Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy

Ok, so according to this same principle, would you consider it moral to deport a sovereign-individual to a well-known, highly dangerous, potentially deadly geographic area (against their will)?

If an individual has purchased land, or entered an arrangement where he or she would either rent or mortgage a home, then no institution (even government) should be justifiable in deporting said individual regardless of destination so long as the proprietorship or contract is maintained. With that said, individuals do have the capacity to expel anyone from their lands regardless of the consequences the expelled may face as a result of not being on their lands.

Would an individual, who owns an apartment building be justified in expelling a tenant at any time and for any reason?

Or are you suggesting that only guests or intruders who have not signed an agreement with the land owner can be expelled at any time and for any reason?

And furthermore, would a government or other land owning institution be justified in deporting the homeless and perhaps simply drop them off-shore (not on land)?

Or perhaps, throw stowaways overboard?

Or perhaps, throw stowaways overboard?

That's at the discretion of the ship's owner and/or captain.

The government isn't justified in anything.

The government appropriates lands with stolen money.

Human rights activists are must busy-bodies who should mind their own business.

Please explain.

I'm pretty sure the government appropriates lands with force.

And they create money out of thin air, so there's no need for them to steal it.

Human rights activists are just busy-bodies who should mind their own business.

What's the human right being violated in the proprietor's exercise of his or her discretion?

Please explain.

Government is at its core a coercive hegemony which undermines the discretion of individuals to act in accordance to his or her self-interests. There are no "rights" with government; only privileges. Even the process by which governments are selected (democracy, dictatorship, monarchy--which is still a dictatorship, etc) focus on the elimination of individual dissent. Every practice of government therefore is an extension of this undermining if a single individual cannot exit government.

And they create money out of thin air, so there's no need for them to steal it.

There's plenty of need for them to steal it. The money is not printed out thin-air; rather than a gold-standard, government implements a debt-standard where tax-paying citizens are the collateral. And because of the fourteenth amendment, tax paying citizens are legally bound to the resolution of this debt. What happens when a citizens refuse to pay his or her taxes? With what is law the law codified?

The perceived right of humans to, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the perceived right to "a fair and expedient trial".

What we seem to be philosophically funneling down to is a society structure similar to the old feudal-system where land (and or boat) owners hold all the cards and everyone else exists at their whim (under the implicit threat of banishment).

Perhaps we should consider some hypothetical system where every citizen is assigned (immutable, non-transferable) ownership of some small, fertile, plot of land.

The entire basis (justification), the primary AXIOM of government is (should be, at least hypothetically) to "serve and protect" (by setting policies and enforcing laws that "serve and protect" the interests of its individual citizens).

The "problem" is that every Organization is an Organism.  And Organisms are AXIOMATICALLY self-interested and self-protecting.

Self-regulation inevitably results in a conflict-of-interest.  The government, cannot be self-regulating.  Who watches the watchers?

For example, "The Policeman's Dilemma", which is that, ostensibly, the primary job of a police force is to reduce crime.  But if they are successful in reducing crime, their budget and staff are cut proportionately.

HOWeVEr, if crime INCREASES (or the mere threat of and or the general fear of crime increases), then both their budget and staff (and their associated power and influence within the community) INCREASE proportionately.

And as such, they would appear to have inherently contradictory incentives.

Fiat money is not owned by individuals.

It is held by individuals and it is used by individuals, but it is OWNED by the issuer (either the state itself or by its authorized agents).

The interesting part is that the Founding Fathers anticipated this wage-slavery system,

“No State shall … coin money; emit bills of credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts[.]” Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1.

1. The basic unit is the dollar, a silver coin containing 371.25 grains of pure silver.
   
2. Only gold or silver coins and currency (specie-backed banknotes) can be legal tender.
   
3. No state may issue coins or currency.
   
4. No one may counterfeit U.S. Government-issued coins or currency.
   
5. Fiat money is forbidden.
   

The Supreme Court, in its famous Legal Tender and Gold Clause Cases, ruled that Congress has ‘plenary power’ to issue fiat money and dictate its value, pursuant to its power to ‘regulate the value’ of foreign and domestic coin. This interpretation is erroneous. Congress has no such ‘plenary’ power. Its power to regulate the value of gold and silver coins is a limited power that exists for the limited purpose of ensuring that both kinds of coin remain in circulation, that is, to counteract Gresham’s Law. [LINK]

Perhaps we should consider some hypothetical system where every citizen is assigned (immutable, non-transferable) ownership of some small, fertile, plot of land.

Who is the "everyone else"? Are you under the presumption that land ownership in the absence of government would be concentrated among a select few?

And as such, they would appear to have inherently contradictory incentives.

No, the basis for government is rule.

"Serve and protect" is nothing more than propaganda. If that were its purpose, it would act as a private contractor, not an overly-centralized public institution.

The only difference between modern government (democracy) and, let's say, feudalism is that the populace believes its ingratiated in the hegemony. Governments historically have sought one thing: rule.

Of that I'm already aware. Fiat is but a mere note of debt. The money to which fiat is indexed is owned by individuals. And when I say that tax-paying individuals are collateral, I'm not speaking of recompense in the form of fiat money (which may be backed at best by 10% of capital reserve) I'm speaking of recompense in the form of labor. Each tax-paying citizen bears a share of public debt, and they must "work it off." That is, in practice, backing the fiat.

Your only contribution to a rational, logical, common sense, and mature discussion is circular reasoning/tautology.

Please share your description or an example of what you believe social equality looks like in practice. Please share your description or an example of what you believe social fairness looks like in practice.

Eh, I'm pretty sure the original intent, the original use-case for government was to adjudicate disputes between citizens and to provide public roads and protect public resources like water and to protect citizens from foreign invasion and to protect property rights so the powerful (ranchers and or railroads) can't simply take your land by force.

Equality and fairness fair play is about balance and all three words are synoyms, or so I would guess.  I dunno as Ive not checked any dictionaries on this latter conjectrure.

First of all, dictionaries are not authoritative, they are merely descriptions of general usage.

Secondly, I'm less interested in definitions and much more interested in your idea of how EQUALITY should be applied or encouraged in a society.

1} a mother, to fair to her two children, cuts a brownie into two seemingly equal size pieces,

ergo my previous givens again, as follows and hope that I'm clear and on point.  Freedom is sperate word and my feeling is less synonminous than equal and fairness are to ecah other;

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is fair to say  --truth/fact--  that two electrons are equal to each other in property, not their spacial location.

It is fair to say that, Earth and Jupiter are both planets ergo equal in one respect and  of unequal to size.

It is fair to say that man and woman are equal in species yet not equal genetically is all their coding.

It is fair to say that equality exists a word to describe aparent attempting  fairness  ---repeating my above---   to two or more of her children.

Equality and fairness fair play is about balance and all three words are synoyms, or so I would guess.  I dunno as Ive not checked any dictionaries on this latter conjecture.

How would you apply this principle to a town, a city, and or an entire country or planet?

I'm not suggesting that freedom and equality are synonyms.  I am suggesting that they are both generally considered desirable.

I'm pretty certain nobody is disputing these terms are generally considered synonymous. 

THAT'S WHY DESCRIBING ONE WITH EITHER OF THE OTHERS IS NONSENSICAL.

I stated to Athias, specifically, as a place for starters they need to begin.