The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: BonerJoe on September 16, 2010, 02:41:33 PM
-
...then why do you think private property lines do?
-
Arbitrary Nationalistic Boundries Surrounding the Land Claimed by an Illegitimate State doens't sound as catchy as "No Borders!" or "Borders are Imaginary!"
-
...then why do you think private property lines do?
Private property, something that was earned, paid for, or mixed with labor, has a tangible association with an actual person or group of people who did such things.
State borders are lines people with guns drew so they can assert their violence, with no such tangible association to actual individuals.
(http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=theredcollision.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheredcollision.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F2001-a-space-odyssey-ape.jpg&sref=http%3A%2F%2Ftheredcollision.wordpress.com%2F)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0&hd=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0&hd=1)
Further, that real property is necessary for the survival and thriving or mankind, whereas the borders of states are necessary for war--the health of the state.
-
So, border enforcement is OK as long as it's private property. I think the majority of the land across the border is privately owned, or would become such in a free society. It's OK to shoot he Mexicans then, right?
-
So, border enforcement is OK as long as it's private property. I think the majority of the land across the border is privately owned, or would become such in a free society. It's OK to shoot he Mexicans then, right?
It's fine if a group of individuals along a line with to make an agreement to exclude individuals from a neighboring geographic area. That's one of those dirty tricks libertarians use though, similar to "it's okay if you fund the war yourself." We secretly are against it, but we make no real vocal opposition since we know it will never happen.
-
So, border enforcement is OK as long as it's private property. I think the majority of the land across the border is privately owned, or would become such in a free society. It's OK to shoot he Mexicans then, right?
Border enforcement on private property seems fine. The part about shooting the Mexicans would probably not be, unless the Mexicans, on an individual basis, could be shown to have presented a credible mortal threat. The concept of excessive force would seemingly be valued in a free society, probably more so than today (since today, it should be applied to "the state" and doesn't seem to be very often.)
-
"a credible mortal threat"
Disease.
-
"a credible mortal threat"
Disease.
Okay...also immediate + not "made up." (People fly into and out of the country all the time, and the paranoia about disease doesn't seem to be applied there.) We're talking about the affirmative defense standard for killing people...
The more interesting question seems to be about easements. It seems border control wouldn't be practicable in a stateless society because easements, which were originally roads along property lines, have been considered passable by all. Your legitimate desire to keep someone off your property and your neighbor's legitimate desire to keep someone off your his property could not, seemingly, be coalesced into a desire to keep them out of an imaginary region by keeping them off the boundary between your properties, where they would presumably have a natural right to travel.
Reposted with salient added comment.
-
So, I have a fence beyond an easement line, and signs in English stating they will be shot dead if they cross the property line, then it's OK?
-
So, I have a fence beyond an easement line, and signs in English stating they will be shot dead if they cross the property line, then it's OK?
No. Death is not the penalty for trespassing (I'm sure the military thinks differently, but is that surprising?) Consider disparity of force.
-
"a credible mortal threat"
Disease.
Aren't most properties along the border large farms and ranches? I would understand if you felt compelled to murder someone if they walked through your living room, but it's hard to understand the justification when they are far off on the outskirts of your land.
-
So, I have a fence beyond an easement line, and signs in English stating they will be shot dead if they cross the property line, then it's OK?
No. Death is not the penalty for trespassing (I'm sure the military thinks differently, but is that surprising?) Consider disparity of force.
If I declare it's the penalty, then it's the penalty.
-
So, I have a fence beyond an easement line, and signs in English stating they will be shot dead if they cross the property line, then it's OK?
No. Death is not the penalty for trespassing (I'm sure the military thinks differently, but is that surprising?) Consider disparity of force.
If I declare it's the penalty, then it's the penalty.
And the penalty to you is getting written up for murder, and all the people who agree it's murder treating you like a murderer, and like minded people turning the other way when you protest because that doesn't seem so equitable to you.
