Because libertarianism is based on property rights. The non-material is not property.
Correction: certain kinds of libertarianiasm (the 'Rothbardian' one) are based (only) on property rights over material things.
Property rights as such are never 'material'; they are rights, i.e. areas within a human being can justifiable act.
"What right is violated?"
You don't think: "I will kill you/lock you up if you do drugs" isn't a violation of rights?
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
AdrianHealey: Correction: certain kinds of libertarianiasm (the 'Rothbardian' one) are based (only) on property rights over material things. Property rights as such are never 'material'; they are rights, i.e. areas within a human being can justifiable act.
For the sake of shortcuts, I already know that Sage is working from a Rothbardian framework.
AdrianHealey: "What right is violated?" You don't think: "I will kill you/lock you up if you do drugs" isn't a violation of rights?
Same question to you. What right is being violated? It's an honest question. If you're going to claim there is a rights violation, identify the right. If you can't (and I at this moment cannot) then it may not be a rights violation.
So?
Oke.
Same question to you. What right is being violated? It's an honest question. If you're going to claim there is a rights violation, identify the right. If you can't (and I at this moment cannot) then it may not be a rights violation. So?
I would say that there is no reason to abandon the traditional legal view:
Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s Thus, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself.
Thus, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself.
The 'rightsviolation' is the violation not to be agressed against your property. Someone who will shoot you (or lock you up) if you do drugs is no different than someone who takes your wallet while pointing a gun at you. The property right is the property right over the drugs and your body to use them as you wish.
I don't think your conception of objective rights is very well defined.
I would argue that the concept of 'objective rights' is dubious and requires further clarification what one means by this concept.
Does pointing a gun and saying 'give me your wallet or I'll shoot you' constitutes agression or not?
havent pages of the universal self ownership of external (what ever that means) resources been put forth at mises sites?
was something left out of those discussions concerning property rights?
i expect if i try to take tasty berries from knots farm someone would try to stop me?
the berries woulndt be jointly owned.
or a direct threat of physical violence;
sometimes these things are subtle.
AdrianHealey:The 'rightsviolation' is the violation not to be agressed against your property. Someone who will shoot you (or lock you up) if you do drugs is no different than someone who takes your wallet while pointing a gun at you. The property right is the property right over the drugs and your body to use them as you wish.
You're making the same error Sage makes. You're confusing intent with action. I can say I will kill you and not intend to kill you or even attempt it. Action and intent are not the same thing.
Someone who plans a bank robbery and doesn't go through with it, is not a bank robber. Likewise someone who talks about violence but doesn't commit it, isn't committing aggression.
liberty student:You're making the same error Sage makes. You're confusing intent with action. I can say I will kill you and not intend to kill you or even attempt it. Action and intent are not the same thing. Someone who plans a bank robbery and doesn't go through with it, is not a bank robber. Likewise someone who talks about violence but doesn't commit it, isn't committing aggression.
So I can point a gun at you and say 'give me your wallet or I'll shoot'? What if you give me your wallet; did I stole this wallet from you or did you voluntary gave it to me? As long as I don't shoot anyone; I'm not a criminal?
AdrianHealey:I would argue that the concept of 'objective rights' is dubious
Indeed, but that is the framework we are discussing.
AdrianHealey:Does pointing a gun and saying 'give me your wallet or I'll shoot you' constitutes agression or not?
Are they joking? Will they really shoot? What will they do if I say no? We can't know intent. All we can know is that they are acting like they "may" aggress against us. So the question becomes, when does acting coercively without actually aggressing become aggression?
There is no universal standard based on whether LS feels fear that he is being aggressed against. That is a positive standard which I do not think passes the test of universability.
You're making the same error Sage makes.
i dont see an error. if protecting oneself if a right, and if information arises that would reduce ones own protection then taking steps to see if the information is true seems rightful.
sthomper:if protecting oneself if a right, and if information arises that would reduce ones own protection then taking steps to see if the information is true seems rightful.
So if Iraq is developing WMDs, it is ok to attack it? Or likewise, if your neighbor buys a tank and parks it on his lawn with the barrel pointed at your house, you are justified in shooting at him in so-called self-defense?
AdrianHealey:So I can point a gun at you and say 'give me your wallet or I'll shoot'?
