You are claiming to be something you are not, and in many cases and situations that can be a criminal offence.

Hello again, hater:

Oy vey! Call the pretending to be Jewish cops.. If you weren't so obsessed, sick and hateful, you'd be funny..

excon, Jewish fella

Sure Nom. I'm attempting to control the popular narrative from CreateDebate

That is another semantic fallacy. You are gleefully refusing to acknowledge that the pronoun "you" is used both to refer to single individuals, and/or to the entire group to which that person belongs. For example, "you guys", "you people" and "you cretins who are too stupid to provide a taxing argument not predicated in fallacy."

And nothing is stopping me from leaving.

And so it goes who or what would you be a slave to then ?

How would you live?

I said you are responsible for your thoughts, words, and actions. You chose to write "free-will is illusory" by exercising free-will.

It is illusory as all your thoughts are predetermined I’m sorry you disagree with science free will is illusory

So, don't give me that bullshit.

I gave you facts it was you who spouted bullshit and got your hand slapped take your correction like a man and move on

No, I am asserting my right to not be harmed.

LOL

It is not a myth. They can believe they are right and still be wrong, in which, they are.

You once again think because you say something is true it is , grow up you child at least attempt to support your bullshit

There is something called the non-aggression principle. Maybe, you heard of it. It applies to everyone whether they want it to or not.

Yes I have heard of it and it’s an appeal to ignorance

Utter nonsense using that ridiculous metric anti discrimination laws are aggression and therefore wrong

Objective means outside of human-beings.

Yes captain obvious thank you for that which clearly demonstrates that it’s a ridiculous notion as in what property does right and wrong have outside of human interpretations ZING

We know it's wrong to commit murder.

I don’t , so don’t speak for me

Why? Because it is stealing a person's life, and we have no RIGHT to do that, etc.

Stealing ? What if they have no quality of life ?

It’s that Amarel -speak again that Americans love 👌

Great example with Hitler

Or it's the Truth and you can't handle it. His example with Hitler had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

It’s that Amarel -speak again that Americans love

I suspected it was him. He always uses that same ridiculous argument about the will to survive being "voluntary".

This is not insane, it's the Truth of the matter.

No it isn't you completely mad idiot. It can be proven very simply. Millions of people work jobs they hate. Why would anybody "voluntarily" do that? Why would they get up and torture themselves every day if they were not being coerced by other factors?

As a general rule, decisions only become "voluntary" when the balance of power is equal between all parties.

And I was describing a working relationship with the person I hired on to do work with. It is voluntary.

Except that person almost certainly hates your guts and feels nauseated even being near you. They are there simply so they can feed their kids and pay the mortgage.

First off, how does one have to do with the other?

I used an analogy to debunk your stupid claims. If you don't understand what an analogy is then stop writing dumb shit on the internet and go back to night school.

Here's another analogy for you. The slaves were offered the choice to work in the mines, so their decision to pick cotton was voluntary.

You're so stupid I really don't see the point in this conversation. Bye.

If you ignore all the rest of my post, respond to at least these two points.

1. Due process is a necessary right that can only be provided through a government structure.

2. What specific, truly non-violent actions could you take to get the unwilling trespasser out of your house?

It's not a justification, it's stating the Truth. A justification is, essentially, making an excuse. That is not what I am doing. Unlike you.

If you're justified in a particular belief, then you have a good reason for having it. If you are not justified, but you wish to appear justified, then you make excuses.

Your justification for how and when freedom should be limited/constrained/restricted is based on property rights. But you hold an inconsistent belief, that freedom is inherently good while finding cause to limit it.

You also find it necessary to change the word from "violence" to "force" because you don't like the fact that you are comfortable initiating violence under certain conditions (such as protection of persons or property).

If your only response to this critique is to assert that what you say is true, then you're ignoring truth in favor of your comfortable, though baseless opinion.

I am not in favor of restricting Freedom. I am in favor of protecting it. And maximizing it. But that entails recognizing and acting according to objective right and wrong. Doing the right action and avoiding the wrong.

Maximizing freedom means restricting the freedom of those who would restrict the freedom of others, such as an attacker. The attacker cannot be left free to attack. But this also means that any restriction of freedom done in response rather than in defense must be left to an independent power. In other words, after the attacker has attacked and left, retribution must come only after due process and in accordance with a pre-established punishment (law). The alternative is blood feuds and gang wars.

