Sorry for my tardiness in my response. I need a way to aggregate my answers so I can know who I responded to in what thread and when.

Firstly, my "system" isn't a system, it's a set of axioms which define the laws regarding the interactions between men. They determine when and if a forceful response is warranted.

To answer your question about a banking system. That's rather easy. Devise your own banking system and convince people in a non-coercive way to join you. I could care less whether or not you have reserve requirements, issue insurance policies against loss or other whatnot. It's your problem if your system fails or succeeds. Assuming you use your clients property in an non-fradulent way (as per a contract), do as ye will. However if you think you can force a specific economic system on everybody, I would not advocate that in any way.

I don't believe it's necessary to "gather" revenue for the "government". I believe it's possible to find your own means of defensive protections just like you can shop for shoes or groceries. It's about choice. Notwithstanding that, I do see the difficulty in some aspects of the application of law, being voluntary, that could cause confusion if there wasn't a standardizing body. Either way centralizing force into the hands of the few is not my idea of a sustainable justice system. I'd like to try a free market of competing governing bodies vying for yours and my business.

Hopefully the best will come out on top.

Your exact quote was, "I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers." Point in fact, everybody believes differently than everybody else. Granted there are similarities, but we should all take responsibility for our own acts, not make attributions and apply labels to groups of people. It's disingenuous at best. If anything, it mostly breeds gossip and foments argumentativeness.

To say the least, it's one of the more leading insinuations I've read here of late. If all I can take you at is your word, then that is the one I take issue with. You're implying these two denominations use force against non-believers. Last I checked that would be a non sequitur. It would be equivalent to me saying, I killed my neighbor who has grey hair, is 50 years old, and is short. Does this mean I, and any association/denomination/group I ascribe to, also have a prediliction to killing grey-haired middle-aged short men? And therefore, via inference, I and thru association others, who believe similarly, have a bigoted bias towards killing that stereotype also? An accomplice to a crime by association? Whatever...

No doubt the Meadows Massacre happened. Some portion of that skirmish probably was comprised of self-defense while the majority was murder. Little of it had to do with the other party being of a different faith. The mormons feared more persecution. Something they had dealt with for decades. In fact, just about everywhere they went. It was the biggest reason they ended up in Utah. They were rejected (hunted in some places) wherever they were. You could say they were a bit sensitive. They just had several of their beloved leaders murdered.

Your implication is that if you're a Mormon, you use force against non-believers. How else would one read that? The fact that those lives they took were not of their own faith is mostly irrelevant. In fact, we can't exactly say that we knew what faith they belonged. The premise was they were military sent from the US Government to quell a Mormon rebellion. A fact the "members" mistook for a untruth.

Those events were, as far as I know, unguided and leaderless murderers. There are no specific instances that the mormon church ever advocated the taking of lives, or property in that conflict. That is not their belief system. Never has, never will be.

I consider your example that of a bunch of rogue crazies. Now, not having been there, I can't say who started what when, or how much of this "war" or fight was in self defense.

Notwithstanding, it has never been the position of the LDS church to advocate violence against non-members which appears to be your premise. If you can provide evidence that the leaders of the church at that time (meadows massacre) specifically handed down orders to murder and plunder then I'd like to see it.

Additionally, I'm certain that had it been avoidable, the church leaders would have made it so. Everything I've ever read about them indicates to me that they advocate openness, freedom, peace, tranquility and free will. Prove otherwise. Don't pick scurrilous unrelated events that are disconnected from the basic belief system they teach.

I again ask you to provide documentation that verifies that the LDS church specifically advocates violence and coercion against non-members, not remote groups of purported members in good standing committing heinous acts of violence. A huge stretch at best.

The scriptures and the laws of man can help guide people to do the right thing, it doesn't make them do it.

As far as I can tell, the only forceful act anybody could "lawfully" exert against his fellow man and his property would be in the situation in which he is defending himself and his property against invasion. That is the only "involuntary" force one could apply, all other acts would be voluntary and/or mutual.

Conflict tends to change the landscape of the laws and their application in adverse ways. Laws should only consider those cases when one man and his property are in conflict with another. If there is no conflict, no aggression, no force, no fraud, nor breach of contract, then no law should arise to mitigate it.

My being able to defend myself is obvious, likewise, if I choose -of my own free will- to delegate that activity to another man or organization, this is also quite obvious. If on the other hand you say that I cannot choose how I wish to be defended, then you have used force and coercion against me, thereby breaking the basic rules of choice, agency, liberty and freedom. You have placed yourself in the God/parent/nanny/greater-than-thou class of persons. There is nothing obscure, crazy, fringe, or nonsensical about that fact. It just is what it is.

The only curious question or discussion that could come about from all of this scuttlebutt, would be what exactly is the law? What standard do we use? How do we use equity in application of this law or laws and not commit/initiate acts of aggression? The law can not destroy it's own purpose that it serves.