What if you point a gun at me and say nothing? What if you point a gun at me and say, "Sing happy birthday!" What if you point a gun at me and say, "Pow, you're dead!"
What if you don't point a gun at me, and you say "Give me your wallet"? What if you shake a baseball bat at me, and say "give me your wallet or I wil shoot"?
AdrianHealey:What if you give me your wallet; did I stole this wallet from you or did you voluntary gave it to me?
I'd argue that I voluntarily gave it to you.
AdrianHealey:As long as I don't shoot anyone; I'm not a criminal?
Can you define/explain this framework?
Are they joking? Will they really shoot? What will they do if I say no? We can't know intent. All we can know is that they are acting like they "may" aggress against us. So the question becomes, when does acting coercively without actually aggressing become aggression? There is no universal standard based on whether LS feels fear that he is being aggressed against. That is a positive standard which I do not think passes the test of universability.
And that doesn't need to pass the test of universability? Why are you so hammered on that it should? It's one thing to think natural law through on a rational basis - which we ought to do - but it's another thing to apply this in practise. Don't confuse philosophy of law with jurisprudence; philosophy of law tells us we can't agress against property. Jurisprudence - the interpretation/application of these theoretical concepts - has to tell us when there is such a thing as agression or not. There is no such thing as 'objective' law in this sense, nor can there be.
If I pass you in the supermarkt and I bump in to you, did I agress against you? Most people probably would say 'no(. What if I shoot a bullet through your brain? Most people probably would say 'yes'.
Certain kinds of behavior are identified as being agressive - that is why these kinds of behavior are used by people who want to threat other people. I can imagine that in some cultures given someone a kiss or a pat on the back could mean 'I'm going to kill you' (I'm not sure if this really true; just making a fictious example). But nobody in our culture would comprehend these actions as to be life threatening and will respond totally different. The legal system of a society must be different accordingly.
One must keep in mind the distinction between natural law - which can be identified by the use of logic and reason (like Rothbard, Hoppe en Van Dun tried) and the application/interpretation of this in a legal system. Property is fine; but what constitutes property?
liberty student: Or likewise, if your neighbor buys a tank and parks it on his lawn with the barrel pointed at your house, you are justified in shooting at him in so-called self-defense?
Maybe, maybe not. This is beyong theoretical inquiry because of the impossibility of constituting all the relevant facts that should be considered. But the general idea is: if you have reasons to believe that someone else is about to kill you, then yes: you are allowed to defend yourself.
What if someone comes running towards you with a knife saying 'I'm going to kill you!' Are you justified in shooting him, because you can't know wether or not he's going to kill you? The logical conclusion of the position you are defending is that nobody can act in self-defense - unless when someone is beating the crap out of him or something. But self defense in cases where it's 'the guy who strikes first wins'; self-defense is, in effect, a concept that is impossible. But according to this theory - as you make it clear to me - you can't shoot the guy in the situation described above, because you can't know wether he's going to agress against you?
liberty student: Coercion is not always aggression.
No but coercion at bare minimum does require the threat of using aggression. So coercion must be classified as violence. Do you agree?
The man pointing a gun and demanding your wallet is, therefore,committing violence against you.
My framework allows me to say: it depends. Again: I see human (inter)action not as something static in which you can lay down the rules in all situation. What you can do, is to have a rational inquiry behind certain principles. My best friend who loves guns singing happy birthday while shooting in the air doesn't constitute a threat in any reasonable circumstance. A person I don't know might scare me while doing the same. The threat of agression is something that always depends on the circumstance and has, indeed, a subjective aspect to it. That doesn't make it irrelevant though.
I'd argue that this is indeed what your answer should be, given the framework you have created. I'd say this framework is wrong for reasons I tried to explain.
As long as you don't commit aggression. Coercion is not always aggression.
What's the difference?
DD5: liberty student: Coercion is not always aggression. No but coercion at bare minimum does require the threat of using aggression. So coercion must be classified as violence. Do you agree? The man pointing a gun and demanding your wallet is, therefore,committing violence against you.
Not all violence is aggression. Violence can be consensual. Violence can be self-defense.
liberty student: DD5: liberty student: Coercion is not always aggression. No but coercion at bare minimum does require the threat of using aggression. So coercion must be classified as violence. Do you agree? The man pointing a gun and demanding your wallet is, therefore,committing violence against you. Not all violence is aggression. Violence can be consensual. Violence can be self-defense.
