Political Theory

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Buzz Killington — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:45:12 GMT

I'm not afraid of anything.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

ThatOldGuy — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:41:52 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:
It's in the Members Issues group.

Ja, I'm just not seeing it. I feel like there have been threads made regarding fun, but I've only seen the word written (I'll probably have to find an audio dictionary to even know how the word is pronounced).

For some reason I can't find any thread regarding fun. I know I've read somewhere that a lot of posters here go clubbing or play video games in their spare, spare time.

That does it. I'm making a thread.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Autolykos — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:28:09 GMT

Right, so what's your answer? Or are you afraid of answering?

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Buzz Killington — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:03:23 GMT

Thanks.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Autolykos — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:44:46 GMT

See above.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Buzz Killington — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:35:38 GMT

What is your question?

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Autolykos — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:22:37 GMT

That doesn't answer my question.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Buzz Killington — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:17:32 GMT

Eh, I just won't participate in the raids.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Autolykos — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:16:55 GMT

Buzz Killington:
But why does aggression have to be violent? Insults can also be damaging to an individual.

Do you think other people can actually make you feel insulted?

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

gotlucky — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 04:34:02 GMT

Post.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

gotlucky — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 04:32:38 GMT

Ruple.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

gotlucky — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 04:32:24 GMT

Quad.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

gotlucky — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 04:32:05 GMT

Fool on the Hill:

But I thought trespassing violated the NAP?

It does. Let's look at Walter Block's concise definition of the NAP:

The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.

Now, let's look at the wikipedia explanation of trespass:

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.

Trespass to the person, historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming.^[1] Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery";^[2] battery, "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it";^[2] and false imprisonment, the "unlaw[ful] obstruct[ion] or depriv[ation] of freedom from restraint of movement."^[3]

Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as "an intentional interference with the possession of personal property...proximately caus[ing] injury."^[4] Trespass to chattel, does not require a showing of damages. Simply the "intermeddling with or use of...the personal property" of another gives cause of action for trespass.^[5]^[6] SinceCompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions,^[7] various courts have applied the principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage.^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]

Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of "wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property."^[12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. "[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser", however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.^[13]

If you read the whole quote on trespass, you will see that it very much has to do with violence, however, I assume that you meant trespassing on land. But that too requires aggression. The important point to understand is the unilateral reassignment of property rights. Each person has a right to his property (that's why it is his property), and you have a right to control it in the manner you wish (so long as you aren't violating other people's rights). A trespasser is unilaterally reassigning the property rights of the owner. He is taking control of something that is not his. It is more obvious when the owner confronts the aggressor, but even if the owner is not present, the trespasser is still an aggressor.

Remember, as Block pointed out, the NAP has to do with both the person and property.

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

Fool on the Hill — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 04:08:08 GMT

But I thought trespassing violated the NAP?

Re: Do people "own" their websites?

gotlucky — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:45:04 GMT

Buzz Killington:

But why does aggression have to be violent? Insults can also be damaging to an individual.

From the wiktionary on aggression:

aggression (plural aggressions)

The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.

The practice or habit of launching attacks.

Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

Notice the words hostile, destructive, invasion, and attacks? If you look up hostile, you will see that it is also the desire to injure another. And notice the first 2 definitions are specifically about initiating violence? That is what libertarians are talking about. We are using a dictionary definition of the word.

Some people like to say things like, "Johnny argues so aggressively" or "Timmy plays chess so aggressively", but this is a metaphoric use of the word. Literally, these people are not using aggression, but saying they are aggressive conveys a certain meaning that they want to get across, even if it is not the dictionary use of the word.

Insulting someone may be aggressive in a metaphoric sense, they are aggressive in their attitude. But libertarians are talking about aggressive actions.