How so? Did you read what I said there? I said "threatening to do harm to another (coercion) is wrong. . ." If a person has done no harm to another, then, you would be wrong in using the threat of physical violence upon them, to get them to do what you want.

How do you intend to remove the trespasser who insists on his right to drink beer on your couch. Seriously. Answer that question or concede the point.

No, self-defense is not violence. Someone who has initiated the fight is using violence upon the person they have attacked. They are in the wrong. The person defending themselves, is using equal force of action to stop that attack. And in the right to do so.

Both parties are engaged in violence. You're merely averse to the word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Not in all circumstances, according to your own position on trespassers.

I did not say Freedom couldn't be abused

You agree that free means absent coercion or constraint. You admit people can abuse freedom, meaning they can freely harm others. In a specific example of such an abuse of freedom, you have demonstrated your willingness stymie such abused freedom. Why do you insist that freedom is in and of itself inherently good?

I would be using that defensive force to remove them, in the means I have available.

Provide a a specific example of what non-violent action you could take to make an unwilling trespasser leave or concede the point.

The context is the one who initiated the use of force upon someone else. It's the one who started it that is violent.

There is no dictionary available that recognizes this distinction.

When someone implores you not to defend yourself because "we must not resort to violence" the correct response is not to explain why you breaking a aggressors nose wasn't violent. The correct response is "sometimes we must".

It is redundant and unnecessary. I would not do that to begin with, law or not. And I expect the same respect given to my house. But you did not address what I pointed out.

You could have just said "yes, that law is out of bounds" rather then explaining that you don't break laws you agree with.

Lots of other people break that exact law. Do they deserve due process?

My area has not been invaded in large part due to the fact that many people are armed.

In a much larger part because many of those armed people are organized into a military under civilian government control.

The neighborhood can take care of these things, and it would be just as effective.

Not without charging those who enjoy public lighting. That's tax.

As for security, the people are the militia (at least that was what it was supposed to be) and they can provide their own security if it was even needed.

If they match that security with due process, it's a government.

Someone else is the reason the roads are navigable. Someone else makes it happen and you help to pay them for it.

I am forced, under duress or the threat of violence upon me (up to and including deadly force, if I resist). I do not have an itemized list of where the money goes, so I do not know that it is even paying for these things that you mention.

You do know that those things are paid for from the pool you contributed to. And you know that money is fungible (your dollar can pay for one thing as easily as a different thing).

Only because the so-called "government" does not allow a private person to provide such things.

A private party could not defend an entire area for free. They collect payment from those who enjoy their protection without also charging those within their area who do not wish to pay. Absent payment, a free rider would be forced, through coercion to either pay or leave said area so as not to literally steal from the private party. Free riding is theft.

The fact that there are millions of armed individuals in this country is more of a deterrent to invasion, then, what the "government" does.

It's nothing compared to a government stockpile of ICBM's

The framework which enables capitalism to exist costs money. If you make enough money within that framework, you help cover those costs.

Yes, isn't socialism grand. I said the private market can provide a framework that does not steal from people. I stand by that statement.

Stand by it, but it's unsupported. Calling it the truth doesn't make it the truth.

The market functions in spite of so-called "government" functions.

In spite of bad government policies sure. But markets rely on good government institutions. Strong legal structures provide confidence in trade and reduce costs. If people just said "well I'm honest enough to keep my word without signing a legally binding contract for the so-called government", then they would be proverbial lambs to the slaughter. If everyone was actually did all the right things without the necessity of listed consequences for the wrong things, you'd have your Utopia. Anarchy is as much a myth as it's kindred fantasy, communism and for the same basic reason; human kind isn't like that.

Do you really not see how protecting yourself could harm a person?

You are literally such a thoroughly stupid, narcissistic halfwit. I am absolutely fascinated by it.

By "protecting yourself" what you actually mean is doing harm to someone who intends to do harm to you, which clearly still satisfies the idea that doing harm to others is wrong. You have emphasised the point, not refuted it.

God, you're so stupid it makes my skin crawl.

That depends. While many things are better left to the market, that market exists within a larger framework provided by government. The market cannot itself provide that framework because that framework necessarily relies on a monopoly on the initiation of force independent of market forces such as profit.

