Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Assassin's Creed Odyssey...
Last post by vallor
Today 03:06 PM
3 Replies, 251 Views
Barbershop Fined For...
Last post by vallor
Today 03:04 PM
14 Replies, 1,398 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by vallor
Today 02:57 PM
2,940 Replies, 401,633 Views
Rockstar Begins Selling...
Last post by Mad Max RW
Today 02:19 PM
44 Replies, 1,350 Views
NieR:Automata Game of...
Last post by Terran
Today 02:05 PM
14 Replies, 859 Views
It's Sunday: What NFL...
Last post by Terran
Today 02:03 PM
4 Replies, 175 Views
Weekend Gamer: What are...
Last post by Mad Max RW
Today 11:52 AM
15 Replies, 543 Views
Weekend Headbanger -...
Last post by Emabulator
Today 09:36 AM
8 Replies, 195 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-21-2015, 02:23 PM   #1521
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone View Post
It's not like when I finally do move to a seastead you two are gonna come here and apologize to me. That's not going to happen. You're personally threatened and you're angry about what I'm saying.
As you try to claim this isn't about you, you then turn to making it all about you. Haha

What year is this supposed to be happening in? How long are you going to live on it before it's declared that it's actually your home in the way that you've stated? There already exists people that live on water -- how come you're not doing exactly that?

If you're not on your seastead, are you going to come and apologize?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
What question? Type it for me or w/e. I barely bother even reading V anymore, it's typically an attack on me personally, rarely on topic for the thread.
Here you go:
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.
First, its enforcing the property owner's rules if they eject a person for trespassing.

How is a 3rd party (you in this instance) telling the property owner that he must abide by proportionality not the 3rd party forcing their will on a property owner?

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 12:30 AM   #1522
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
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.

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 teach 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.
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.

Last edited by Anenome; 03-23-2015 at 01:03 AM..
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 03:02 AM   #1523
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,518
Remember kids, property and state lines don't matter in fantasy ancap land, except when they support fantasy ancap land.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2015, 03:48 AM   #1524
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 01:09 PM   #1525
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Yes, it is enforcing a rule on them. When a property has rules on who is and is not allowed on them (hence what amounts to trespassing), that is enforcing a rule. You've created a problem where you equate people as property and property as property. If you cannot utilize force over property (despite you doing just that), you cannot remove someone (property) without their consent. A wandering trespasser is quite obviously not like murder -- if it was, that would mean lethal force would be an immediate proportional response. That creates a problem because you then want to force private property owners to live within the parameters of what you deem proportional when you recognize trespassing and murder as different, and that's problematic since you're now trying to pretend they're to be treated the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
You're forcing a law right here. Again. If the property owner is the sole ruler of their property, as you've previously claimed, then they would not be bound by requirements which you have created without their consent.

It's really not hard to understand: when you say an owner must do something, that's not a choice -- it is what amounts to a law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Set irony to full blast, Captain Landlocked. You're making this about me and not the idea and complaining how my posts are about attacking you and not the idea in the same portion of a post. Are you aware of what a hypocrite is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Which is done without the consent of people living there. You're attempting to claim the protections afforded by this system that is a result of force while claiming not to use force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Wrong. My criticism revolves around the fact that you're telling a private property owner that they must act in a certain manner. You've declared that a property owner must act within what you deem to be a proportional response - moving the trespasser to the boundary of the property - to the trespassing, oddly while you then try to pretend that a wandering trespasser represents a mortal threat like someone attempting to murder you.

