Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 20. (Read 28705 times)

In other words, it means nothing. Everyone is entirely at the whim of whether any one individual believes, pretends to believe, or does not believe in the PRINCIPLE. Obviously, there will be individuals of all stripes. As you've stated, there is no NAP law.

Ahh, the statist mind.

Ok, let me see if I can explain this. As the name implies, the NAP is a principle.


As such, there is no, and it needs no, over-arching body to govern its use. It applies wherever you are, no matter whose property you are on, everywhere, and for all time.

But what I'm asking is, can someone else have a law that when on his property, the NAP is not in effect? Assuming the answer is yes, then it stands to reason that the NAP is not something that can be counted on except when on your property. Assuming the answer is no, then it stands to reason that some larger entity has made the NAP law. Who would that larger entity be?

Yes. You do know that writing a law does not remove free will, right?

Your answer to question #4 is referring to the two potentially different cases of being on your property or someone else's property. You're stating that in either case, force or threat of force is not justified except in self-defense from same. But when you answered question #1, you stated that each person individually decides to adhere to the NAP or not.

I'll answer each individually:
Who decides to follow your advice on when to limit and not limit?

I know this is going to be difficult for a collectivist like yourself to wrap your head around, but I have confidence in you. Each person individually decides whether to adhere to the NAP or not. In the current statist society, the equivalent is that in reality, each person chooses whether or not to adhere to the law.

How do you ensure that everyone collectively follows your advice on what they should be limited on and not be limited on?

Again, I do not. Each person chooses whether or not to adhere to the NAP, just as today they choose whether or not to follow the law.

Who decides and enforces the behavior of the four men on the raft?

Warning: This may hurt the statist brain: The four men on the raft police themselves.

Does this 'limiting' or lack of 'limiting' occur in different degrees when one is on your property vs. another's property?

Externally, it may seem to, but in reality, it does not. If you are on my property, you follow my rules or you are trespassing. If you trespass, I am able to evict you. If I am on your property, I follow your rules. In either case, force or threat of force is not justified except in self-defense from same. For example: You are on my property. I can not come in and tell you 'New rule: You give me all your money or I shoot you'. Well, I can, but I would not be acting within the NAP, I would be attempting to coerce you out of your money. At that point you would be justified in shooting me, so, if I thought about it, I probably wouldn't do it. Even if I succeeded, the benefit would not be worth losing your friendship, not to mention all the other consequences of such an action: restitution, the gigantic reputation hit, and a possible blackballing.

Why are you putting up with it is the better question. Those who fail to defend their rights have none.

The roads are a microcosm of the gov't sponsored kleptocracy.
They have tricked millions of people into licensing and registering thereby waiving their rights in return for the benefit privileges of their limited liability insurance scam.

Who decides to follow your advice on when to limit and not limit? How do you ensure that everyone collectively follows your advice on what they should be limited on and not be limited on? Who decides and enforces the behavior of the four men on the raft? Does this 'limiting' or lack of 'limiting' occur in different degrees when one is on your property vs. another's property?

Then by limiting your actions to 'no force or threat of force, unless directly endangered', I'm not really limiting you at all. Just defining 'last resort' for you. So, what is your problem with it?

Punish? I'm not talking about punishing. I'm talking about prevention. By force as a last resort.
Please explain why his right to risk my life is greater than my right to protect myself from unnecessary risk.

Risk != Threat. And you're not allowed to punish people for things that might happen. Plain and simple.

No, not that one.
Why is one person allowed to put a lot of others at risk with his actions, and why are they not allowed to stop him?

To find out who truly owns something, ask yourself this question:  Who makes the decisions in regard to the property? Who is the ultimate decision maker and who has the power to destroy it?

Okay. I'll follow this line of reasoning just for kicks and giggles. Let's say that no one individual owns the road exclusively. So what? That means now everyone shares a partial ownership in the road, or "easement". Again, so what? That would basically mean the road is part-owned by everyone, right? I'm not sure what portion or in what way each individual would make his "rightful claim" but then it would just be a matter of sorting things out I would think. If you can't sort it out, it would basically fall into the category of homesteadable unclaimed land. There isn't an owner, so why not you, or me, or that "other" guy over there, who might want to make a business out of toll road fees. No one should complain that the road was "staked and claimed". You didn't step up and make a claim to it, so why not the guy who's interested in doing something with it? Or in other words, no one owns it and we just use it as we deem fit until things change. Notwithstanding, this temporary state of "unownership" could not demand forceful intervention for maintenance purposes (or any other similar coercive purpose). That would imply a condition of ownership. You either own it and defend it against trespass, or it remains commonly utilized by all -no more owned than the stars in the sky could be appropriated.

Obviously, no one has a specific right to travel on another man's property without permission. This would be trespass. He may attempt to travel on un-homesteaded land, but that would be the only right he would have, and even then, it would only be temporary until someone wanted to own it. Then he couldn't arbitrarily traverse it, because he didn't acquire it first, and make it exclusive to himself or his assigns. Let's not get caught up in all of the vague verbiage (government, state, "unorganized public"). This merely clouds the issue. And here's why.

If the "unorganized public" wants to fix/improve/reroute the road they apparently jointly own, then they, and only they could expend their effort, money, assets, resources and other what-have-you to improve this "easement" of their own free will. They could not of a natural right, force, expropriate, tax, extort, coerce (I think you get my drift here) from others to achieve this end. If others travel on your road, then they must get permission to use it. If you improve the road, but still not claim it as your own, you shouldn't be upset if others travel on it. You improved it out of the charity of your heart I guess.

Is this a little more clear? We don't need lawyers and legislators making definitions as to what a "highway" or "road" or "easement" is, but we should merely examine who is the rightful owner of such things. I'm trying to keep things simple here. John Locke said, the appearance of property has the distinction of labor mixed with something in Nature. It had to appear to be changed from its natural state when man intervened. If that's the case, I want to see who owns the deed or title, and if there is none, I'll take it.

Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?

The STATE doesn't own the roads. The roads are an easement for the use of everyone equally . Even foreigners. Everyone has the right to private quiet enjoyment but that is it. Travelers can not endanger others so as to cause a nuisance per se.
The absolute right in the easement known as the highway is vested in the unorganized public. However the organized public aka the body politic acts in the unorganized public interest by their own prescription.

From Corpus Juris

If the government provided any services worth paying for, they wouldn't have to force us to buy them.
Smash the State!

I don't recall yanking your chain.

You're forgetting a few:

Punctured rafts due to knife jugglers.

People eaten by sharks due to NAP.

Destroyed ecosystem due to reactive justice.

Private property versus stolen property.

Voluntary funding versus stolen money.

That's because you can't get it through your head that we're not hung up on the consequences. If respecting property rights winds up with the exact same results then so be it. The difference is that it will be a property owner setting rules for his or her own property rather than the government expropriating it and making up rules for stolen property.

However, I know this will be a shock to you, since road owners want to make a profit and the way to make a profit is to compete for customers by giving them quality services at lower prices, it's more likely that we will end up with what we want. Imagine that. We can get what we want and not steal while doing it!