Again, it's the disparity of force thing. Your "rules" don't take away right to life--they have to do with your right to force them off your property. If that becomes dangerous and ends in bloodshed, it's gonna be more interesting.
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
-
If I declare it's the penalty, then it's the penalty.
Wouldn't this just make those individuals choose another course of action? So instead of possibly negotiating for a decrease in the flow of immigrants, by offering allotted border crossings, you lose your control of the situation to another individual with border land who may not have a concern.
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
But there's a fence, that's unarguably trespassing. And there's no arbitraryness about it if that is the posted rule if you trespass. In your line of thinking, someone walking into your home unarmed and doing nothing to harm any person or property can only be forcefully evicted.
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
But there's a fence, that's unarguably trespassing. And there's no arbitraryness about it if that is the posted rule if you trespass. In your line of thinking, someone walking into your home unarmed and doing nothing to harm any person or property can only be forcefully evicted.
There's a wide gap between doing nothing and murdering. Besides, as I pointed out, forceful eviction could lead to loss of life. As I've heard various law enforcement officials tell it, when there's just one story, and the evidence doesn't contradict that story, they feel compelled to accept that story as true...who's to say the guy didn't come after you with your kitchen knife?
-
What does excluding individuals from your own property have to do with national borders (which I assume is what is referred to)? Even if you own 80% of the landmass along the border of an isolated geographic area, and you excercise perfect exclusion with zero border crossings, you cannot possibly have any realistic impact on migration.
-
And the penalty to you is getting written up for murder, and all the people who agree it's murder treating you like a murderer,
......only if they find the bodies.......
shit, the southwestern border IS ALL SAND.
you know how easy it is to dig holes?
and make it look like there was never a hole there?
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
But there's a fence, that's unarguably trespassing. And there's no arbitraryness about it if that is the posted rule if you trespass. In your line of thinking, someone walking into your home unarmed and doing nothing to harm any person or property can only be forcefully evicted.
There's a wide gap between doing nothing and murdering. Besides, as I pointed out, forceful eviction could lead to loss of life. As I've heard various law enforcement officials tell it, when there's just one story, and the evidence doesn't contradict that story, they feel compelled to accept that story as true...who's to say the guy didn't come after you with your kitchen knife?
So, it's ok...as long as there's no witnesses? Heh.
-
And the penalty to you is getting written up for murder, and all the people who agree it's murder treating you like a murderer,
......only if they find the bodies.......
shit, the southwestern border IS ALL SAND.
you know how easy it is to dig holes?
and make it look like there was never a hole there?
If the time comes, are you available for hire?
-
who's to say the guy didn't come after you with your kitchen knife?
*cough throw down cough*
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
But there's a fence, that's unarguably trespassing. And there's no arbitraryness about it if that is the posted rule if you trespass. In your line of thinking, someone walking into your home unarmed and doing nothing to harm any person or property can only be forcefully evicted.
There's a wide gap between doing nothing and murdering. Besides, as I pointed out, forceful eviction could lead to loss of life. As I've heard various law enforcement officials tell it, when there's just one story, and the evidence doesn't contradict that story, they feel compelled to accept that story as true...who's to say the guy didn't come after you with your kitchen knife?
So, it's ok...as long as there's no witnesses? Heh.
Practical concerns, not philosophical.
-
If the time comes, are you available for hire?
backhoe - check
wood chipper - check
powdered lye - check
-
If the time comes, are you available for hire?
backhoe - check
wood chipper - check
powdered lye - check
Funny enough, hiring a hoe to bury a body along the Florida border would be just like digging a hole in the water and, yet, the most likely place to find such work.
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
But there's a fence, that's unarguably trespassing. And there's no arbitraryness about it if that is the posted rule if you trespass. In your line of thinking, someone walking into your home unarmed and doing nothing to harm any person or property can only be forcefully evicted.
Property Rights, Round Two:
If BonerJoe goes on vacation, and some squatters move onto his property, does he have to give them half his property, and the keys to his house when he gets back?