With that said, the fact that you cannot comprehend what the criticism even is says a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Proportionality is once again gone just as fast as it came. You're declaring a private property owner must respond with a reaction that is proportional to the the trespasser, which is that they must just take them to the border with the least amount of force possible, and now you're pretending someone wandering onto your property is of the same proportion as killing you or stealing. Your statement above is also incorrect about the legality of a response with this view. There are laws forced onto people that govern what they can or cannot do in response to crimes committed on their owner property. If someone trespasses onto your property and you shoot them for that alone, you can and likely will be put on trial for murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
This is known as proportionality, and I've been saying this for many posts now. As I've stated to you prior, you're also attempting to declare your view of ethics/morality (which you stated ethical/moral views are not objective in the thread in regard to ISIS) the law of the land. If it's a person's private property, it doesn't matter if you view something as ethically/morally suspect as long as they're on their own property -- well, that was what you try to claim. Now you're trying to declare protections not afforded under your system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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 [trespassing] 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.
If trespassing is a threat to your life, a lethal response is proportional. However, as you've said several times now, you're attempting to limit the response to a trespasser while also declaring it a threat to the person's life -- a lethal response is a proportional response to a threat to a person's life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
When you, Anenome, tell someone what they must do on their own private property, that's not freedom -- that's you trying to rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
If this is your view, you follow the strategy "usually resorted to by leftists."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
You're applying a law of proportionality to everyone already in your theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
It appears I will need to load up MS paint to help you through this. The question at hand is not over the ethical/moral support for removing a trespasser of a person's property, it was over you declaring that property owner must act in certain ways to defend their property. The fact that you do not understand that still is astonishing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Your assumption is incorrect. Have you yet figured out this question is about your declaration of parameters a property owner must act within to remove a trespasser being a forced law and not the validity of a private property owner removing someone? Your entire response shows you do not understand what is being asked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Yes, you're a wonderful example of this effect. If you recall the silliness you displayed about shaped charges and the 5.56 round, you will see a wonderful example of this effect in its full glory.

If you recall, you were the one making the claim that philosophy was not objectively proven to be true in regards to ethical/moral views. Of course, you also were the one declaring that all people felt a certain way when it can be objectively proven they do not. Dunning-Kruger, indeed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Since you behave in the same manner that you attack both leftists and conservatives for, it's odd that you're stating this. Of course, another standard created that you fail to reach yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
I will continue ignoring him as before, since I've now answered this and similar questions
It appears you do not understand what the word "ignore" means. Regardless, you still have a failure to even understand the question. To say it again, the question isn't about X and Y's particular actions, it's about how you can impose restrictions on what X can do on his own property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Congrats. A 5 million dollar company sounds impressive. I know the local Walmart and Best Buy in the relatively small town where I grew up are 5 million dollar companies. Hopefully your plan to double revenues in 2 years succeeds more than the running on your previous company. What happened to your previous business again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
I'll let you guys know when the floathouse Kickstarter nears its launch. I will enjoy ignoring your QQs :P
Hopefully it works out for you. I know when you started talking about kickstarting your seastead deal at the end of 2013 and start of 2014 I was interested to see how it went. I'm not sure why anyone would be crying over you starting a kickstarter though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
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.
Truly ironic. This can be easily said about your stance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
But you are wrong and remain wrong, and again, it's not my job to teach 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.
This is objectively false on all three fronts as I've engaged you on articles you've posted, analyzed your posts (you know, the "nitpicking" you complain about now that you complain your not getting), and it's been approached from a philosophical view. In fact, you had this to say about my questioning before you collapsed into post weak propaganda:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Finally an actual argument about the idea itself.
After you make a post, which you illustrate your inability to even understand the question (that's unthinking and certainly an anti-intellectual move), you fill it with personal attacks as you ironically whine about personal attacks. What makes this whining particularly odd is this statement of yours:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
By the way, I've left the golden rule behind in favor of the platinum rule, a more advanced form of the golden rule.
Per the link you provided, the Platinum Rule is:
Quote:
The Platinum Rule states we should do onto others as they would do onto themselves.
Since you claim to follow the Platinum Rule, it only seems logical that you must actually want personal attacks and the like since that is how you treat other people. Or do you not understand the Platinum Rule that you claim to live by? It's either that you do not understand it, don't actually live by it, or you personally attack yourself and what not (which seems unlikely given your incredible love for yourself).

I'll ask again: Do you yet understand the question regarding you telling people they must behave within certain parameters on their own property?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 03:04 PM   #1526
Anemone
Evil Dead
 
Anemone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Autarchist
Posts: 6,092
Blog Entries: 3
I'm forcing movement, as a function of defense against the trespasser. Forcing a law would be holding out pen and paper and saying "sign this or else."

In the same way you don't need a law or signed agreement to ethically stop someone from murdering you, you don't need a law or signed agreement to ethically stop someone from trespassing on property you legitimately own.

If you can't see that, sucks to be you. I say you're not a very good ethical philosopher and again I already showed that you're only raising this point to attack me personally, since it's an idea that you already agree with by supporting it in current US society. You yourself are 100% in favor of forcing laws o everyone.

