Just beat Jury Service!! Yayyy!!!

[SpontaneousOrder]

To say otherwise is to misuse language.

It's not. It's just philosophically grounded.

Force is that which, by violating a person's natural rights, impacts their right to self-determination which is built on the axiom of self-ownership.

Using the word 'force' to mean only unsolicited physical manipulations of a person's body is to choose a particular subset of force. It makes sense to do so in most every day conversation. But if you give it some study you'll find that affecting someone's right to self determination with physical jerks is no different to theft - e.g. threatening someone to not grow drugs is no different than stealing their drugs after they have been grown, insofar as self-determination is concerned.

Camping out on my lawn, against my will, prevents me from making use of the property that I have come to own by my own labour & will. it's no different to stealing my drugs, which is no different to threatening me not to do something.

[speling bee]

It's not. It's just philosophically grounded.

Force is that which, by violating a person's natural rights, impacts their right to self-determination which is built on the axiom of self-ownership.

Using the word 'force' to mean only unsolicited physical manipulations of a person's body is to choose a particular subset of force. It makes sense to do so in most every day conversation. But if you give it some study you'll find that affecting someone's right to self determination with physical jerks is no different to theft - e.g. threatening someone to not grow drugs is no different than stealing their drugs after they have been grown, insofar as self-determination is concerned.

Camping out on my lawn, against my will, prevents me from making use of the property that I have come to own by my own labour & will. it's no different to stealing my drugs, which is no different to threatening me not to do something.

If denying you your right to make use of your property is a violation of your natural rights and therefore violent, then refusing to give testimony against a serious violent criminal is a violation of the victim's natural right to justice and therefore violent.

But in the case of trespass there is no need for a violent response. The social ostracism would be sufficient deterrent or punishment. What use is camping on your lawn when you can't get a permit to drive on the roads and you can't get a job. You can't even buy food from the shops because no one would dare risk being caught selling you food, which would ruin their business overnight.

[SpontaneousOrder]

If denying you your right to make use of your property is a violation of your natural rights and therefore violent, then refusing to give testimony against a serious violent criminal is a violation of the victim's natural right to justice and therefore violent.

From where do you suppose that a victim's right to justice is derived? There can be no such thing as to have a right to justice implies that someone else must be forced to provide that justice. They meerley have the right to seek justice.

But in the case of trespass there is no need for a violent response. The social ostracism would be sufficient deterrent or punishment. What use is camping on your lawn when you can't get a permit to drive on the roads and you can't get a job. You can't even buy food from the shops because no one would dare risk being caught selling you food, which would ruin their business overnight.

I imagine that you're right for the most part. I'd probably have him removed if he were actually in my garden (it's not a large garden) - but with violence being incredibly expensive, I suspect that the sanctions you mention would be a better deterrent than prison (assuming the guy was a persistent garden-camper).

[speling bee]

From where do you suppose that a victim's right to justice is derived? There can be no such thing as to have a right to justice implies that someone else must be forced to provide that justice. They meerley have the right to seek justice.



I imagine that you're right for the most part. I'd probably have him removed if he were actually in my garden (it's not a large garden) - but with violence being incredibly expensive, I suspect that the sanctions you mention would be a better deterrent than prison (assuming the guy was a persistent garden-camper).

I'm out of your society. Keep it if you like.

Force against someone for wandering on your wasteland OK.
Force against someone for taking a bribe not to testify against a murderer not OK.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I'm out of your society. Keep it if you like.

Force against someone for wandering on your wasteland OK.
Force against someone for taking a bribe not to testify against a murderer not OK.

That's why your society is so ****ed up. It's full of people who reject objective law, in favour of subjective personal value judgements.

[speling bee]

That's why your society is so ****ed up. It's full of people who reject objective law, in favour of subjective personal value judgements.

Best of luck with it.

[mudskipper]

Just install spikes on your lawn and be done with it ffs.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Just install spikes on your lawn and be done with it ffs.

I saw that article in the news recently. Might as well go the whole hog and start up my own Soylent Green factory.

[Smartie]

That would be a violation of my property rights, and therefore an initiation of force. Property rights are essential to human existence, and ultimately all initiation of force is a derivation of some violation of property rights.

This is not true.

[speling bee]

This is not true.

It is only not true in your subjective world. It is objectively true. Apparently.