-
Borders exist on a conceptual level, as do property boundaries.
This is not a proper argument either for or against borders.
No more of that talk or I'll put the fucking leeches on you, understand?
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
If we're in a world where there is no government to stop me from shooting people I don't want on my property, why shouldn't I, if I have signs placed very prominently TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.
-
If we're in a world where there is no government to stop me from shooting people I don't want on my property, why shouldn't I, if I have signs placed very prominently TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.
Okay, but you have to post one in Mexican as well.
-
If we're in a world where there is no government to stop me from shooting people I don't want on my property, why shouldn't I, if I have signs placed very prominently TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.
Okay, but you have to post one in Mexican as well.
Can the spanish one just say "WARNING: Inability to read the other sign may be hazardous to your health"? :P
-
So, border enforcement is OK as long as it's private property. I think the majority of the land across the border is privately owned,
Which makes building a big wall across the border a violation of the owners' property rights, of course.
And also mean that if the owner wants Mexicans to come onto or across his land, then he should be allowed to let them, regardless of what the INS think.
or would become such in a free society. It's OK to shoot he Mexicans then, right?
Nope, firstly because trespass doesn't work like that. First you have to tell them they are not welcome on your land. Then you have to have evidence that they don't intend to leave.
Beyond that, we can ask whether shooting them is proportionate to the offense.
-
what Richard said.
-
Nope, firstly because trespass doesn't work like that. First you have to tell them they are not welcome on your land. Then you have to have evidence that they don't intend to leave.
If we lived in a truly "free" society . . . what would stop me from shooting anyone who came on my land if I so wished, warning or no warning?
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
If we're in a world where there is no government to stop me from shooting people I don't want on my property, why shouldn't I, if I have signs placed very prominently TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.
You will be punished by the market for your abuse of force, if it becomes known.
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
If we're in a world where there is no government to stop me from shooting people I don't want on my property, why shouldn't I, if I have signs placed very prominently TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.
You will be punished by the market for your abuse of force, if it becomes known.
Yeah you see I have no problem at all with that.
Also, what's to stop a giant gang of people from saying, "fuck your property rights" and coming to my property and stringing me up on a tree for defending my property?
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
I wouldn't hold it against you if you felt you had a valid reason and a stated rule in place. People should respect your property and if they don't you are within your rights to do as you wish.
That is all.
-
You can make whatever rules you want, you just can't arbitrarily enforce them to the extent that they deny the rights (to life) of others. Now, if it's self-defense, in the act of forcing him off your property, that's different.
If we're in a world where there is no government to stop me from shooting people I don't want on my property, why shouldn't I, if I have signs placed very prominently TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT.
You will be punished by the market for your abuse of force, if it becomes known.
Yeah you see I have no problem at all with that.
Also, what's to stop a giant gang of people from saying, "fuck your property rights" and coming to my property and stringing me up on a tree for defending my property?
The market's response. You seem to underestimate it.
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
I wouldn't hold it against you if you felt you had a valid reason and a stated rule in place. People should respect your property and if they don't you are within your rights to do as you wish.
That is all.
I think you'd find quickly, if you killed for mere trespassing, that it's not a right you're entitled to enjoy for long (the reason the market will come up with a solution, such as organized sanction, is that otherwise, the mob will simply string you up.)
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
I wouldn't hold it against you if you felt you had a valid reason and a stated rule in place. People should respect your property and if they don't you are within your rights to do as you wish.
That is all.
I think you'd find quickly, if you killed for mere trespassing, that it's not a right you're entitled to enjoy for long (the reason the market will come up with a solution, such as organized sanction, is that otherwise, the mob will simply string you up.)
If the free market market becomes this powerful, what distinguishes it from a government?
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
I wouldn't hold it against you if you felt you had a valid reason and a stated rule in place. People should respect your property and if they don't you are within your rights to do as you wish.
That is all.