There should be no such monopoly of the initiation of force(violence). The market would be driven by the people who interact amongst themselves, providing products or services, and trading. What you describe is not a necessity, but a convenience that so-called "government" provides.

That's not true.

It absolutely is true. No one has the right to initiate physical harm upon anyone else. No matter how many are involved, you cannot turn a wrong act like that, into a right.

The person you believe is the killer has a right to due process. That process is necessarily a legal process. That's why you don't have the right to take it upon yourself.

I absolutely do have the right go after that killer. And I said with the means I have available. The "government" does not give me that right. The legal process is a convenience, so, people do not have to deal with that killer, themselves. It is essentially, passing the buck to a third party.

If there's no government, then there's no possibility for due process. In that case, you and anyone else can seek retribution against whomever you believe is guilty for whatever reason. And we would all be much worse off.

Worse off because we would have to take responsibility for ourselves? And we seek retribution regardless of whether there is a "government", that exists in your head, or not. Or a third party that we go to to resolve differences. It would be better if we hired that service, rather than rely on some political "authority", that does not in fact exist.

That's my mistake. They are building an institution where legal institutions are weak. Of there were no legal institutions, people would create them.

Only if they believe in "government" or political "authority". There are better moral ways to do it.

Cops aren't allowed to just follow orders. When an illegal order is followed, they get sued and fired and sometimes imprisoned. Cops follows laws and policies. Orders must be within law and policy for a cop to claim they were justified in acting on the order.

They very much do follow orders. As I explained, every politicians decree, or "law" is enforced by the police. They might get thrown under the bus, at times, but they still follow orders when they are "just doing their jobs". If they didn't follow orders, and just enforced "laws" that are mala in se, there would be no one doing time for victimless crimes, or did no harm to anyone else.

Anyone can become a politician

Sure, and anyone can become a social engineer, or a tyrant. A dictator. What's your point? They are still trying to be a ruler over others.

Do you mean the process of Legislation? Enforcement? Judicial operations?

I mean politician scribbles on paper, calling it legislation or "law", their order followers enforcing their decrees, and the injustice system (because that is what it is today).

You are limiting a trespassers freedom with barriers and, if that barrier is breached, you are using violence or the threat of violence to remove them (coercion).

I provide a boundary that they are not to cross because that is the beginning of a transgression upon me. I have not misused Freedom to do harm upon that person. I have simply showed that they are crossing the line, they are not invited, and they need to stop what they are doing.

I AM NOT using violence. They have initiated the aggression (no matter how passive). They are in the wrong if they continue. They are attempting to violate my Freedom to be secure in my home.

You are claiming the right to do so. When you explain that it is your right to do so, you aren't negating the fact that this is what you're doing.

I absolutely am negating the fact that it is violence that I use to defend myself, and property, from attack. That IS NOT the case. It is the difference between Force V.S. Violence. So, I would be using a threat of force if they continue with their violence, or violation. That is not coercion, or the threat to initiate force because I have not started the violation.

That's not true. An action can cause no harm to others and still be wrong. I described nothing about the trespasser that implies harm to you or your family. The person is merely where you don't want them to be. How are you acting different from government?

It is true. What action would be wrong to do, but causes no harm to others? There is no such action. If an action causes no physical harm to another sentient being, it is not wrong to do, therefore, it is a right action to do. The fact that they are trespassing is the beginning of a transgression upon me or my family. I do not know what their intention is towards us, hence, they present a threat. I did not say that I would not find out. But they are in the wrong, and if they continued they would have problems.

I am different in the sense that the "government" does not have the right to claim ownership over people's property. They take money from them in the form of "property taxes". If the person does not pay their property is confiscated(stolen) from them. That is claiming ownership over said property. The "government" is a collective. A group, and no group has rights, only individuals have rights because they are the ones who do physical acts.

You tell the trespasser what he cannot do, then you physically enforce it if they disobey.

That is not the same thing. As I already explained, the trespasser is the transgressor. They are attempting to violate my rights, and I stop them from doing that through DEFENSIVE Force.

The government has a law that says they will punish you for assaulting someone.

The proper consequences for actions of assaulting someone, is that they defend themselves and stop the attack. Nothing further really needs to be done. If a person is unable to defend themselves, they can hire someone to do that for them, or teach them how to do it, which would be better.