True. Let me rephrase that. Coercion must be classified as initiated violence committed by one party against another not in self-defense. Do you agree?
Because if yes, it is hard to see how coercion does not always fit the criterion of aggression.
AdrianHealey:Maybe, maybe not. This is beyong theoretical inquiry because of the impossibility of constituting all the relevant facts that should be considered. But the general idea is: if you have reasons to believe that someone else is about to kill you, then yes: you are allowed to defend yourself.
Which is it, beyond the relevant facts or not? If you defend yourself by using force, and the person you thought was a threat really was not, have you not been the one to commit aggression? If I think you are a threat to me, am I justified in attacking you in "self-defense"?
AdrianHealey:What if someone comes running towards you with a knife saying 'I'm going to kill you!'
What if they arrive at you, and don't kill you?
AdrianHealey:The logical conclusion of the position you are defending is that nobody can act in self-defense
Not at all. I am challenging sloppy assumptions. We're all here to learn. We don't learn unless we challenge premises. Thus far, no one has answered with much strength the challenges I have made. Seems we have a lot of work (discussion and further inquiry) to do on these topics because the conception of justice held by different folks here seems to me to be inconsistent at best.
AdrianHealey:But self defense in cases where it's 'the guy who strikes first wins'; self-defense is, in effect, a concept that is impossible.
The guy who strikes first is by definition aggressing. It is the initiation of force.
I'll throw a bone out there. If someone runs at you with a knife saying "I will kill you" , then self-defense might mean adopting a defensive posture. Preparing to block a blow. Running away. Requesting assistance. It does not necessitate killing the individual you believe may attack you.
AdrianHealey:But according to this theory - as you make it clear to me - you can't shoot the guy in the situation described above, because you can't know wether he's going to agress against you?
Again, either intervention is justified or not. So if I can attack one guy because I alone perceive him to be a threat, regardless of his intentions, actions or capacity to carry out the threat I imagine, then we're in a positivistic world where there is no consistent concept of what constitutes aggression, because everything I perceive to be aggressive is aggression, whether that is supported by anything or not.
DD5:Coercion must be classified as initiated violence committed by one party against another not in self-defense. Do you agree?
No. You miss the fact that the initiation of coercion is not the initiation of aggresion. I can coerce someone without using any force whatsoever.
We're way offtopic. I want to split this to a new thread, because I can spend all day challenging weak libertarian premises, and the original topic about external property is important.
I tried to explain it to the best of my capabilities, but I wasn't able to convince you.. I'll leave at that.
The best explanation for the position I take that I'm able to give, is this one:
And that doesn't need to pass the test of universability? Why are you so hammered on that it should? It's one thing to think natural law through on a rational basis - which we ought to do - but it's another thing to apply this in practise. Don't confuse philosophy of law with jurisprudence; philosophy of law tells us we can't agress against property. Jurisprudence - the interpretation/application of these theoretical concepts - has to tell us when there is such a thing as agression or not. There is no such thing as 'objective' law in this sense, nor can there be. If I pass you in the supermarkt and I bump in to you, did I agress against you? Most people probably would say 'no(. What if I shoot a bullet through your brain? Most people probably would say 'yes'. Certain kinds of behavior are identified as being agressive - that is why these kinds of behavior are used by people who want to threat other people. I can imagine that in some cultures given someone a kiss or a pat on the back could mean 'I'm going to kill you' (I'm not sure if this really true; just making a fictious example). But nobody in our culture would comprehend these actions as to be life threatening and will respond totally different. The legal system of a society must be different accordingly. One must keep in mind the distinction between natural law - which can be identified by the use of logic and reason (like Rothbard, Hoppe en Van Dun tried) and the application/interpretation of this in a legal system. Property is fine; but what constitutes property?
If you are not convinced, then fine. Someone else can try it.
You are, by the way, undermining the whole property structure of society, because pushing your argument means that we need universal approval on what is property and what is not. Property is not something 'objective', but subjective (just as the whole interpretation of the legal rules of natural law are). If you push your reasoning, you are also attacking property as such. You can do that - but I would say it is wrong for the very same reason.
iraq? or saddam? or the bathists? or the kurds?
weapons of mass defense?
if i pointed a gun at you on one side of a line. what would you do?
liberty student: DD5:Coercion must be classified as initiated violence committed by one party against another not in self-defense. Do you agree? No. You miss the fact that the initiation of coercion is not the initiation of aggresion. I can coerce someone without using any force whatsoever.