I think you'd find quickly, if you killed for mere trespassing, that it's not a right you're entitled to enjoy for long (the reason the market will come up with a solution, such as organized sanction, is that otherwise, the mob will simply string you up.)
If the free market market becomes this powerful, what distinguishes it from a government?
It will not have monopoly power. Even the sickest slime will find other slime to do business with (as in the black market today) but it won't be civilized.
-
I would just like to state that this thread resulted from some deep thinking in the shower. This is not actually what BonerJoe really believes.
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
I wouldn't hold it against you if you felt you had a valid reason and a stated rule in place. People should respect your property and if they don't you are within your rights to do as you wish.
That is all.
I think you'd find quickly, if you killed for mere trespassing, that it's not a right you're entitled to enjoy for long (the reason the market will come up with a solution, such as organized sanction, is that otherwise, the mob will simply string you up.)
If the free market market becomes this powerful, what distinguishes it from a government?
It will not have monopoly power. Even the sickest slime will find other slime to do business with (as in the black market today) but it won't be civilized.
OK.
What stops it from having monopoly power?
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
I wouldn't hold it against you if you felt you had a valid reason and a stated rule in place. People should respect your property and if they don't you are within your rights to do as you wish.
That is all.
I think you'd find quickly, if you killed for mere trespassing, that it's not a right you're entitled to enjoy for long (the reason the market will come up with a solution, such as organized sanction, is that otherwise, the mob will simply string you up.)
If the free market market becomes this powerful, what distinguishes it from a government?
It will not have monopoly power. Even the sickest slime will find other slime to do business with (as in the black market today) but it won't be civilized.
OK.
What stops it from having monopoly power?
The free market? Nature. It's not a state. There's no such thing as a monopoly except the state, and state-created monopolies. You're basically rephrasing the "evil Bill Gates" question. The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
-
If you don't have the freedom to make your own clearly displayed rules, then you're not free.
I wouldn't hold it against you if you felt you had a valid reason and a stated rule in place. People should respect your property and if they don't you are within your rights to do as you wish.
That is all.
I think you'd find quickly, if you killed for mere trespassing, that it's not a right you're entitled to enjoy for long (the reason the market will come up with a solution, such as organized sanction, is that otherwise, the mob will simply string you up.)
If the free market market becomes this powerful, what distinguishes it from a government?
It will not have monopoly power. Even the sickest slime will find other slime to do business with (as in the black market today) but it won't be civilized.
OK.
What stops it from having monopoly power?
The free market? Nature. It's not a state. There's no such thing as a monopoly except the state, and state-created monopolies. You're basically rephrasing the "evil Bill Gates" question. The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
If a group believes themselves to have a monopoly on the use of force, and they enforce it, that makes them a government.
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
The British East India Company was explicitly created by the British government, I'm not too sure if it counts as "free market." Although it, like the Hudson's Bay Company, certainly fit all the reqirements for "scary evil corporation"...
A better example might be the Hanseatic League or the Novgorod Republic.
Of course, Somalia is, as always, the best example of a libertarian paradise, because there is no government to speak of there.
-
Of course, Somalia is, as always, the best example of a libertarian paradise, because there is no government to speak of there.
I'm guessing it remains that way because there are no real significant natural resources to exploit to profit from installing a puppet government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_industry_of_Somalia
-
Of course, Somalia is, as always, the best example of a libertarian paradise, because there is no government to speak of there.
I'm guessing it remains that way because there are no real significant natural resources to exploit to profit from installing a puppet government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_industry_of_Somalia
And the pirates loot the mineral ships trying to sail away.
The system works.
-
It's obvious that we're playing a game we can't win. The assholes ruin it for anarchy, they also ruin it for any chance of a small government being able to keep from growing. And 95% of the populace doesn't give a shit as long as they're fed and can watch the ESPN.
