Trespass

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:03:23 GMT

QUOTE (HReardon @ Jul 13 2005, 11:17 AM)
I suspect that some members of this group believe that voting is immoral or for whatever reason don't vote because they think it is pointless or a sham or don't believe in supporting the state or whatever. However, often there are issues that appear on the ballot. Voting on an issue is not the same as voting for a candidate. Are you opposed to voting no on an issue that calls for infringing on one's liberty? If so why? What would you find wrong about voting on issues? I believe it is a ligitimate way of promoting liberty or stopping or slowing down tyranny to vote against things that would deny people the abilty to exercise their liberty.

The foundations for my personal beliefs are free association and voluntary exchange.

The limits of my actions, and the actions of other people, are contained in the concept of trespass.

Trespass: any unsolicited human action against another individual that deprives the offended individual of personal interpreted happiness.

Happiness: an interpreted state of personal existence derived from an individual's perception of his or her survival and well-being.

The concept of trespass is based upon the concept of boundaries. To trespass there first must be knowable boundaries. Who decides what those boundaries might be depends upon several factors, but based upon custom and practice, there are many boundaries readily knowable in all human social groups. The primary reason that humans establish knowable boundaries is to reduce conflict. Reducing conflict improves perceived security and well-being and improves the chances of survival.

Security: the emotional condition of an individual opportunity to pursue happiness without trespass.

If those knowable boundaries are traversed, whether intentionally (crime) or unintentionally (accident), then the enjoined parties decide how to reconcile the trespass. Reconciliation might be as simple as forgiveness, and as complicated as restitution. Third parties might be necessary if the enjoined parties cannot agree how to reconcile the trespass.

Before I can decide whether I want to vote, or can vote, I first must establish whether I have voluntarily agreed to participate in that activity, and that others have agreed as well. Then I must determine whether the issue at hand involves trespass. If trespass occurs through the results of that vote, then based upon free association and voluntary exchange and knowable boundaries, I possess no standing to vote, nor does anybody else.

If, on the other hand, I am voting, say, who shall be president of the local bowling league, and I possess standing to vote in that group of people, then I see no conflict of trespass. The relationships are based upon free association and voluntary exchange.

The same cannot be said of so-called political societies. The relationships are not based upon free association and voluntary exchange, but coerced association and involuntary exchange. The primary purpose of voting in such societies is to steal and redistribute wealth under the color of law.

Color of law: acting under the pretense that a statute or custom, whether or not necessary, provides justification to bypass, evade, or ignore known or accepted boundaries.

With those foundations one should be able to determine whether voting is legitimate.

QUOTE (HRearden Jul 13 2005, 12:00 PM)
How do you define crime? Isn't crime a concept created by the state? In an anarcho-capitalist existence would there be such a thing as a crime?

Vices: acts where no trespass occurs but other people nonetheless find those acts undesirable.
Trespasses: acts that violate the knowable boundaries of another individual---whether intentional or unintentional.
Crimes: intentional trespasses.
Accidents: unintentional trespasses.

The etymological meaning of anarchy is without rulers or without rule. By definition, all human relationships are based upon based upon free association and voluntary exchange.

Theoretically, in an anarchist society, the motive for intentional trespass should be dramatically reduced. Nonetheless, some people still would trespass intentionally, and thus, by definition, crimes still would exist. What changes is how the people involved in that voluntary arrangement decide to encourage reconciliation. Likewise for unintentional trespasses---accidents.

In an anarchist society, there would be little concern over vices. Even if a specific human action is considered a vice and leads to trespass, whether intentional or unintentional, the conflict that must be resolved is the actual trespass, not the vice. Attempting to control the human actions otherwise known as vices would be a function of persuasion and cooperation, not force and coercion. In an anarchist society, the likely response to undesired human behaviors would be localized ostracism. You would not be coercively refrained from smoking your favorite weed or watching your favorite porn, but in some societies you likely would be limited in what relationships you can engage if you were vocal or brazen about such vices. The local grocery store owner might object to your vices, and refuse to allow you to enter his or her store. The store owner is simply exercising the right not to associate with you. A simple form of ostracism.

If you insist upon buying groceries at that store owner's store, and enter the store uninvited, the store owner possesses standing to take actions against your trespass. Your vices have nothing to do with the actual act of trespass.

Thus, in an anarchist society, controlling 4,000 pounds of steel on a highway, while drunk, likely will be an act that would be greatly discouraged, but you would not be forbidden from committing such an act. If you cause harm or damage to property or person, you will have trespassed. You will be expected to reconcile those trespasses. That you were drunk is not a cause of the trespass, but many people might look upon your willingness to drive while drunk as willfulness, otherwise known as mens rea, which might alter the way in which the people of that community will consider appropriate reconciliation. The vice of being drunk will not be a core issue involved to reconcile the trespass.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
American Hiroshima
LIPC: Phaser that Asshole, Spock
Old Soldiers
Free Energy
Smoking Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
Project Aardvark
Alberto Gonzalez: Bushnev's Fascist Play
Sell Matches or Rescue a Drowning Man: Go to Jail
Frankensteins of Unbounded Power
Declare Your Independence from Washington D.C.

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair