As I said to Peter, I am notoriously bad at making short posts.

Nevertheless, they are a delight to read when one finds the time.

you fail to address my point. Let me reformulate once again.

1) Unless an object is flying, it’s positioned on land. Correct?
2) Any object, when positioned on land, makes it more difficult for you to cross to some land in some cases. Correct?
3) You claim that you respect property rights in objects (other than land). Correct?
4) You also simultaneously claim that if an object is making it more difficult for you to cross to any land, you are permitted to damage that object in order to reach the land, and the owner of that object is not permitted to protect that object. Correct?
5) 1 and 2 show that the problem I’m describing is practically omnipresent. Correct?
6) 3 and 4 contradict each other. Correct?

I will make that my biggest agenda, the argument you asked me to focus on.

I fear you will write an essay for each response, so I would prefer everything at once, and to keep it as brief as possible, as I do not have so much time to juggle between social life, work, and this. I’ll do the same, were it is possible.

Thanks.

Peter, I have started also addressing your last post to me. I think it is only right that I respond to you. However, this will be it, unless something changes, because we have been regurgitating the same stuff back and forth and I am bored now.

Give me some time, and you wont be disappointed. Eventually you and I will have a small book! “Dueling pendejos” xD (thats laughing at all of us)

BTW, don’t think I didn’t catch your comment to Absurda about the “impossibilities of Mutualism”. I’m hurt, deeply deeply hurt

So long as they are on common land, and are preventing people from using common land. Yes, those are the qualifiers. It is a clear “threat”. God forbid any children fall into one of his death traps

Okay so would you admit if they were not blocking access to any public land it would not be an act of aggression to build such a contraption? Certainly if it is safely stored in one’s house it wouldn’t be an act of aggression. What if it is somewhere that is prone to being trespassed on, say a garden? I only want to make sure your criterion for aggression is that it blocks access to someone else’s property, and not the fact that it may entail bodily harm to someone. Are you saying only defense of one’s property that does not cause bodily damage to potential trespassers is justified?

See, these traps ignore community. They ignore other people

But that is a general complaint of property. I am ignoring my community when I keep to my business inside my own house, and yet we seem to agree it would be a violation of my rights to confiscate my house for the “good of the community”. Clearly this cannot be the offending nature of these death traps. We probably agree on the absurdity of violently demanding that one care about his community (aka modern liberals).

I agree with the Blockean Proviso here (I need to read more on it to understand it a little more). If you are to be a consistent anarchist, or libertarian, you have to not only object when the state does this, but also when it is done privately

Well ancaps are not in any sort of agreement over that proviso, especially considering the Hoppean argument that reaches essentially the opposite conclusion. Being more of a Hoppean than a Blockean (though I do think Block is awesome) I do not accept the Blockean Proviso and instead insist that enforcement of such a “right to passage” necessarily involves a destruction of the property used to block passage. My reasoning is that the Blockean Proviso implies more than it means to, like that you can’t build anything on a piece of property, passage over which is required to (feasibly) reach other not-yet-owned land. Like you can’t build a house that blocks the only passage to more land that is otherwise surrounded by impassible mountains. That highlights the error of reasoning: one must always attach the qualifier “feasibly” and there is nowhere to objectively draw that line. If I built a house on some land in the middle of a field it makes it harder for you to get to the land on the opposite side. Now you have to go around my house. How wide can my house get before you proclaim this to be “blocking” entry to the rest of the field and tear down my house (and who cares if it is a house verses a fence)? There is no sensible answer to that question besides zero or infinity, and zero gets you way closer to communism than I think you’re trying to go.

The Blockean Proviso seems to be ultimately incompatible with any property rights, and arguably commits the error of “value-based” ownership criteria, namely whether or not reaching some land is difficult enough (one cannot justifiably build a tall fence, but surely one can justifiably build a sidewalk. What about a short fence, or maybe a raised sidewalk?)

If the state were to put land mines around a bunch of land, and three kids get killed because they were exploring, would this not be condemned by the libertarian? Surely it would be.

Indeed, but *why*? It of course depends on the libertarian, but as an ancap who must highlight his love of property next to and as his reason for his hatred of the state, I must clarify that this is bad because the state has neither a claim to the land *nor to the landmines*, which the parents of those children paid for with their taxes!

Also, I think the main point libertarians would make is that such an action illustrates the incompetence of the state. They tend to blow up a lot more innocent children than private businesses. This has nothing to do with the morality, only with the economic point that states are bound to misuse scarce resources (i.e. to build landmines when people would have preferred hamburgers).

See the booby traps on common land are initiations of force. Not only that, but they are dangerous to wandering kids and the mentally handi-cap. The best way to deal with this would be common law.

The qualifier “on common land” is still there. What if I booby trap the entrace to my house? Would this be an initiation of force? I cannot see how it would be, seeing that trying to forcefully entered my house would be the initial forceful act (thus my booby trap is a response to force, though not necessarily a justifiable one). So would you admit that if one were able to own land, then these booby traps would *not* be initiations of force but possibly justifiable (but possibly too far, as even I agree that “trespassers will be shot” cannot justifiably be enforced) *response* with force?

Also, you say the best way to deal with this is “common law”, but if you mean public ownership of land (which is what you seem to be describing) then I contest this, because in that case the kids wouldn’t get tangled up in electric fences but they will get trapped in mines, crushed by construction equipment, and exposed to toxic chemicals precisely because they are *not* kept off land they shouldn’t be wandering around on.

And again, I feel it necessary to rememeber how artificial such a scenario is. There is no reason to build death traps instead of a regular old fence that just keeps people out. Regardless of what is considered justifiable or not, building death traps that your neighbors’ kids fall into is a very quick way to earn the contempt of the neighborhood, and if they don’t drive you out with force they’ll at least lock you out of all their stores, forcing you into self-sufficiency until you decide to move to a new place and *not* put death traps down everywhere. There is no need for a law. There is already a very effective mechanism (assuming private property as it is usually conceived) to root out behavior like this, much like blocking off land and not using it.

If these death traps are behind a fence around his house, then it can be assumed he is protecting his home. A warning and a fence would probably be required by common law

Well, it seems what you describe as “common law” is merely people making rules. It is certainly not a problem of property rights that in probably every public pool in the country you are not allowed to run. Rather, the fact that everyone’s private property rights are established is precisely the way that such rules can be made, agreed upon and enforced. What you seem to be describing is a gated community that adopts rules of entry. These can include requirements for warning signs next to any exposed and dangerous property, no unauthorized fences, etc. These all are, in fact, very common rules in gated communities.

But the very ability to form gated communities and adopt such rules requires that people own and be able to sell land. Otherwise the community that adopts rules like “no fences” or “warning signs for all dangers” can be overrun by people who do not follow those rules and break them down. Only to the extent that people can claim ownership over land itself can they set up a situation where certain land is deemed the “public” property of the members of that community.

The problem with your scenario is you are forcing everyone to join a single gated community they may have no interest in joining. You said common law will “probably” adopt measures like what you described, and here-in lies the problem. Why should *everyone* be bound to such an arbitrary (however much we agree it is good) rule instead of another? Would it not be much more sensible for there to be a plethora of options of which set of rules to agree to follow? Would it not be much better if one community adopted the rule of no fences, while another adopted the rule of warning signs, while another adopted both, and another adopted neither, and many others adopt all sorts of other rules that are deemed good by their members?

This is the problem I see with mutualism. The “commons” is a fine concept when people are free to choice what “community” to be a part of. Mutualism seems to merely insist that everyone be the part of the same community and adopt a single code of “common law”, which I would just call “rules”. This does not seem wise. It people cannot agree on what this common law should be, and they certainly won’t, then it does not seem wise to force them all under the same set of rules.

To be clear, private property itself is *not* doing this for private property is what must be assumed in order for people to be able to make rules at all. If people do not respect property then no one can make any rules at all.

Surely that’s more than enough for now! As I said to Peter, I am notoriously bad at making short posts.

Missed this completely. So you reject the need for common law

Apparently you did not miss it, for that is exactly what I am saying!

First of all, I find it highly misleading that you keep calling public property “common law”. Private property (the kind that can be sold) is no less common than public property. Private property rights apply to everyone equally. How is it not “common”? It seems you are being intentionally misleading by emphasizing this term as if it reflects a real distinction between your position and mine. It does not. The ancap system of law is as “common” as any other.

If you are referring to “common” ownership then you are dealing with a meaningless concept. To “own” means to exclude use, and serves as a mechanism for resolving conflicts by concluding that the owner alone decides how a good shall be employed. “Common” ownership literally fails as ownership because it is neither exclusion of use within the group of owners, nor is it a means to resolve conflicts between the various owners. It makes no sense for multiple actors to exclude use of a particular good. One of them always ends up owning end, which becomes evident as soon as the multiple “owners” disagree on how the property is to be used.

“Common” (public) ownership also fails to do the only thing property is supposed to do, which is provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts. When both A and B own C, and A and B disagree on how to use C, then the only option they have is a fight.

