I hope it is not "scrubbed", it's a good question in all respects, and I saw none like it before posting it. I always wondered about and is the first time I asked it, and as I have stated, if you cared to read anything at all, I am not a capitalist, and have nothing to do with AnarchoCapitalism.
OK, first of all, it is clear that you know far less than I about law, something I have studied over a quarter-century. From Bouvier's 1856:
COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.
You are as wrong as wrong can be on the history of the common law.
> by force and violence, from peoples already in possession and use of said land.
Uh no, it is not that simple, but really, this is deviating from the topic, to which I refer to my original question, which is why Anarchists are not 110% suportive of the Organic Law for the USA, and the common-law from which it is derived, because it is all 100% voluntary, and as anarchal as anarchy can be without a society of murdering/stealing/raping rampage of monkeys.
> their claim was to land Stolen, by force and violence, from peoples already in possession and use of said land.
Uh, no, it is not that simple. Land was acquired by the US by many and various means and times, and generally, Indians died off from illness, and not wars, and having no settlements, often just moved on when problems arose. If anyone is interested, they can check this, which is fairly brief (1-2 pages) and informative on the topic:
Essentially, it was a mix of Right of Conquest (arguable, because this requires systems of law to be conquered, of which the indians had none), Right of Discovery (wild land with temporary occupations), and Treaties.
> Your precious 'revolution' of 1775, was never an anarchic revolt, it was a hostile takeover by upper management (concocted by a wealthy elite while their slaves sat waiting)
Oh please, if result was no authority over anybody, self-government in the truest sense, it sure as hell was an anarchal revolution. And please don't talk about "slavery back then" when it has never been so rampant as today. The entire planet is enslaved, generally landless, 100% dependent upon others for their lives and those of their familes.
I feel concern because every outlet for discussion aiming toward freedom and independence is under the domination of those that seek to eliminate any last vestige of freedom and independence by putting forth views that taste like cyanide filled cupcakes.
Generally, our problem across the globe is that we are all born into debt enslavement due to economic systems founded in usury, which creates ever-increasing debts, which require ever-increasing populations to pay on them, which creates immigration by peoples that have no concept of personal sovereignty/independence, and endless dependency, poverty, and ever-decreasing abundance of natural and easily available resources, and so on ... It is a downward spiral into death and cannibalism. And I would guess that chemtrails, in large part, are a last gasp to heat the atmosphere to increase arable land in Canada and Russia, because we are just about out, and the only way to reset the systems of usury are either find arable land to continue business as usual, or create a massive die-off the reset the system for continued "growth".
There will be no "meek" inheriting the earth, and even if they did, they are so retarded, it would not be in their benefit. The result of that would be cannibalism on unimaginable scales. At the core of all problems in this world are those that breed children into debt servitude - that is the beginning of the end in every way.
Just as humans have defective genes in being unable to produce vitamin C, they also have a defect in breeding at any and all time and under any and all conditions - unlike other animals at the top of the food chain which only ovulate when there is a great sense of easily available abundance in nature.