Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Blogs > Anenome

Rate this Entry

Does a COLA law society force laws on people? or, refuting Venom's silly hypocrisy

Posted 03-21-2015 at 11:51 PM by Anenome

(Part 1)

OP: http://evilavatar.com/forums/showthr...06#post2365306

http://evilavatar.com/forums/showpos...postcount=1522

---

Quote:
First, its enforcing the property owner's rules if they eject a person for trespassing.
No, it's not. Ejecting a trespasser is not the exact same thing as enforcing a rule on them, in the same way that preventing someone from murdering you is not an imposition or forcing a law on them. That you can't see that or refuse to acknowledge that is frankly, hilariously ignorant.

Would it be "enforcing the property owner's rules" if you stop a person from murdering you? If not why not? Why would it be okay to do that when the property violation is your own body and not okay when the property violation is space you need to live? You actually think that a society could survive if it didn't have a no trespassing expectation?

The biggest problem with your complaint on this point is that every person, every society faces the same issue. This makes your claim that this is a problem hypocritical, since I'm trying to minimize or eliminate force without consent and you, Benom, are completely in favor of a society that does a lot more forcing of laws on people that what you accuse my idea of.

I'm saying at worst, an owner must move a trespasser on their property to the border and ask them to sign the rules of entry. However you, Benom, are in favor of a society that will literally force their laws, all their laws, on trespassers, without even the courtesy of escorting to the edge of property--hell without even the need for actual property ownership.

So already you're a hypocrite on that point. But I get that the purpose is trying to attack me on the basis of my own statement (again, to attack me, not the idea since it's an idea you already approve of in current society) for saying it's a society which doesn't force laws on people, yet in this one instance seems to violate that claim of mine.

But what people are you talking about? Who is this person that is coming to my seastead and trespassing? Are they a Canadian, an American? What are they?

Wherever they come from in the first place, they're subject to laws against trespassing already in that jurisdiction, are they not? This takes care of 99% of existing people in the world currently. Virtually everyone is already part of an existing legal order in which they can be sued or held to trespassing laws, including you yourselves.

When divergent legal jurisdictions have conflicts with their subjects of other legal jurisdictions, the courts of one area tend to respect the decisions of courts in another area. Thus when Canadians sue an American in Canadian courts, American courts tend to respect that ruling and enforce it. Should a Canadian trespass on my COLA, I can sue him in a COLA court and, after the same fashion, a Canadian court should respect that ruling, since trespassing is illegal in Canadian law.

Now maybe Canada wouldn't respect a wonky law that someone might come up with, but they sure as hell would respect rulings against something as basic and obvious as trespassing.

I've said this and things to this effect a number of times already. The answer should be obvious.

Apart from that, without law our only recourse is force and violence. Force and violence is expensive and dangerous, and thus all people tend to seek solutions to minimize conflict, and they use law for these things.

It's a bit silly to ask what happens if someone comes by who doesn't want to deal with us on a legal basis, who leave people no option but to deal with them by force. You deal with them by force, as outlaws and bandits. This is not forcing rules on them, it's defending your livelihood and person. There tends to be a high correlation between invading private space (trespassing) and the worse crimes of theft and murder.

But Benom's criticism relies on saying that kicking a trespasser you don't have an agreement with off your property is "forcing law on them"--it is in fact no such thing. It is a use of force period, there is no law involved, and not all uses of force are unethical--specifically defensive uses of force are always ethical. It cannot be considered unethical to defend your property purely by moving the trespasser off the property and no more, and certainly not illegal, since there is no law involved. Where law is missing, ethics takes over.

It is the same use of force you or anyone would use to prevent some random person from killing you, taking your shit, or invading your home, no matter where in the world you were or what legal order you were under. You don't need an agreement with someone to use force on them if they're using force on you first--because you don't want to be robbed or killed. That sort of action takes us back to a pre-law scenario where people relate by force.

This is why I say the just use of force in that scenario is a defensive use of force, meaning just enough force to take them off your property. Any more would become an offensive use of force and be ethically and morally suspect.

You would not need a pre-existing contract with someone to stop them from raping or murdering you, neither should you for trespassing.

Benom has then said well isn't your defining that property as yours forcing law on others? Again no.

Property is another means of reducing conflict by defining a sphere of legitimate control of physical goods. We don't force our property laws on others, we rather grant others property rights because we want our own property claims respected in return.