They will punish you is a predetermined way in accordance with predetermined rules and only after you're granted due process. But to you, this is out of bounds. It's far better than your alternative.

Oh, they grant it to me, huh? Then, it is not a right. They cannot give me rights. It is not for them to do. They are not God. At that is out of bounds. My alternative is to leave people alone. An ultimate Individual right.

I am not interested in "necessary and proper". I am interested in what is right or wrong. Recognizing the difference, and acting in accordance with what is a rightful action.

Do you really not see how protecting yourself could harm a person? When you punch a person to keep them from continuing to punch you, is their broken nose not harmful to them?

If they initiated the attack, they have disregarded their right to not be harmed. They started the violence upon me, physically doing harm upon me, braking my nose, etc. So, at that point, I could care less what harm I am doing to them, when defending myself against that attack. And a badge won't stop me.

You don't stand against your right to rule against trespasser in your house.

I have already said, you have the right to rule you, and I have the right to rule me. That includes my house. That trespasser, by the very fact of being a trespasser, is in violation. They are a foreign invader. And it takes action to stop them. But there is a difference between using defensive force and violence. I am not the one in violation. And I am not taking their right to rule themselves. I am stopping them from attempting to do that to me.

You're claiming that right. But you perceive harm in a trespasser where the trespasser perceived no harm. Are you really going to keep this stranger from finishing his 6 pack on your couch? Will you initiate violence against him to see home off your property?

It's not about perception, alone. If the perception is not in line with reality, it is false. The Reality of what you describe here, is that the trespasser, if he managed to make it past the door, is in violation of my rights, my Freedom. I will most definitely, defend myself, using whatever force is necessary to remove him from my home, up to and including deadly force. And that is not initiating violence. He has presented the threat of violence(coercion) upon me and my family. That is the Truth of the matter.

Laws are the previously agreed on rules. Legislators came up with them. The vast cast majority of them concern the protection of people and property.

No, they are not. They are decrees and dictates by those politicians pretending to have the "authority" to pass them. I didn't agree to their rules, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who actually did. You say previously agreed upon rules, where are these rules?

The "Legislators came up with them" which, suggests that man can make up "laws" on a whim, that change as they see fit. And the vast majority of them have far little to do with protecting people and property, but have more to do with control.

This is probably your best bet. A small commune of like minded people can accomplish all kinds of things that a larger society cannot. Communism has functioned to varying degrees in communes. That doesn't make it a good model for society. Which is why my challenge was to present a large integrated society.

Well, this example is not one of communism. And you didn't specify the size of population. If you really, want an example of an "integrated society" large cities would be such an example. Anything outside of that would not be a "large society" and is less integrated.

In Cospaia, they relied on a "Council of Elders and Heads of Families" which "decided with whom the members of the families would associate personally and in business". They didn't use threat of violence, but family pressure. I saw the Godfather, but other then that I don't know what "family pressure" looks like in Italy. Anyway, good for them. Providing a commodity that your larger neighbors want, but is banned is a nice way to stay in business when you're too small to stave off military invasion.

They lasted for nearly 400 years. That's a long time, considering, they had potential enemies around them. And it worked.

Zomia has some cultures that limit the amount of wealth and power you're allowed to display. Some further reading on Zomia shows that most of what is out there comes from an author named James Scott, who coined the name for the region. The area is composed of many different groups of people living in small communities scattered across the region. Scott lumps them all together and puts every cultural artifact in terms of purposeful resistance to a state. He even claims their illiteracy is on purpose.

I am not seeing a problem so far, here. He mentions that their "illiteracy" is on purpose because they do not want beaurocracy to creep in with the written word. Giving rise to a "government".

If you want to know anything about the people of this fabricated region of Zomia, you have to look at each culture. A glance at Hmong people in asia indicates that a woman may be better off staying with her highly abusive husband because community backlash against divorce would be worse for her.

Yeah, and no one is perfect in any place upon the earth.

The Karen people aren't avoiding the state, they just keep losing when they try to form one. They occasionally have charismatic leaders rule over large enough groups to go fight the government and then they are smashed to bits and scatter back to the hills.

It does not sound like they are trying to form a government. But it does sound as if they are attempting to fight for their Freedom.