You seem to be resorting to a very narrow definition of aggression that pertains only to physical force. That is, physical contact must be present. But the concept of aggression cannot possibly refer to only physical contact unless you specifically define it as such. Any further argument then becomes an argument over terminology, for it is obvious that the "threat of physical force" does not contain physical force. I don't care about terminology and I don't want to argue about it.
It is a fact that in any situation when coercion is used, there is one party that is committing the coercion, and one that is its victim who is deprived of making a choice in the absence of any threat of being injured. Do you agree that coercion is a form of violence?
sthomper: iraq? or saddam? or the bathists? or the kurds? weapons of mass defense? if i pointed a gun at you on one side of a line. what would you do?
This sort of inquiry is pointless. What I would do is irrelevant.
DD5:You seem to be resorting to a very narrow definition of aggression that pertains only to physical force.
That's not completely untrue. Aggression is the initiation of force. Blackmail is coercion. Generally Libertarians accept blackmail, or that reputation (what others think of you, including thinking that they would be better off if you were dead) are not aggression because we don't own what others think. Likewise, we don't own what other people say.
DD5:I don't care about terminology and I don't want to argue about it.
That's strange, because you jumped into a discussion on definition of terms.
DD5:It is a fact that in any situation when coercion is used, there is one party that is committing the coercion, and one that is its victim who is deprived of making a choice in the absence of any threat of being injured.
A threat is not an injury.
DD5:Do you agree that coercion is a form of violence?
No, I don't believe blackmail for example is violence.
liberty student: DD5:Do you agree that coercion is a form of violence? No, I don't believe blackmail for example is violence.
No, blackmail is not violence.
Ok, you are not limiting the use of coercion to compelling one to act against his voluntary choice by the use of some form of violence.
But then "Coercion" the way you are using it becomes a useless term for libertarianism. Perhaps it is not the proper term then. I think it was Rothbard who criticized Hayek for defining "coercion" the way you are.
What then is the proper term for when one party uses the threat of using physical force in order to compel another party to act against its voluntary choice?
If one takes the view that it cannot be established until physical injury has been committed, then there is no way to avoid chaos.
Let me put it in another way:
Do you not consider an armed robbery that did not result in physical injury or death an act of aggression?
AdrianHealey:You are, by the way, undermining the whole property structure of society, because pushing your argument means that we need universal approval on what is property and what is not. Property is not something 'objective', but subjective (just as the whole interpretation of the legal rules of natural law are). If you push your reasoning, you are also attacking property as such. You can do that - but I would say it is wrong for the very same reason.
We're just talking past one another, and I am having a rough day, leaving me without the will to carry on.
Then I urge you to go to bed/have a nice meal/do something relaxing/or something in his area of activities.
I'm going to bed. It's midnight.
DD5:But then "Coercion" the way you are using it becomes a useless term for libertarianism. Perhaps it is not the proper term then. I think it was Rothbard who criticized Hayek for defining "coercion" the way you are.
I'm defining coercion as what it means. I don't particularly care what Rothbard thought about it, I have my own thoughts about it, apparently so did Hayek.
DD5: What then is the proper term for when one party uses the threat of using physical force in order to compel another party to act against its voluntary choice?
Coercion.
DD5:If one takes the view that it cannot be established until physical injury has been committed, then there is no way to avoid chaos.
By definining what constitutes injury, we can avoid chaos. Your assertion doesn't make sense.
DD5:Do you not consider an armed robbery that did not result in physical injury or death an act of aggression?
Sure, it is aggression against property. Threatening to rob the bank, or planning to rob the bank are not aggression.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
liberty student: DD5:Do you not consider an armed robbery that did not result in physical injury or death an act of aggression? Sure, it is aggression against property.
Sure, it is aggression against property.