And all people have property claims simply by virtue of being alive--your own body is your first property claim. So too you need physical things in order to stay alive, a certain amount of productive property is necessary to avoid a lifestyle of pure hunter-gatherer existence. Even that requires some minimal property.

So if I can't claim a certain amount of land as my own, namely my house and bedroom, then I cannot even sleep securely. This is a threat to your life and well-being. Which is why not trespassing is one of the basic rules of ethics that all people intuitively understand, alongside not raping, stealing, and murdering.

Benom apparently doesn't realize that questioning the ethics of stopping trespassing is equivalent to questioning whether it's ethical to stop someone from stealing from you, raping you, or murdering you--virtually all people would laugh at such a questioning and call you far crazier kook than anyone has ever accused me of being. Some toss out phrases of questioning my attachment to reality, meanwhile Benom here is questioning the very basis of human existence and Spectral applauds it, unthinkingly.

But all people must claim a certain private space as their own for living and sleeping and must defend it violently if others do not grant them this right, we're right back to dealing by force if we can't deal by right and by law.

So Benom seeks to attack this idea on the basis of "forcing property" on people when in fact property is forced on you by the necessities of biology and society, not by me. If you didn't have to sleep and didn't have to eat, you'd have to need for stopping trespassing either. Anyone claiming otherwise is a hypocrite, since they too must defend their home and bedroom and productive tools.

Would Benom prevent someone from trying to break into his house and bedroom in the middle of the night by force? Of course. Even the most radical anti-propertarian left-anarchist I've talked to and discussed these things with have admitted that they would defend their own bedroom violently from violent invasion.

So enforcing a certain amount of physical space for your sole use is not forcing laws on anyone, since all people require a certain amount of space simply to live. To deny anyone the right to a certain amount of exclusive space is to say they don't have the right to even live. And anyone claiming that is automatically evil or hypocritical.

Now there are some leftarchs who make a private property vs personal property distinction and say that having someone work property for you is equivalent to abandonment, they say they are against private property and for personal property.

In current society such people cannot create a legal system which respects their preferred concept of holding only personal property.

Ironically, in a COLA system they could build such a system. So Benom supports his current society which quite literally forces laws on these people with variant property-holding ideas, meanwhile my proposed society does not. They would be completely free to hold property however they want and contract with others on any basis they could obtain voluntary consent in a COLA system.

So again, Benom is a complete hypocrite for attacking my proposed system that would allow such people to choose how they hold property, while his preferred political system does not. And ancap society does much less, if any, of what he accuses it of compared to modern US society.

But again, Benom is not interest in having a decent philosophical discussion about these issues. He is interested in attacking me personally in a bid to destroy the messenger so he does not have to face the ideas. Ironically a strategy usually resorted to by leftists. But then again, to where I am on the political scale, he is a leftist. In fact, Benom is a socialist who believes he isn't a socialist or is against socialism, which is perhaps even more ironic and sad. All conservatives are socialists.

Only anarchs have truly abandoned socialism to the core.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 29304 Comments 1 Edit Tags
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 1

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    Anenome's Avatar
    (part 2)

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Anenome
    Even if you wander onto X property, the owner cannot enforce his rules on you unless you agree to them. If you refuse to agree, the most he can do is use enough force to make you leave his property and no more.
    Again, this isn't about the property owner or the trespasser -- it's about someone that isn't the property owner creating parameters for which they must act within on their own property without consent to such parameters. You claim that you do not like being told what to do on your property today, but it appears that you're telling people what they can do on their property in your theory.
    Firstly, the rule that laws don't apply to you unless you agree in advance would be a fundamental rule of the COLA system itself. Why? Because I highly doubt anyone would be part of a COLA that didn't have that rule.

    So I'm assuming the owner of property X is part of a COLA system in the first place. That's what we're talking about, right? Pretty sure that was the topic of this thread in the main.

    I'm not forcing that on anyone, it's a founding assumption of the COLA network. I'm not speaking to anything outside the COLA system. And if the trespasser is a COLA member too, then he faces the same restriction.

    So I'm not in fact telling them anything. I'm suggesting this is what people will be broadly willing to agree to, since it is self-evidently just.

    Law in a private law scenario is only formed by voluntary contract between two people. It cannot become law until an agreement between two people has been made. Someone can say "this is law for my property" but until a 3rd party wants to visit, it's really just a blank rule, since the person owning the property is unlikely to prosecute himself for violating his own rule.

    I suppose it could happen but that would be more hilarious than demonstrative.