Zomia could be analogous to appalachia. Where people don't like the government and handle things themselves.

And good on them. Good luck ruling them.

Where literacy is low and substance abuse and violence are high. Some cultures in zomia probably have their own Hatfields and McCoys.

Says you. Do you have anything to show that is the case in Appalachia?

There is a distinct difference between you and things. You ARE you. You OWN things. A person can infringe on your property rights without you even being present. This is not so with your person. As such, your ownership of yourself is distinct from your ownership of inanimate property. For you to even claim ownership of inanimate property as you claim ownership of yourself requires commonly accepted rules.

What's your point? I have said "Anarchy" does not mean without rules. You said "commonly accepted rules". That sounds like common sense to me. And is something that ought to be taught to children at a young age. This does not answer my question about "my very existence restricting others Freedom". That is where your logic goes.

Many (most?) supposedly anarchic societies disregard your conception of ownership of inanimate things. Your rules about property don't apply to them. If you attempt to make them apply, you restrict freedom. To those who disregard inanimate property rights, the trespasser has the RIGHT to physically defend himself against your violent aggression when you attempt to remove him from your couch.

I have not heard of any such societies that completely disregard property. And if they have a central "authority" to enforce such rules, they are not "anarchic". You have not shown any such societies. If I defend my Freedom to own property, including my person, I am asserting my right to do so. That is not, restricting Freedom, but recognizing it. They would not be recognizing it in what they do.

You say it, but it's not unsupportable.

What? We do not even have capitalism in this country. We have a mixed economy. A marriage of "government" and business. In other words, Fascism.

Do you know what checkers is without ground rules? Cardboard and rubbish. There is no game. Government provides the rules of trade for capitalism.

This is not a game. "Government" interferes with the free-market, giving an advantage to companies that would otherwise fail because of bad quality of service or product. And it takes away from those who might be able to compete with those companies. Have you heard about "to big to fail"?

A baseless assertion. As nation states have grown in complexity and efficiency of enforcement, violence between individuals and groups has plummeted. Archeological research shows that pre-modern life, where people lives in small tribes, was exceedingly violent. Life was too often nasty, brutish and short.

How so? I highly doubt that. Crime between people has plummeted in spite of government, not because of it. And the murder rate from "Government" killing it's own people is humungous, especially in the 20th century and into the 21st. It is called democide. Or death by government.

I would like to see the research results for what you spoke of. We are part of nature, and we would do well to quit trying to separate from it.

You're making up property rights to assert a right to rule over the so called trespasser. If all is actually anarchy, then🎵 this land is your land, this land is my land🎵.

I am not making up anything. Our rights are inherent in nature. I am recognizing them. As I already pointed out, the trespasser is attempting to rule over me, I would be stopping him from doing this.

If you kick me out of the house and call it yours, you are initiating force, and I the trespasser am defending myself. If anarchy is reality, then property rights are as meaningful as the fiat currency you used to acquire your supposed property.

That is bullshit and you know it. If that house is mine, and I kick you out, it is within my right to do so. I said "Anarchy is reality in the sense that no one has the right to rule over others" that is attempt to control or enslave them.

Rights require action in the form of self-defense to keep them in force. If a person does nothing they have let themselves be ruled. They are attempting to abdicate their responsibility for themselves.

And the fiat currency is given to us by your so-called "government". The Federal Reserve was developed by private bankers and given to the "government", who accepted it and put it into place.

That's Utopic. People DO force things on others. Without a state, there is no due process to deal with such people. So the minute someone does what people often do, victimize another, you have no recourse but a completely subjective sense of retribution, possibly against the wrong person.

Utopic? It does not sound like you know what you are talking about. Who says there would be no due process in place in such a society? I can come up with ideas, but I do not pretend to have all the answers nor predict the future. People could certainly, put something in place, but that does not mean it would be a monopoly on violence. There should be no such monopoly. But there should be a distributive use of force; everyone is armed.

It depends on what you mean by withdrawal. People take off to Alaska, Siberia, or even rural Colorado. No one care. Others choose to set up a criminal enterprise for not only elicit substances, but human trafficking (prostitution), dog fighting, murder for hire, and a host of other harmless endeavors deemed "wrong" by the government. Those kinds of dissenters are hunted and put in cages. Most people are glad for it.

