property rights: the Europeans would have just sailed on back home, wouldn't they? UPDATE: In the comments, rob has made me wonder if Bailey only meant "self-enforcing" in reference to things like a computer or automobile, that could be rendered inoperativ...

I wish to offer an example clarifying this post . The contention is that we may sometimes increase freedom by decreasing the strength of property rights. At least one commenter confused this with the idea that all decreases in property rights must be good, or that it is always good to maximize one person's freedom at the expense of others' property rights. Since no one made either contention, there is obviously some confusion here, but confusion is always an opportunity for clarification! The specific case I want to take up, where I think it is clear that a weakening of property rights led to an increase in freedom is that of the " right to roam " laws introduced in England and Wales in 2000. Property owners lost the right to exclude hikers from undeveloped parts of their land, specifically downland, moorland, heathland and coastal land. I suggest that it is pretty clear that the people of England and Wales are "more free" than they were before this law ...

UPDATE: As you will see in the comments, even one of Block's admirers not familiar enough with his writings finds this scenario "stupid," and suspects it is some ridiculous caricature of Block's view. But, as you can also see in the comments, all we did was to faithfully film a case Block very explicitly lays out in his own writings! UPDATE II: Well, now Joseph insists he did know we were merely dramatizing a passage straight out of Block, leaving me with no idea what he objects to. UPDATE III: I think I may have it. Imagine you know a really nice fellow, a gentleman, bright guy, really polite. He also has a a huge, ugly goiter on the side of his neck. It would be very nice to bring attention to that goiter now, would it? Well, I think the problem the critics of this post are having is that Walter is just like that fellow, except that his goiter are his conclusions about the legality of acts like this, and by making the video, I am drawing attention to the...

"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.…There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles‘ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." (Acts 4:32–35)