Political Theory

Re: Economics of the universe

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:30:19 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
That may be true, if enclosure is aggression, but you didn't answer my first question: on what grounds do you claim that my denial of trespass, even in this situation, is aggression, since all I am acting on is my property?

The same grounds I would use to say a thief trying to claim stolen property is his, is initiating aggression. A simple denial of passage is not initiation of force, the surrounding through use of property is.

Re: Economics of the universe

Aster_Lacnala — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:39:02 GMT

That may be true, if enclosure is aggression, but you didn't answer my first question: on what grounds do you claim that my denial of trespass, even in this situation, is aggression, since all I am acting on is my property?

Re: Economics of the universe

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:57:34 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

Okay. Then on what grounds do you make this claim? The only thing you are acting on is your property.

Let me raise another issue. If a person has four neighbors, and they are the only way off his property, and three of them put up fences, is the fourth obligated to let the person enter his property?

No. I would say that the 4th neighbor, when he sets is property boundry has to allow an alley out or something to that effect.

Re: Economics of the universe

liberty student — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:41:02 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
If a person has four neighbors, and they are the only way off his property, and three of them put up fences, is the fourth obligated to let the person enter his property?

No.

Re: Economics of the universe

Aster_Lacnala — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:40:28 GMT

Okay. Then on what grounds do you make this claim? The only thing you are acting on is your property.

Let me raise another issue. If a person has four neighbors, and they are the only way off his property, and three of them put up fences, is the fourth obligated to let the person enter his property?

Re: Economics of the universe

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:49:23 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

You misread me. I am saying that in a legal system based on the NAP, refusal to allow someone on your property, even if it entraps them, is not illegal, because is not initiation of aggression. It is, however, immoral. In this case, trespass is illegal, but it is not immoral. It is not always immoral to initiate aggression.

However, since people seem to think morality is subjective, this whole thread looks only at the legality of things under the NAP. Therefore, in the situation I described, the only legal option is death by vacuum.

And my contention was that entrapment by property is initiation of aggression.

Re: Economics of the universe

Aster_Lacnala — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:43:14 GMT

You misread me. I am saying that in a legal system based on the NAP, refusal to allow someone on your property, even if it entraps them, is not illegal, because is not initiation of aggression. It is, however, immoral. In this case, trespass is illegal, but it is not immoral. It is not always immoral to initiate aggression.

However, since people seem to think morality is subjective, this whole thread looks only at the legality of things under the NAP. Therefore, in the situation I described, the only legal option is death by vacuum.

Re: Economics of the universe

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:28:46 GMT

Of course its not immoral you've defined it that way. I'm right your wrong. Is that an accurate summary?

Re: Economics of the universe

Aster_Lacnala — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:03:25 GMT

Well, if you define an embargo as using force to prevent others from trading, then of course an embargo is an initiation of force. You just defined it that way. However, that definition is debatable. Further, I would not say that refusal to allow someone on your property is an embargo, since you aren't stopping them from trading their property with others - you simply aren't allowing them access to your own.

Now, I have already said in another thread that I don't consider it inherently immoral to violate someone else's rights, and I think there are moral arguments in favor of trespassing when one has been completely blocked off like this. But I don't see it as initiation of aggression to keep people off your property. And in the situation we are describing, under a law system that bases all legal decisions on property rights, it would be legal to evict people into space.

Re: Economics of the universe

twistedbydsign99 — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:19:10 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

This is not an embargo. I'm not refusing to trade with them. I'm simply refusing to let them trespass.

Moreover, an embargo is not initiation of aggression. A blockade might be, but not an embargo.

An embargo is not simply disallowing trade from you, its disallowing by force others from trading. If you were asleep and that night all your neighbors sold their houses and the government sold the square of road in front of your house and they erected a 200 foot tall electrified fence around your house, my claim is this is initiation of aggression.

Re: Economics of the universe

TelfordUS — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:06:05 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

This is not an embargo. I'm not refusing to trade with them. I'm simply refusing to let them trespass.

Moreover, an embargo is not initiation of aggression. A blockade might be, but not an embargo.

I agree, embargoes don't seem aggressive... but what if your embargo included basic necessities like food or water and you were the only supplier?

Re: Economics of the universe

Aster_Lacnala — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:32:02 GMT

This is not an embargo. I'm not refusing to trade with them. I'm simply refusing to let them trespass.

Moreover, an embargo is not initiation of aggression. A blockade might be, but not an embargo.

Re: Economics of the universe

twistedbydsign99 — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:46:22 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:

Truthfully?

IF there are no positive obligations and...

IF you are allowed to deny access to your property, whether it be your lawn or the universe and...

IF you are allowed to use force to counter someone else's initiation of force, such as trespassing...

THEN there is nothing illegal about shooting someone who happens to step onto your lawn.

To say you have to give them time to comply, or an adequate warning, or whatever, is to say a positive obligation exists. Now, I happen to believe this, but I think positive rights exist. Anybody who doesn't, however, cannot hold that it is illegal to use lethal force immediately on trespassers.

However, I don't wish to debate the issue of positive rights here - I already derailed the thread enough. ;)

When one creates an embargo you initiate aggression.

Re: Economics of the universe

Aster_Lacnala — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:15:19 GMT

Truthfully?

IF there are no positive obligations and...

IF you are allowed to deny access to your property, whether it be your lawn or the universe and...

IF you are allowed to use force to counter someone else's initiation of force, such as trespassing...

THEN there is nothing illegal about shooting someone who happens to step onto your lawn.

To say you have to give them time to comply, or an adequate warning, or whatever, is to say a positive obligation exists. Now, I happen to believe this, but I think positive rights exist. Anybody who doesn't, however, cannot hold that it is illegal to use lethal force immediately on trespassers.

However, I don't wish to debate the issue of positive rights here - I already derailed the thread enough. ;)

Re: Economics of the universe

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:06:44 GMT

Aster_Lacnala:
Is that a positive obligation?

Perhaps, but perhaps you could take the negative stance that you aren't going to shoot people that cross your grass? That seems way more dangerous to me than making a fenced alley way.