The first two "crimes" you mention are not such. Prostitution, unless coerced into it, is not a crime. And the "government" has been mixed up in drug trafficking through the CIA. They have been doing it for years. And you can hardly speak for most people.

People can and do work most things out amongst themselves in the US today. And other people victimize people. The violent criminal cannot be addressed by folks working things out with each individual case. They must be addressed through due process, which is necessarily governmental. The alternative is the mob and vigilantism. Both of which require only the emotional impulses of the vengeance seekers.

The violent criminal is always dealt with on an individual case basis. A person must defend themselves in order to stop that criminal. Many criminals get away with their crimes for a variety of reasons, some are technicalities. Or they are given light sentences and are out, without rehabilitation in "society". Due process does not have to be "governmental". There are ways to come up with such that does not require "authority".

Again, the point is that laws are predictable and fairly consistent over time. Even bad laws.

Look, they outlawed alcohol, then, a few years later, changed their minds. So, it was okay to do one day, then not okay the next, then okay again. They did the same with cannabis, but did not change it back. Many people in certain areas have gotten it legalized, however, it is not in other areas. You can own and carry a gun in one place, but if you cross an imaginary line, you are suddenly in violation of "the law".

Man's laws are not consistent. They change on the whim of politicians. They do not always call them "laws", they are also, called regulations. There is also, the ABC agency's that have there own "policies" that they got into place without a vote.

Your argument, that there are so many laws that no one knows when they are breaking one, requires that you are unaware of evidence of your assertion. By naming those laws that you don't like, you admit that you are aware of them. It is true that there are a substantial number of regulations on business. Too many. These regulations do not result in unforeseen criminal charges for private citizens nor for most companies. That's because people know what the laws are. Which is my point. It is almost never the case that people are charged for ignorance of their own illegal activity.

And my point is that there are so many on the books that it is ridiculous. A person cannot possibly keep in line with all of them. There is so much red tape that a person hardly wants to bother with certain activities that would not be harming anyone. These laws and regulations, and such, are prohibitive and are about control, not protecting individual rights. They violate those rights with everything they do.

And one has to stretch to see most of the ten planks in the US. Income tax does not mean we are all Marxists now. And if we were, we would be that much closer to the stateless end Marx sought. I'm glad we aren't.

Apparently, you are unaware of what has been implemented throughout the years. The link below shows this implementation.

Most criminal law refers to property crime and violent crime. If you threw out all drug prohibitions today, you would leave most of our criminal laws in tact.

I am not talking about just drug prohibition. I am talking about prohibition in general. There are far less "criminal laws" then, the rest. If you did a way with all of the prohibitive "laws" and "regulations" you would have a much smaller beast, and yet, it would still be a beast or demon really.

And if you don't get health insurance, you pay at tax time. The only way they could make it Constitutional was to make it a tax. As much as that is bullshit, it's not a substantial change. Money at tax time is par for the course.

It is substantial enough. And I already covered "taxation". Yes, par for the course, stealing the fruits of our labor.

The only property rights in a stateless society are those that you can secure with your own threat of violence. Just like the trespasser in your house. The existence of property rights negate absolute freedom. As I have explained, your enforcement of property rights limits the freedom of another to use said property.

Not hardly, if you are talking about a truly moral society. That is one that recognizes Objective right and wrong, acting in accordance with that, and therefore, MAXIMIZING Freedom. I can acquire property, outside of myself, through trade with others, with whatever is available to be a means of exchange.

By protecting that property, I am not using the threat of violence, but defending against it. As I have already explained. They do not get to claim ownership over my property, that is stealing. They can try and may even get a way with something of mine. It does not mean that is right for them to do. And I have a right to attempt to get it back, if possible.

Political authority has historically made property disputes resolvable so efficiently and peacefully that we are now able to enjoy the large and complex modern society that no commune or stateless backwater can produce. That's why people won't walk away from society. They are better off staying.

Right, better off living as slaves. I will take the "stateless backwater" over whatever you call this, today, any day. I rather fight and die standing for Freedom, then, live on my knees. What you have is a gigantic collective that tries to rule over people and enslave them. It certainly is a far less of a moral "society" then, in the founder's days.

Yet that's exactly what you do with the trespasser. Calling your property nan extension of yourself does not actually make you and your property the same thing. It merely makes your actions against the free movement of another seem justified to you. The trespasser can use your same position to justify self-defense against you on property that he does not believe nyoi can call your own.