There is no thing as common ownership, it always ends up being ownership by the commune head. And that is the one secret no communist will ever admit! I’m not saying mutualism is communism, but it is unmistakably a move in that direction, because communism is simply everything being owned by the “commons”.

Anarchism, is not “eliminate the state” and end there

As you yourself say, crime is not only committed by the state. Apparently you have fallen into the same confusion about the principled anti-statism of ancaps that is far too common. We don’t hate the state because it’s the state. That makes no sense, and cannot count as an “explanation” of our position. There is a reason we invariably hate the state: it is a crime syndicate *by definition*. The business motto of the state is to rob us all into a better tomorrow, and as soon as it drops this motto it ceases to be a state. Once this is admitted (and it is *never* denied with an explanation, it is only denied with exasperations and eye-rolls) it’s not hard to see what the ancap position is:

Crime is crime. It may always exist, it may rise or fall, and it may even become institutional, but it is crime none-the-less. The real mark of an ancap is that he never calls a dagger an ice cream cone. It’s not even so much about condemning crime as it is simply being accurate and honest about what is crime and what is not. It’s certainly not about fighting for the “elimination of the state” as it is simply admitting, and this is obviously the case, that the state is a “gang of robbers writ large”.

I clearly showed that as long as someone wants to conduct absentee ownership in a mutualist society, he can do that without violation other people’s rights.

Right, it seems that you are focusing on the impossibility/contradictory nature of mutualism, while I ignored that for the sake of argument and basically gave mutualism the benefit of the doubt, only to show how absurd it remains.

Either way, we seem to be in agreement about mutualism!

However, Adam insists that as long as there is unoccupied land somewhere, he’s justified in violating property rights of others as long as it helps him to enter that land

This is an interesting scenario I have thought about as well. “Homesteaders”, as I will call them, insist that building a fence is not a claim of ownership to the enclosed land. Yet such a fence could make it necessary to trespass on the *fence* in order to enter the closed land. I think the only difference implied is that if someone trespasses on the fence without getting caught or damaging the fence then the fence-builder has no case against him. But if one builds a good enough fence it could effectively block entry to the land. If this isn’t ownership it’s functionally equivalent.

I am inclined to believe that while ownership is not established in the sense that if someone *does* find their way onto the land the fence-builder cannot justifiably force them off, but that if someone builds a fence that effectively blocks off unowned land no one else can justifiably tear this fence down. In order to do so justifiably one must claim ownership over the enclosed land, and in doing so make use of an even more vacuous claim to ownership (you didn’t use it *or* build a fence around it). Perhaps this is what bothers the mutualists about traditional private property, but I explained elsewhere on this thread why this is nothing to be concerned about.

The word “create” predates christianity and will survive it, thank you.

The ignorance you pontificate has no boundaries, apparently.

Somebody was trying to clarify something and point out something you obviously missed in your previous thoughts on the subject. Instead of adjusting your world view and coming up with a better concept, or at least a more accurate way to express, your ideas them you go off on a tear with the apparently purpose of just insulting Christianity. You dramatically failed to engage the discussion and instead retreated into a comfortable mental bubble in addition to insulting the people that bothered to try to talk to you. This sort of thing is exactly what I expected from the sort of gibberish you posted at the beginning.

Just wanted to point all of this out just in case you thought my first reply was unjustified.

Oh, and on a side note: The labor theory of value is shit. It never made any sense and does not even remotely come close to addressing any sort of economic realities.

you fail to provide any coherent explanation of your position.

you say that you support property rights in goods other than land. However, if an object is somehow making it more difficult to you to get to any arbitrary place on land, you claim to be permitted to damage it, and if you get hurt by doing that, that is an aggression against you. That is a clear contradiction.

Make up your mind. Either you respect property rights in objects other than land or you don’t.

“I is on the fence with this one boss. On one hand, we have a guy that is suggesting we blow the shit out of people for walking onto land, and on the other hand, we have someone who refers to himself as a socialist. I have to say, I’m on the fence boss.”

“I walked into a river once, and there was a Parana! God damn if Peter Absurda didn’t plant those Paranas to claim that river. Damn thing almost bit my member off. You know what he said? He said, ‘well maybe you shouldn’t have aggressed my river!’ and then he laughed real weird, like in a Bette Midler kind of way. It was real weird, mom. Don’t forget my cookies.”

“I went on a walk the other day, and I saw this huge fence that said “Git off ma propertay” where we used to camp. I was all like, wut?”

So long as they are on common land, and are preventing people from using common land.

As said before, unless an object is flying, it is on land, and it’s an obstacle if you want to get through it. Your position is illogical and self-contradictory.

“You referred to Peter’s electrified fences, death traps, etc. as aggressive and therefore in violation of the NAP.”