So again, you're just a troll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom
Do you yet understand the question regarding you telling people they must behave within certain parameters on their own property?
I wrote:

Quote:
I'm assuming the owner of property X is part of a COLA system in the first place.
This has been a premise of this entire thread. You've been arguing as if you didn't know this was a premise. I've been arguing as if you knew this was a premise.

Having told you explicitly it's a premise, your comeback should've been to reevaluate your position, not double-down on your attacks and ignoring it.

Obviously if my statement of "X must" holds true only for people already part of a COLA, and I assume all such notions of proportionality will be part of any COLA agreement since they are just and self-evident, your claim that I'm forcing law on people isn't true and was never true.
__________________
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front.

Last edited by Anemone; 03-23-2015 at 03:15 PM..
Anemone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 04:17 PM   #1527
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone View Post
I'm forcing movement, as a function of defense against the trespasser. Forcing a law would be holding out pen and paper and saying "sign this or else."
Again, no. This isn't about the forcing of the trespasser off -- it's about you - a 3rd party - declaring that is the most a property owner can do. Are you slowly starting to understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
In the same way you don't need a law or signed agreement to ethically stop someone from murdering you, you don't need a law or signed agreement to ethically stop someone from trespassing on property you legitimately own.
The question isn't about the ethical validity in removing someone from their own property. Also: Even if it were (which, again, it's not) you're still faced with the problem of having declared that ethical/moral views can not objectively be proven to be true. This means if a person disagreed that it was unethical to remove a trespasser (which I do not believe is wrong) that you couldn't prove them objectively wrong. This means that you're once again contradicting yourself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
Even as a Christian who believes in an objective morality that comes from an objective being, I have to admit that without trust in a higher being, people are unmoored from morality, that what is good or bad depends on what you value, and there are no objective values.

This ethical problem is famous in philosophy and these two are acting like they've never even encountered it.
This means that when you claim that "everyone" (which is objectively false) feels a certain way about something, you're merely guilty of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
So far none of you have even attempted a proof. Your arguments amount to appeal to popularity or appeal to aesthetics or the like, etc. These aren't proofs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
If you can't see that, sucks to be you. I say you're not a very good ethical philosopher and again I already showed that you're only raising this point to attack me personally, since it's an idea that you already agree with by supporting it in current US society. You yourself are 100% in favor of forcing laws o everyone.
Your lack of comprehension skills are disturbing. This isn't about the ethical views regarding protecting one's own property. This is about you telling a property owner how they must behave on their own property.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
I wrote:
Correct, you did write this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
I'm assuming the owner of property X is part of a COLA system in the first place.
Which is why I told you that your assumption was incorrect. Just like when you wanted to change the terms of the discussion regarding the 5.56 round due to your ignorance, you've done that here. If you don't like the outcome of a specific scenario, you simply declare it wouldn't happen or that people wouldn't sign up to a COLA that didn't cover that despite what reality shows us.

The scenario created was over two people that did not agree on a contract, with one person trespassing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
This has been a premise of this entire thread. You've been arguing as if you didn't know this was a premise. I've been arguing as if you knew this was a premise.

Having told you explicitly it's a premise, your comeback should've been to reevaluate your position, not double-down on your attacks and ignoring it.

Obviously if my statement of "X must" holds true only for people already part of a COLA, and I assume all such notions of proportionality will be part of any COLA agreement since they are just and self-evident, your claim that I'm forcing law on people isn't true and was never true.
Here is the scenario that was created:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venom
If a person were to wander onto a rancher's ancap property, that rancher is supposedly allowed to enslave them, murder them, rape them, etc (in no particular order). It's their land, their rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
False, because again we're talking about the rule of owners over their own property, and all people own their body first and foremost. 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.

This is the same rule that we have now, it's called trespassing. If a business doesn't want you on its property, it doesn't rape and enslave you, it asks you to leave and if you don't it call police who specialize in removing people within the bounds of the law.
It's even noted by you that if the two hypothetical people involved didn't have a pre-existing agreement that the most a property owner could do on their own property was to act within parameters of proportionality set by you without their consent.

This was a person refusing to agree. Lets spell it out for you: There is no contract between these two governing their behavior. Despite the property owner X not agreeing only to respond to trespassing with simple removal via contract, you've declared what the most the property owner can do to a person on their own property -- that's you setting controls over the property owner.

To beat a dead horse since you still cannot get it: This isn't about the ethical/moral validity in removing a trespasser; it's about how you're implementing limits to what a person can or cannot do on their own property even when faced with what you equate to a mortal threat.