I already covered this over and again. That is not what I do with the trespasser. Living in my house, does not restrict his freedom of movement. And breaking in is an initiation of force, a threat towards me and my family. If I own land, depending on how much I own, I can post signs and put up a fence, but this acts only as a delay barrier. I can probably, not do much when it comes to someone moving across said land.

Unless, I am active in keeping tabs on it. But that really is an extension of me. I have a rightful claim of that land. The trespasser does not. His self-defense argument would hold no water because I have the rightful claim, i.e. I acquired it through first use or through trade with another valid owner.

If you write down an explicit example of Natural law, and then write down the consequences for breaching it, you have created man's law.

That is not true. The Bill of Rights, for example, listed what the Federal Government was not to do in the case of Natural Law Rights. It was simply a recognition that such rights exist and will not be infringed upon. Yet, writing them down did nothing without people acting in accordance. Today, that is not done. The "laws" on the books do more to violate those rights, then enforce them.

Natural Law could be called "God's Law", "Spiritual Law", "Cosmic Law", etc. It is meant to be discovered, not created out of thin air. Man's law changes with the whims of those "in charge". Natural Law does not change. It is immutable.

In fact, the only difference between natural law and man's law is the difference between laws you personally like and laws you don't.

This makes me think that you have not paid any attention to what I have said here at all. I posted a video on a damn good presentation of what Natural Law is. I very much doubt that you took the time to watch even a small amount of it. But I challenge you to do so, then, come back and argue against what is presented there.

What you said here is a crock of shit.

Furthermore, laws are fundamentally statements of consequences, not merely dictates.

While that might be true, they are very often in contradiction to Natural Law and Natural Law Rights. And therefore not valid, in other words unjust.

What is an example of Natural law? What is the consequence for the crime you would list?

It has been called "The Law of Consequence" or even Karma. A consequence for the violation upon a person, in the form of the threat of violence, all the way to full on attack, is that the person being violated would stop the attacker(s), with whatever means they have at their disposal, and defensive equal force of action, to include deadly force. It is done through our actions and response ability.

Is inanimate property ownership a right under natural law when it necessarily restricts the freedom of others? What is the consequence for breaching that right?

Okay, how does private property restrict the freedom of others? No one has said that they can't acquire property for their use, as long as it is not harming another to do this, like stealing. And they would be held to account for that theft.

Since government can be used for evil, you advocate it's elimination. But freedom can be used for evil, so why argue for it's maximization?

"Government" is really a criminal class of people claiming and believed to have "authority" or the right to rule. Freedom is a person living their own life, minding their own business, governing themselves in their affairs.

When they have stepped out of bounds and attempt to take that Freedom from others in varying degrees, that is not Freedom, that is attempting to do what they want to others because they can. It is a misuse of free-will. And by doing it, they begin to loose their Freedom. Depending on the degree to which, they violate others Freedom, it could cost them their life.

It is freedom. You just dislike it. If you agree with my definition, then the trespasser is simply using freedom in a manner that is a problem for you, and you are restricting his freedom as a result.

I am stopping him from using his Freedom to violate mine. That is an abuse of Freedom. Freedom cannot exist without Principles to live by. If we do not live by those, it falls flat and becomes non-existent. It is a set of Principles to live by in order to co-exist amongst each other. Once those Principles are abandoned, it is no longer Freedom.

If freedom can be used for evil (it can), then it is not inherently good. It should be upheld where it is good and restricted where it is not, such as when you restrict the freedom of a trespasser.

It is not True Freedom if used for evil. True Freedom is inherently good. But it requires understanding the Principles to live by and doing so. Otherwise we are just kidding ourselves, living with an illusion of Freedom. So, if it is "used for evil" the degrees to which we have it lessen, with that abuse. And it effects the aggregate of Humanity.

This is another unsupported argument that begs the question. You've also avoided my entire point about turf wars.

It is supported by the Truth. Take a look around the world, today. They act in the very way that you describe. What about turf wars? My point was that "government" acts just like those gangs involved in turf wars. Bombing other country's for the natural resources, which is what they are doing, amongst other agendas.