Competition for the definition of laws is not like competition for definition of the laws of nature. Nature, viz. physics just is what it is. If we can't explain it, it doesn't change the effect of natural laws. They remain what they are. Human laws are theoretical concepts (based upon what is right and wrong) that can give us varying degrees of freedom. I'm of the belief that there can be a lot more freedom than that which we're experiencing right now.

So back to the beginning, why don't we answer the real question. What is Law? Once you figure that one out, then you can focus on what type or form of governing that best protects our lives, liberties, and properties. Conversely, and more importantly to me, what law best prevents injury/murder, enslavement, and plunder?

Whattya say we fix it? Do your best.

I'd be interested to see some references to back that claim of yours. And just as a side note, I'd like to be sure it wasn't some rogue religious nut who wasn't out of his mind or gone "off the reservation". What I mean exactly is this, has either the church/religious organization, as a general case, believed that it was within their rights to use force against non-believers. Say like the leaders, their writings, and other similar supporting documentation. Last I checked they were fairly benign pacifiers. Are these their basic belief system? Do they specifically advocate violence against nonmembers, etc.?

Here are my political axioms:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

They aren't a set of rules or objectives but they do have the air of axiomatic proofs.

Oh and I forgot. What if, without equivocation, after all of this pursuit by the "prosecution/plaintiff" it is determined that I really didn't "do it", can I then sue the opposing court, the juries in the court, any witnesses, the prosecutor and all other individuals (prison warden, jail guards, repossessor) who imprisoned me or used forced restitution against me to repay me? Any inconvenience by any and all competing courts, judges, juries, bailiffs, law enforcement etc. I could have a legal claim to.

Could I then imprison them? I mean, if I didn't commit the crime and they punish me, that would then make them the aggressor. They would have been the initiator of the aggression. I could then justifiably force them to provide me proportional restitution for their error in judgement.

Assuming we stick to the NAP rules...

That would be one of a multitude of possible outcomes; and even though they hit at the center of the issue of what is inherently right and wrong, it still makes things a bit messy. Here's why. Even if either court ruled in your favor or mine, the restitution would vary all over the place. Which do we choose? Additionally, there probably would be no "double jeopardy" protection, which would allow a wealthier individual or association to pursue me ad infinitum. I could be virtually bankrupted defending myself. Mind you there could also be court A, B, C, D, E, F... How do we handle Habeus Corpus. Bail Bonding. How long could you hold me before trial... Etc. Etc.

Of course, insurance companies might mitigate this issue somehow, but it is a difficult situation in even the most simple of scenarios.

Just thinking out loud here...

Central Government:

Pros: Standards could be applied universally. Consistency. Collectivism tends to work well when you work as a unit. For example in world wars you have a concentration of power and effort in a specific direction (of course, was the war justifiable in the first place...) Hard to flee the law to another jurisdiction.

Cons: Being collective in nature and concentrated in it's centricity, legal plunder is really easy. A few bad apples and the whole system gets messed up. Men have the prediliction to work less not more, so the politically inclined use the law as a shield of non-liability, monopoly, special favors and other false protections to create artificial barriers to entry for competition.

Non-Central Government or Competing Governments:

Pros: Everybody can choose who they will to protect them, or not. Competition should produce better quality services for cheaper prices. There is no possibility to plunder, or at least not any that couldn't be ferreted out reasonably easy. No privileges, no monopolies, no exceptions (or if they do have them, you ignore them and look elsewhere). Laws should be less complicated and can be changed more fluidly.

Cons: Criminals could just ignore one jurisdiction and plead their case elsewhere, seeking refuge within a community who supports and protects their ideals. The law is applied, judged, and sentenced in various ways. Jailbreaks by other competing "governments" could be justified if their "evidence" proved "their" man innocent. This would lead to potential tribal waring and discord. Standing armies with disparate orders and varying interpretations of their law in relation to others could make for confusion as to who did what to whom first (as in who initiated aggression first?).

Haven't seen many Libertarian societies of late. I wonder why that is? Not saying it shouldn't be, just trying to figure out why we haven't arrived there yet.
Just thinking...

Perhaps I'm beating an already dead horse here. But what I wrote here would (also) be true law. But then you've probably already read it.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447

By the way, it is a well written article. Truth, knowledge, and all laws are discovered not invented.

I know we like discussing the extreme cases, but I think we can understand this question a little better if we look at the basic concepts.

Like any weapon, the use of which can be deadly, it boils down to the condition or definition of imminent threat.

I define the definition of imminent threat (intent to do harm) as a function described by certain variables. There are mainly four determinants.

1) Proximity,
2) Capability,
3) Inertial reference frame and,
4) Vector (magnitude and direction).

All of the above variables need to be considered for imminent threat to become realized. For example: owning a nuclear bomb out in the middle of nowhere probably wouldn't be classified as a real threat. Now place the bomb in an ICBM and now were getting a little warmer. Point it in my direction, and now I'm a little nervous. Start the count down, light the fuse and set the target vector and now I feel like I need to retaliate or at least respond in kind.