-
...like i've said innumerable times, for the anachists.
it becomes mad-maxian. you have property someone wants....water....land.....a big peach tree.....
in a post shtf world, they gonna come git it, if they ain't got it, and you hafta have a bigger ''free market'' group to repel their ''free market'' group (code-speak for gang)
hey, i've always been a free market = less govt. guy, but.....>don't make me say it<, please
timelady snuck somalia in b4 i could.
great example.
-
Will the anarcho-pirates play with nukes?
Probably.
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
The British East India Company was explicitly created by the British government, I'm not too sure if it counts as "free market." Although it, like the Hudson's Bay Company, certainly fit all the reqirements for "scary evil corporation"...
A better example might be the Hanseatic League or the Novgorod Republic.
Of course, Somalia is, as always, the best example of a libertarian paradise, because there is no government to speak of there.
You know, other voluntaryists, im sure you have had this same thought before. What's stopping a giant company like the Trading company for forming without the govt? Sure we have the govt as examples in the past. But if someone were to ask us what would we do about it in a free society, nothing obviously, even if they used force on peoples overseas
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
That's in mercantilism, not a stateless society.
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
That's in mercantilism, not a stateless society.
Doesn't change that it did what it did in the name of making money, like the average corporation does.
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
That's in mercantilism, not a stateless society.
Doesn't change that it did what it did in the name of making money, like the average corporation does.
...in the environment set up by an enabling state... :roll:
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
That's in mercantilism, not a stateless society.
Doesn't change that it did what it did in the name of making money, like the average corporation does.
...in the environment set up by an enabling state... :roll:
So fucking what? There's every reason to believe that in a stateless society it would have done the exact same thing, instead of more brutally.
A corporation exists to create profit, and it creates it by the lowest bottom line possible. A group of mercenaries hired by the company could easily - as shown by the examples of mining towns - defeat people who rise up against it.
-
The nature of commerce in liberty doesn't allow a true monopoly--especially of power.
History does not support this.
Right.
The British East India Company comes to mind.
That's in mercantilism, not a stateless society.
Doesn't change that it did what it did in the name of making money, like the average corporation does.
...in the environment set up by an enabling state... :roll:
So fucking what? There's every reason to believe that in a stateless society it would have done the exact same thing, instead of more brutally.
A corporation exists to create profit, and it creates it by the lowest bottom line possible. A group of mercenaries hired by the company could easily - as shown by the examples of mining towns - defeat people who rise up against it.
So it's not the same fucking thing, that's fucking what.
-
Somalia is a terrible example of what a western libertarian society would look like. That is a whole different culture with far different morals. But the tribesmen areas are a fairly good example of what a small government society looks like in Africa.
-
Somalia is a terrible example of what a western libertarian society would look like. That is a whole different culture with far different morals. But the tribesmen areas are a fairly good example of what a small government society looks like in Africa.
Hey, not everyone's going to be a voluntaryist. A lot of people will take power for the sake of power.
-
Somalia is a terrible example of what a western libertarian society would look like. That is a whole different culture with far different morals. But the tribesmen areas are a fairly good example of what a small government society looks like in Africa.
What about a Western nation with similar morals for comparison? The first thing that comes to mind is Europe right after Rome fell. It broke into Fiefdoms and Papal states pretty quickly, and that period of time wasn't fun to live in.
-
A better, and more recent, example would probably be Eastern Europe from 1918 till around 1922.
It was a real clusterfuck.
-
Not like everyone who will move to a voluntaryist society will be voluntaryist. IE they might not like topless crap in the streets/people doing drugs in the street
-
Not like everyone who will move to a voluntaryist society will be voluntaryist. IE they might not like topless crap in the streets/people doing drugs in the street
Thats why they would need a law saying that only really hot chicks with perfect racks are allowed to go topless. Problem solved and even the statists would be happy. :P
-
Not like everyone who will move to a voluntaryist society will be voluntaryist. IE they might not like topless crap in the streets/people doing drugs in the street
That's generally the best argument in support of a free society, even though it's usually lost on statists.