So long as they are on common land, and are preventing people from using common land. Yes, those are the qualifiers. It is a clear “threat”. God forbid any children fall into one of his death traps. See, these traps ignore community. They ignore other people. His ideas suggest that it is aggression to step onto a poison needle, just because you needed to build a shop somewhere, and there was this land that was available, but some asshole booby trapped it. I agree with the Blockean Proviso here (I need to read more on it to understand it a little more). If you are to be a consistent anarchist, or libertarian, you have to not only object when the state does this, but also when it is done privately. Private parties do commit crimes too. If the state were to put land mines around a bunch of land, and three kids get killed because they were exploring, would this not be condemned by the libertarian? Surely it would be.

Do you condemn the same thing done by a private person?

See the booby traps on common land are initiations of force. Not only that, but they are dangerous to wandering kids and the mentally handi-cap. The best way to deal with this would be common law.

If these death traps are behind a fence around his house, then it can be assumed he is protecting his home. A warning and a fence would probably be required by common law. No mutualist will argue against that. Well there might be someone out there who would, but I haven’t met him yet.

Lets brake it down, because all of this is much simpler than anyone of us is making it out to be.

Its the same as someone walking around a park dropping dirty needles here and there. Just because a perimeter is made, this doesn’t really change much. There is still a square of dirty needles in an area that was once used freely by anyone. How should that be handles sweatervest? I would argue that common law would see it for what it is, intent to cause bodily harm NOT IN SELF DEFENSE OR DEFENSE OF PROPERTY, and outlaw it. (Capslock to add emphasis )

“Would this not imply that if someone chased after you with a knife, that incapacitating him in any way would be aggressive and therefore in violation of the NAP. Would this not imply pacifism?”

This is completely different. Its different because this is obviously self defense. Of course this is not opposed by mutualists.

“It does not imply that any use of force, even that which is necessary to prevent forceful use by non-owners, is unjustifiable.”

Ah, but here we have a case of two “non owners”, and that is why it is “unlibertarian”, as mutualists do not suggest you can ever own land. I agree with houses, cars, etc. Not with land. Never with land. In a mutualist society, this would be outlawed by common law, and that would make absentee land “ownership” illegal if attempted in this way.

“Thus identifying Peter’s contraptions as aggressive assumes your conclusion, namely that land is always unowned” My stance on land (that it cannot be owned) is what assumes the conclusion (that these contraptions are aggression). You can arrive to point A by way of point B though, I guess.

“If land is owned then those things are no different than using force to defend your body from unauthorized use.”
And in a mutualist society land cannot be owned. It cannot be legitimately owned in any society, I would argue. There is no creator other than nature, so that should logically imply that it belongs to nature. Now, if you throw a god in there, then you at least could claim he came to you at night and say you should have a certain plot. However, for that to be seen as legit by a society, it must be made up of mormons. (I’m sorry but I had to)

Plus desirability by other humans is also important, or you will have conflict, upon conflict, upon conflict, and that is not stable. So as I said to Stephan, I wouldn’t think it a bad thing if people were allowed by common law to put up a fence around a plot, so long as they agree to use it. An agreement to use that land within in period could be seen as “using that land”.

I would only take issue with fencing it for the sole purpose of making it unavailable, thus artificially increasing land scarcity. That is not desirable, and it becomes a force that prevents people from using the land it surrounds and we arrive at the “blockean Proviso” issue.

Now I like your response way better than any of Peters arguments. The one about “making land look like natural land” and I have a response for it, but you have to wait until next time, because I am tired, and I need to go to work at 6am. Sorry for neglecting your previous posts, I got caught up with Peter, and then I saw Kinsellas response, so I wanted to respond to him.

you’re assuming too much in my position. I am merely investigating the logical consistency of Adam’s position. I’m not arguing whether a mutualist social order is reachable. My conclusion is that Adam’s explanation of a mutualist legal system is self-contradictory.

If one assumed mutualism as the prevailing social order no one by definition could conduct absentee ownership, even the rich…

I clearly showed that as long as someone wants to conduct absentee ownership in a mutualist society, he can do that without violation other people’s rights. My argument is a reductio ad absurdum. Adam then shot himself in the foot and admitted he does not care about property rights, just land occupancy, which takes precedence over other property rights, contrary to his own exposition of a legal system.

Building a fence around a piece of land does not establish ownership of the enclosed land, and one continues only to own the fence.

However, Adam insists that as long as there is unoccupied land somewhere, he’s justified in violating property rights of others as long as it helps him to enter that land. That claim is inconsistent with his support for property rights in objects other than land.