I presented the irrational economic reasons, but bloody feuds arise for emotional reasons as well. A disinterested third party with superior fire power suppresses such feuds.

So, might makes right? That is not the way to go about things.

If an employee breaks the rules that govern the business, the owner or manager may dock pay, or force the employee to leave against their will. The employee is no longer free to stay. They are your trespasser.

That does not answer my question. That does not mean that it is a "government". And they would only be a trespasser if they attempted to stay anyways.

Yes. There's always an "or else". You tell the trespasser to leave your house "or else". The grocery tells employees to do their job in this or that way "or else". Social pressure carries with it a host of implied "or else". This is what I talked about earlier. People coerce others and restrict freedom in a whole host of ways.

Again, you failed to answer the question. I said do they get to tell others that want nothing to do with their "group" what to do, or else? If so, they are in the wrong. I addressed "coercion" already.

It is not the same as persuading others, without the threat of bodily harm. What you describe does not show that there would be such harm done. Just because there is an "or else" does not mean it would be that.

If the grocery manager tells the employee to do their job "or else you no longer work here" that means they will lose their job, but it is not a threat of bodily harm or injury. If they say do your job "or else I will make you do it, like whipping you" that is coercion and what I have been talking about. And that is slavery. The opposite of Freedom.

The "ment" in government is not derived from the Latin "mente" or mind. It is derived from the Latin "mentum" or instrument/medium.

Uh No, "mentum" means the chin. "Ment" does come from Latin mens or mente, I have seen both and they mean mind.(Cassell's Latin Dictionary).

Government is the mechanism or instrument by which behavior is governed, as I said. This meaning of "instrument/medium" applies to other "ment" words such as establishment, management, compartment, etc. Again the etymology is from "mentum", not "mente".

As I said, the only place in does in fact exist is within the Individual. Externally, outside of man, that which governs our behavior is Natural Law.

Again, the etymology is from "mens" or "mente" meaning the mind. And gubernare means to direct, steer, or control. I would be curious to know where you came up with that, however.

This is why I said that even your conflicts are resolved through inexplicable agreement. Most of the time people can work through disagreements. This is because there is some larger principal that is agreed on. Some common value appealed to by both. Less commonly, though still prevalent, is the situation where conflicts cannot be resolved through common value. The only outcome here is force (through coercion or barrier). Either one party will be forced to leave without their value being achieved, or they will force the acquisition of their value from the opposing party.

Yeah, then there might be bad blood, and that is unfortunate. So, this would be a "winner and a loser" scenario. The last option, likely involving the threat or use of violence, would be wrong to do, if it entails those actions.

So, my conflicts are resolved through unexplainable agreement? Is that what you are saying? Again, you have not really been paying attention to what I have said, if that is the case. I explained how people might resolve their conflicts. Hiring a third party to arbitrate is an option. That is a private third party. And the way that it would work is that both parties honor the decision. Or there is no point.

I am not interested in the kind of society Thomas More presented. Likely neither are you.

So, no you haven't read it? I don't know if I would be interested because I have not read it, but then, I am not claiming anything to be Utopic or a Utopia. I can not make such a call, other than people like to through it around alot. And it does not seem like they read it, either.

Or else what?

Meaning we all live on this earth and we will have peaceful co-existence or not. Right now, we do not, to a large degree have that. And Freedom, in the aggregate, is disappearing at a rapid pace.

We do not have to live around others. There are still empty places an unsociable person can choose to go.

Like what, the ocean? There is lots of land in the US, but it is held by the federal government as Parks.

But if we choose to live around each other, we are going to be subjected to consequences. Others will always present soft and hard forms of limitations on freedom. Soft forms are encountered all the time with human interaction. Hard forms are laws, and they aren't going anywhere either.

Freedom requires self-defense to protect it, or it is lost. That means taking action and responsibility for oneself. Many do not want to do that. They want the Freedom without the responsibility. They want someone else to take care of them. The system is set-up to cater to people like that. They are parasitic.

"Hard forms are laws", but man's law is not Real Law, and is more often than not unjust. And they are, likely, to get worse, these politician scribbles, and the enforcement of them. If we let them.

It doesn't say that mente is an older form than mentum. Is says that the Latin mente came through old French to English to make the adverb suffix "ly", which is not the suffix in government. The Latin mentum came through old French to English to make the noun suffix ment. As in government.