Do you understand the question revolved around how you were saying someone could use force on their own property to remove a trespasser without a prior agreement but only the amount of force which you deemed acceptable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
By the way, I've left the golden rule behind in favor of the platinum rule, a more advanced form of the golden rule.
Have you figured out why the above statement illustrates your lack of principles?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 05:13 PM   #1528
Anemone
Evil Dead
 
Anemone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Autarchist
Posts: 6,092
Blog Entries: 3
__________________
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front.
Anemone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2015, 06:09 PM   #1529
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone View Post
Yeah I doubt a hard lefty like Oliver is someone that belongs in an Ancap thread. I think you've been in Cali too long. The liberal is starting to rub off on you.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 01:16 AM   #1530
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone View Post
I'm forcing movement, as a function of defense against the trespasser. Forcing a law would be holding out pen and paper and saying "sign this or else."
Somewhere in the 500 miles of borders along my my COLA will be a couple of signs like the following:



and:



and:



With those notifications is the best I can do still pushing the trespasser to the boundaries of my property or am I allowed to act upon the obviously posted laws around my property despite any sort of "proportional" response argument? Obviously I don't need, nor is it practical to create a fence of these signs repeatedly, surely it's not my responsibility to ensure the trespasser walks by the signs, especially if they're accessing my property from an unusual edge location where signage isn't necessary or possible (for example: air space). I have publicly announced my laws I'm going to shoot you, and maybe kill you then you trespass anyway; seems legit under ANCAP.

What happens in the event where my property is not the end of the violation zone? For example I live in the middle of the COLA and am surrounded on all sides by people who have the same rule.

Am I responsible for taking my precious time dealing with this trespasser now or am I OK to aggress against my neighbors by simply moving the trespasser off my property to theirs (and incidentally on to someone elses who may have better or worse rules and put the trespasser in the position of continued trespassing). Sure, I could call and warn my neighbors about what I'm doing but what if they all tell me "no, you can't relocate the trespasser to my land"?

Again, too many problems and loopholes develop as soon as you come down from the theoretical to the practical.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 01:42 AM   #1531
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Again, too many problems and loopholes develop as soon as you come down from the theoretical to the practical.
This is the part that Anenome just isn't able to process for whatever reason.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 10:16 PM   #1532
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
It's for the COLAs themselves to figure out by experience. We can't possibly imagine all the problems that will be faced and their solutions, we can only say what's likely and what we'd live under. I wouldn't want to live in a place where if I was mistaken as a trespasser I risk being shot.
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 11:45 PM   #1533
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
This is the part that Anenome just isn't able to process for whatever reason.
I find two main problems with the current conversation (and still have my reservations from previous threads).

1) It's been said "it would be pretty much like it is now where neighboring "states" (colas) would tend to uphold the others rulings" or "trespassing would work about the same in this situation as now" and so on.

So if so much is going to stay the same, why bother changing it or using those sorts of situations as examples of how ANCAP will be different? Based on the above the Government (today) or <some unknown entity> in ANCAP is going to tell me what the appropriate action will be when dealing with a trespasser so what's the difference?

2) Regardless of the situation (in this case it's trespassing specifically but it's really a universal theme) there seems to be a core contradiction.

A person can either:
Be 100% free to set up your own laws and remedies within their sphere of influence (in this case: property boundaries) - a core ANCAP principle
OR
Be forced to comply with "guidelines" including such abstracts as "proportional" reactions based mostly on modern western morals and ethical limitations which is what seems to be described in this conversation when we get to things like "obviously the response would have to be proportionate" and "the most someone could do is move the trespasser".

There is no indication of who is creating these globally applicable ambiguous guidelines or enforcing them.

If I am really free to create my own laws and remedies in my domain who is <unknown entity> to tell me I can't or what the "clear" escalation path might be?

And if there is the possibility for <unknown entity> telling me what I can and can't do or punishing me for not following some (modern western values based) escalation flow chart I never agreed to haven't we nullified the core principle of the ANCAP society?

Last edited by vallor; 03-25-2015 at 12:00 AM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2015, 11:53 PM   #1534
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
I wouldn't want to live in a place where if I was mistaken as a trespasser I risk being shot.
That's the thing though. You aren't living there, you're trespassing in someones else's COLA either on purpose or via ignorance; neither of those two indemnifies you against the repercussions of the violation. As you have said the onus of education on the local laws and customs falls upon the alien, not the native.