Why is it aggression, because the threat is occurring on the victim's property? So if the threat is executed from remote (like a helicopter), it is not aggression. Sorry, but I just don't follow your logic. perhaps, I am misunderstanding.
liberty student:Threatening to rob the bank, or planning to rob the bank are not aggression
I agree, but if the threat is at a point where there is imminent threat like the gun pointed to your head, when can we agree on the fact that aggressive or violent behavior is taking place? Before or after the bullet is released?
the guy on 'flip this house' show said 'perceptiion is reality'.
i guess threats occuer from evil people in different forms and threats occur from those who feel threatened.
if you perceive a threat and dont want to experience an outcome take whatever measures necessary.
AdrianHealey: Because libertarianism is based on property rights. The non-material is not property. Correction: certain kinds of libertarianiasm (the 'Rothbardian' one) are based (only) on property rights over material things. Property rights as such are never 'material'; they are rights, i.e. areas within a human being can justifiable act.
You missed the point of that sentence imo. Things that are not scarce (i.e physical) cannot be property. Hence you cannot have a "right" to control over non-scarce things, in the meta-physical... like ideas and IP.
That's what I got from that one sentence anyway. Having said that, I dunno who you are quoting or the proper context.
This may be what you're looking for: Physical Invasion or "Aggression" versus "Harm" in Libertarianism
"The normative principle I am suggesting for the law is simply this: No action should be considered illicit or illegal unless it invades, or aggresses against, the person or just property of another. Only invasive actions should be declared illegal, and combated with the full power of the law. The invasion must be concrete and physical. There are degrees of seriousness of such invasion, and hence, different proper degrees of restitution or punishment. "Burglary," simple invasion of property for purposes of theft, is less serious than "robbery," where armed force is likely to be used against the victim. Here, however, we are not concerned with the questions of degrees of invasion or punishment, but simply with invasion per se."
If no man may invade another person's "just" property, what is our criterion of justice to be?[11] There is no space here to elaborate on a theory of justice in property titles. Suffice it to say that the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.[12]
You missed the point of that sentence imo.
No, I didn't. But thanks for your concern!
Things that are not scarce (i.e physical) cannot be property. Hence you cannot have a "right" to control over non-scarce things, in the meta-physical... like ideas and IP.
In particular kinds of interpretation of libertarianism; yes.
The invasion must be concrete and physical.
And this vision of law of Rothbard is wrong (but can be excuses since in this context it wasn't necessary to elaborate extensively on a complete vision of law) - even Rothbard himself didn't hold it consistently. If this were to be correct; a threat of invasion couldn't be considered agression and thus illegal. (The same point Liberty Student made over and over again; but which, to me, is wrong, for reasons I tried to explain, but he wasn't convinced.)
AdrianHealey: Then I urge you to go to bed/have a nice meal/do something relaxing/or something in his area of activities.
Good advice. I might stop back to answer more posts tomorrow. Thanks.
AdrianHealey: The invasion must be concrete and physical. And this vision of law of Rothbard is wrong (but can be excuses since in this context it wasn't necessary to elaborate extensively on a complete vision of law) - even Rothbard himself didn't hold it consistently. If this were to be correct; a threat of invasion couldn't be considered agression and thus illegal.
And this vision of law of Rothbard is wrong (but can be excuses since in this context it wasn't necessary to elaborate extensively on a complete vision of law) - even Rothbard himself didn't hold it consistently. If this were to be correct; a threat of invasion couldn't be considered agression and thus illegal.
Wrong.
"Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else's property without his consent, and is therefore "implicit theft."
It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. Any remote or indirect criterion – any "risk" or "threat" – is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed "defender" against the alleged "threat." One of the major arguments, for example, for the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was that the imbibing of alcohol increased the likelihood of (unspecified) people committing various crimes; therefore, prohibition was held to be a "defensive" act in defense of person and property. In fact, of course, it was brutally invasive of the rights of person and property, of the right to buy, sell, and use alcoholic beverages." - Rothbard
lol..
Conza88: AdrianHealey: The invasion must be concrete and physical. And this vision of law of Rothbard is wrong (but can be excuses since in this context it wasn't necessary to elaborate extensively on a complete vision of law) - even Rothbard himself didn't hold it consistently. If this were to be correct; a threat of invasion couldn't be considered agression and thus illegal. Wrong. "Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else's property without his consent, and is therefore "implicit theft." Thus, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself. It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. Any remote or indirect criterion – any "risk" or "threat" – is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed "defender" against the alleged "threat." One of the major arguments, for example, for the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was that the imbibing of alcohol increased the likelihood of (unspecified) people committing various crimes; therefore, prohibition was held to be a "defensive" act in defense of person and property. In fact, of course, it was brutally invasive of the rights of person and property, of the right to buy, sell, and use alcoholic beverages." - Rothbard lol..