    The second someone signs the agreement and visits the property we have private law in existence, since an X can now hold a Y responsible in a court.

    So again, I'm not forcing the law of proportionality on anyone but suggesting that the only contract people would be willing to sign in a voluntary law context is one in which both parties to the contract agree it's a fair contract, which very likely means that proportionality will be a rule rather than an exception.

    If X property owner isn't part of any legal agreements whatsoever, not even COLA agreements, and he shoots a trespasser, then we're back to dealing with people by force, not law. He will likely face invasion as an outlaw so he doesn't shoot anyone else, since it strikes most people as extremely unjust to murder people for trespassing.

    Would it be wrong to hold a murderer accountable for murder even if they're not a part of your legal order? Of course it would not be. Will Benom attack this as "forcing your laws on people?" I certainly hope so, since it shows how laughably out of touch with the philosophy of ethics he is.

    And if X property owner is part of any COLA contracts at all, which is extremely likely since people like to, you know, buy things from others, go shopping, leave their home, etc.,--all such contracts will require a guarantee of certain basic rights.

    How can I say that? Will Venom accuse me of forcing laws on people? How can I say all such contracts WILL require--am I forcing my will on them again? Of course not. Again, I assume it as a basic rule that is so obvious that I doubt anyone would be part of a contract that didn't feature it.

    It's like a one line statement to agree to grant people basic rights, and it is the founding basis of the concept I developed called contractual trigger provisions.

    This is what the foundational COLA contract is for, to both setup the COLA rules and ensure basic rights protections in the first place.

    If he's not part of some basic COLA then he's not contracting with anyone, AND most people aren't going to anywhere near him, because he's equivalent to an untrusted outlaw. Mothers will warn children not to go anywhere near the place, etc.

    You discount all of these easily understood factors, you have no critical faculty to even think about them, you have paraded your ignorance repeatedly, mocked an idea you don't understand, refused to learn anything about it, and pretended that your supposed fatal flaw assertion was some gotcha that had no answer.

    But in fact it's just the Dunning-Kruger effect all over again. As if basic political philosophy didn't have answers for these things since centuries ago.

    If you really want to learn something, put aside your irrational anger for a moment and actually watch this:



    He starts out by explaining the nature of conflict avoidance, the purpose of law, etc., that I basically reiterated in the beginning of this post. He states that he considers these things irrefutable. I do too. And you are unlikely to find any chinks in that armor.

    Naturally I don't expect either of you to change your minds, and I find that rather amusing considering how obvious the subject is. Hilarious that you attack leftists for things you are yourselves guilty of in comparison to the society I propose. Can't wait to read your responses and then watch you throw hissy fits when I ignore their inanity.

    Here's what they will be. Benom will nitpick some aspect of my statement here, ignore the main thrust of it (typical distractionary tactic in political debates), and I will continue ignoring him as before, since I've now answered this and similar questions a dozen times and he never learns, most fully in this comment. And he will attack the idea of ancap society with some problem that actually exists in much worse fashion in current society, even if ancap society may not be entirely perfect in that regard. But I maintain again that improvement is still better than nothing, and perfection may not be possible. Anyone rejecting improvement because it's not perfection is an irrational idealist who is ignoring reality. That kind of response of his is probably my favorite thing to read, it's like he doesn't even realize he's doing it! Dunning-Kruger triple-threat.

    Spectral will cheerlead Benom without any actual understanding of what either of us have said and without any substantive critique of his own. For god's sake, he wasn't even capable of a cut'n'paste summation of Benom's challenge a few posts ago.

    Meanwhile, I'll be getting on with things. I've been tapped to take over as general manager of a 5-million dollar company and am preparing a plan to double revenues in the next two years. And in my free time I continue helping to build an entirely new way of life that will improve the world immensely via seasteading, private decentralized law, and a new life on the high seas.

    And I'll let you guys know when the floathouse Kickstarter nears its launch. I will enjoy ignoring your QQs :P

    I think the worse things for you guys is being so adamantly wrong. That makes it all the harder to see the light, since now you have to revoke an opinion you doubled-down on with major doses of negativity.

    But you are wrong and remain wrong, and again, it's not my job to prove you right. Neither of you have read even a single article I posted here nor take a dispassionate analytical and philosophical approach to the issues raised. Which is sad, because it proves that at heart you're just trolls, and worse, unthinking and anti-intellectual trolls.
    Posted 03-21-2015 at 11:52 PM by Anenome Anenome is offline
 

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 AM.