So if you can't/won't be bothered to educate yourself how is it my fault if I shoot you as per my posted set of laws?

If I have 100% freedom to create my own laws and remedies who gets to say otherwise without undermining the core principle of the ANCAP society?

Per ANCAP no one gets to wield power over my COLA. I didn't accept what other COLAs had for trespassing laws so, as instructed, I started my own COLA where the penalty for trespassing is exacted via firearm up to and including death. Everything was clearly posted on the web, the trespasser has only themselves to blame.

EDIT:
Now let me circle this back to a point from long, long ago: I'm the trespasser. My kid was just hit by a car and I'm carrying them across the property because it's the fastest way to the hospital and they will die without immediate treatment. Who wins? If the kid dies because the property owner detained me then didn't they just totally agress against the kid and myself by violating the most immediate of all property, ourselves? Now someone with a foundation in modern western ethics and morals would say "the owner should know better than to interfere with a trespasser in cases like this" but modern ethics of the western world aren't universally held or respected.

Plus, once again, a COLA has had their sovereignty at least temporarily abolished when <condition A> is met or face consequences from... someone or something which will be enforcing these global guidelines. This is not 100% freedom to create your own laws and remedies.

Last edited by vallor; 03-25-2015 at 12:16 AM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2015, 12:18 AM   #1535
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
That's the thing though. You aren't living there, you're trespassing in someones else's COLA either on purpose or via ignorance; neither of those two indemnifies you against the repercussions of the violation. As you have said the onus of education on the local laws and customs falls upon the alien, not the native.

So if you can't/won't be bothered to educate yourself how is it my fault if I shoot you as per my posted set of laws?

If I have 100% freedom to create my own laws and remedies who gets to say otherwise without undermining the core principle of the ANCAP society?

Per ANCAP no one gets to wield power over my COLA. I didn't accept what other COLAs had for trespassing laws so, as instructed, I started my own COLA where the penalty for trespassing is exacted via firearm up to and including death. Everything was clearly posted on the web, the trespasser has only themselves to blame.

EDIT:
Now let me circle this back to a point from long, long ago: I'm the trespasser. My kid was just hit by a car and I'm carrying them across the property because it's the fastest way to the hospital and they will die without immediate treatment. Who wins? If the kid dies because the property owner detained me then didn't they just totally agress against the kid and myself by violating the most immediate of all property, ourselves? Now someone with a foundation in modern western ethics and morals would say "the owner should know better than to interfere with a trespasser in cases like this" but modern ethics of the western world aren't universally held or respected.

Plus, once again, a COLA has had their sovereignty at least temporarily abolished when <condition A> is met or face consequences from... someone or something which will be enforcing these global guidelines. This is not 100% freedom to create your own laws and remedies.
Yet he can't see where each COLA all with their own laws, their own courts, their own delta force, wouldn't be a total cluster fuck compared to what we have now.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2015, 10:57 AM   #1536
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
We can't possibly imagine all the problems that will be faced and their solutions, we can only say what's likely and what we'd live under.
This is a significant change in stance from:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
If you really think I haven't spent years thinking about this and you've suddenly found a chink in the armor, you're dreaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
I wouldn't want to live in a place where if I was mistaken as a trespasser I risk being shot.
You mean any place that allows or doesn't allow firearms -- any place? If you're mistaken as a trespasser (mistaken, of course, wasn't the scenario presented to you) then you face the risk of being shot any place, without regard to the law.

This is like saying that there is no chance in being shot if you go to an area that says no firearms are allowed, and unfortunately reality paints a very different picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
It's for the COLAs themselves to figure out by experience.
It appears that the years that you've been thinking about this has resulted in advocating the same controlling laws that fail that you complain that the state does. Your response to not wanting to live in a place where a property owner could "mistakenly" identify you as a trespasser and then shoot you would mean you want to live in a place that governs how you must react to people on your own property. Even if those rules are agreed to and put in place, they don't prevent a property owner from shooting you due to a case of mistaken identity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallor
With those notifications is the best I can do still pushing the trespasser to the boundaries of my property or am I allowed to act upon the obviously posted laws around my property despite any sort of "proportional" response argument?
Per what Anenome tried to claim earlier, yes. You cannot enforce the rules of your property on a person without their prior consent. This creates the odd stance where Anenome says that you are allowed to enforce your rule of who is and isn't allowed on that property, but you're only allowed to enforce the rule utilizing the minimal force allowed to remove them from your property boundaries.