I don't think you understood what I was saying, because I was referring to the exact same (sort of) paragraph as you do to 'proof' that I'm wrong.
The point, again, is that law doesn't only involve around 'fysical' acts, but also around the thread thereoff. From a legal point of view, there isn't much of a difference: they both should be outlawed. (Equating them - as Rothbard does - though isn't correct either. It is clear that they are not the same. If they were the same, we wouldn't need someone explaining them that they were.) That's why I protested to the sentence "The invasion must be concrete and fysical", because that is simply not true, not even on Rothbard's own account. (Hence the remark that he didn't hold that view consistently and hence me also saying that it can be excused because of the context you were quoting from, i.e. the text on property rights and air populotion. You don't really need caveats on 'pollution or the threat thereoff' (or something) there.
I thus don't really get why you would say 'wrong'. If one thinks that agression must be physical before it ought to be illegal, it logicly follows that the threat of agression (per definition not physical) shouldn't be illegal. The Rothbard position (as well as mine) is that they both should be illegal, and thus Rothbard is wrong (and inconsistent) when he says that 'invasion must be concrete and physical' before it's a crime - but given the context of where he said it, it's understandable and he probably wasn't advocating a inconsistent position. Just not using more words then necassary. (Something I'm not doing in this very post.)
AdrianHealey:exact same (sort of)
Isn't.
AdrianHealey:Equating them - as Rothbard does - though isn't correct either.
He doesn't. Do you know what a corollary is?
corollary [kəˈrɒlərɪ]n pl -laries
1. (Philosophy / Logic) a proposition that follows directly from the proof of another proposition
"But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else's property without his consent, and is therefore "implicit theft."
AdrianHealey:That's why I protested to the sentence "The invasion must be concrete and fysical", because that is simply not true, not even on Rothbard's own account.
People can "refute" a lot of things, by taking one sentence and ignoring everything else ever written by the author.
AdrianHealey:Rothbard is wrong (and inconsistent)
AdrianHealey:given the context of where he said it, it's understandable and he probably wasn't advocating a inconsistent position. Just not using more words then necassary.
From the same section;
In the law of torts, "harm" is generally treated as physical invasion of person or property and usually requires payment of damages for "emotional" harm if and only if that harm is a consequence of physical invasion. Thus, within the standard law of trespass — an invasion of person or property — "battery" is the actual invasion of someone else's body, while "assault" is the creation by one person in another of a fear, or apprehension, of battery.[17]
To be a tortious assault and therefore subject to legal action, tort law wisely requires the threat to be near and imminent. Mere insults and violent words, vague future threats, or simple possession of a weapon cannot constitute an assault[18]; there must be accompanying overt action to give rise to the apprehension of an imminent physical battery.[19] Or, to put it another way, there must be a concrete threat of an imminent battery before the prospective victim may legitimately use force and violence to defend himself.
Physical invasion or molestation need not be actually "harmful" or inflict severe damage in order to constitute a tort. The courts properly have held that such acts as spitting in someone's face or ripping off someone's hat are batteries. Chief Justice Holt's words in 1704 still seem to apply: "The least touching of another in anger is a battery." While the actual damage may not be substantial, in a profound sense we may conclude that the victim's person was molested, was interfered with, by the physical aggression against him, and that hence these seemingly minor actions have become legal wrongs.[20]
[20] Hence, the wisdom of the court's decision in South Brilliant Coal Co. v. Williams: "If Gibbs kicked plaintiff with his foot, it cannot be said as a matter of law that there was no physical injury to him. In a legal sense, it was physical injury, though it may have caused no physical suffering, and though the sensation resulting therefrom may have lasted but for a moment" South Brilliant Coal Co. v. Williams, 206 Ala. 637,638 (1921). In Prosser, Law of Torts, p.36. Also see Epstein, Cases on Torts, pp. 903ff.
I don't think you understand the things I was trying to prove.
Or, put it differently: what is your point and where does it contradict mine?