This means that you both are allowed to enforce your rules and you are not allowed to enforce your rules. What really enters into the picture that destroys the idea of pure ownership of your own party and voluntarism is a 3rd party, in this case Anenome, telling you what rules you're allowed to enforce and to what extent -- who is and isn't allowed on your property and at what times.

The demand by Anenome that you must obtain consent from the trespasser before you impose your rules is only true in regards to certain rules as covered above; this demand, however, does not apply to Anenome as he does not require any consent to enforce the law requiring the obtaining of consent by the property owner, nor does he require consent to require a property owner to only enforce their rules on who is and isn't allowed on their property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallor
]If I have 100% freedom to create my own laws and remedies who gets to say otherwise without undermining the core principle of the ANCAP society?
The irony of Anenome's system has always been that people must behave within his ethical/moral parameters, even on their own property. When getting into the dirty details of his dream, people have never been 100% free to create their own laws and remedies -- this is very obvious when looking at Anenome's stance on removing a trespasser.

This is also problematic when looking at how varied the ethical/moral views of the world are. Part of Anenome's dream was to lure poor 3rd world peoples to his "paradise." As seen in places like Europe, importing people from wildly different cultures leads to a lot of clashes; assimilation isn't nearly as easy as many often pretend it is.

Anenome's stance becomes increasingly problematic as he gets to decide what amounts to actual sovereignty -- his declaration that boundaries of the state are "not real." This was part of his rational as to why he would be allowed to utilize a fantasy military force to enter those areas to stop what he believes to be unethical/immoral acts. Using the reasoning of "that person there is bad, we're going to blow crap up to "save" these people" becomes hugely problematic as it enables anyone to validate the breaching of any sovereign lands they do not recognize if even a single person requests help.

The version of Ancap being pushed by Anenome is simply him declaring that the world should be run within his ethical/moral views. As long as a person stays within his views, they're free to do anything they want inside those parameters. This is like playing soccer where you're free to do whatever you want... within the rules of the game.

This is shown here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
This is the same rule that we have now, it's called trespassing. If a business doesn't want you on its property, it doesn't rape and enslave you, it asks you to leave and if you don't it call police who specialize in removing people within the bounds of the law.
The "same rule we have now" is forced parameters on property owners. If a business doesn't want you on its property, it must follow guidelines created by the federal, state, and local governments to remove a person or face prosecution itself. This means that essentially Anenome has placed himself in the role of government that does not require consent to require people to live within parameters. It's a complete mockery of his claim -- you, the property owner, require consent to impose all your laws on a trespasser, he, Anenome, requires no consent to impose his parameters on your private property.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2015, 02:30 PM   #1537
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,518
And he wonders why I keep saying he's been around all the Comifornia Liberals too long.
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2015, 04:46 PM   #1538
Anemone
Evil Dead
 
Anemone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Autarchist
Posts: 6,092
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome
We can't possibly imagine all the problems that will be faced and their solutions, we can only say what's likely and what we'd live under.
So you couldn't figure out that a system which is designed as a legal protocol, not a set of policy prescriptions, as I've said over and over, and that I was only ever defending my own preference and legal norms I would live under and tossing out potential solutions, which I've said over and over, you couldn't figure out that was what I meant and still mean by that statement.

Amazing.

You have never understood from the beginning.

__________________
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front.
Anemone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2015, 10:50 PM   #1539
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Boston/Ontario
Posts: 7,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anemone View Post
So you couldn't figure out that a system which is designed as a legal protocol, not a set of policy prescriptions, as I've said over and over, and that I was only ever defending my own preference and legal norms I would live under and tossing out potential solutions, which I've said over and over, you couldn't figure out that was what I meant and still mean by that statement.

Amazing.

You have never understood from the beginning.

Replace democracy with Ancap and you have the same thing. Cept it's a bunch of different sects all with their own laws. But hey they have liberators in the form of volunteer delta force members. YAY
SpectralThundr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2015, 11:02 PM   #1540
Anenome
Autarchist
 
Anenome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Recursion City
Posts: 49,888
Blog Entries: 62
__________________
Choose your government: the majority ruling the minority, the minority ruling the majority, or everyone ruling themselves long as they do not initiate force, fraud, or theft against one another.
Anenome is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 PM.