Of course, nothing happens until it does. I just wouldn't want to be the guy to get it wrong and push the button and capriciously (perhaps viciously) kill thousands or millions of innocent civilians. Imminent threat is a bit like horseshoes and hand grenades, it's a bit iffy. It's all about intentions mainly, and even when that appears to be clear, you better be darn certain of yourself.

Remind me to go out and buy a bigger gun (make that a howitzer attached to a tank), put a moat around my property and populate it with crocodiles, put a earth berm behind that, shore up ammo, and wait for the end of the world.

Wow. The things people are willing to believe these days. Scary thought.

I sure hope this is just a big misunderstanding. I'd hate to get in the middle of that conversation per chance I become somebody else's lunch.

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?

Interesting direction you're taking here. It sounds like, at least to me, unless your just being sarcastic, that the only thing you fear is the bigger "stick". That rights, which are theoretical constructs, are only derived from superior forces. That the only consequence there is, is pain, and were it possible that you could avoid this, if you had this "bigger stick", you would use it to acquire land and commodities.

Sounds like we are merely prey and predator. There is no right nor wrong. No justice or injustice. All of this garrulity is mere topic fodder for the weak. Might makes right. Moral relativism is pegged to nothingness.

Pain avoidance is the name of the game is it? Okaaayyyy.....

I do take issue. But first I'll answer your question with a question. Who is this "government", or "state", or "locality", or force-to-be-reckoned-with?

It seems we conflate private association with forced association. How did the government come by this property they created a road with? Was it point of a gun, coersion, paid with out of the "public" treasury?

The definition of non-coercion land has to be one in which you negotiated with another man (collectively or individually) sans force to exchange what you have for what he has. And if you haven't induced or incentivized the other individual to part with his property, you must leave him be.

Last I checked greater than 90% of all lands used for roads had been acquired thru extortion and expropriation. It's a little legal concept they call "emminent domain" and there isn't anything non-coercive about it. It is theft and plunder thru and thru.

Physics rules.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

We seem to think this is rocket science. It isn't. If you injure or about to imminently injure someone, there should be a proportional punishment. Geez. Admittedly my physics arguments do fall short when trying to incorporate imminent threat, as no harm has come to you until just after the purported crime. Something I've given much thought to, but just can't get a grasp on.

Golly, I guess I'd better be more selective with my verbiage. You may not be a statist, in fact, I really don't care what you label yourself. All I care about is whether or not what property you have, was actually acquired in a mutually consensual way. To be perfectly crystal clear, If what property you have acquired was not stolen or coerced from another man/woman, then I have no argument with you. If however, I make you aware that the property you have acquired (anywhere in the chain of custody) is of a questionable nature, as it were, obtained thru coersion or force, and you believe that that is okay, you would be gravely wrong.

Theft is theft is theft. Whether you give yourself some title of nobility, mantle of force, wear a costume indicating your prowess, what have you, it mattereth not. Governments are merely a coalition of like-minded associates who believe their solidarity is somehow superior to the rights of the common man. They are nothing more than a collective of superior forces acting as a unit. They have no greater right to steal from the many as the individual does another man. Duh comes to mind. It really is that simple.

Notwithstanding that, and the fact that it would be near impossible to determine whose property (ie. plundered thru the state) belonged to who (reasonably determinable), such that you couldn't return it to it's rightful owner, I suppose you could keep the plunder. Just remember, next time your government gives you a hand-out, it's likely to be ill-gotten goods. That ought to at least make you think twice about the justification of it all.

I personally think it's unfortunate that we participate in such activities, but what to do...?

Myrkul, to be perfectly accurate (assuming we're going to apply physics here), our statist friend hasn't actually stolen from anybody. The State thru some delegating body (taxing facility) has taken/stolen/coerced money from the many. These are the thieves we should pursue. He personally hasn't actually stolen anything (he applied no force to that effect) from anybody. However, he is in possession of stolen property, which if it could be determined (difficult if the state refuses to disclose who they stole it from), could then be returned to you (the taxed/plundered). Now, if he were to refuse to return the stolen property, he would then qualify as a thief and could be prosecuted forthwith.

If we stick to the physics, we can punish the right individuals. Unfortunately, the State protects it's own. To wit, they give special privilege and license to the few, to plunder the many. They have a license to steal, protected by a greater collective force than you personally can produce in self defense, hence you yield to the plunderer because you fear for your life (or you value it more than your stolen property). This is why Sweden wouldn't dare try to tax Americans (or the reverse) because we know our "State" would protect us from such a seige.

Unfortunately, many of us don't stand up to the State (local) and refuse to be robbed. Shame, apathy breeds the seeds of destruction.

They (the market) actually already do. That's how we have republics, democracies, socialism, communism or any other type of -ism or governing. The basic premise of the law is force legalized. Which is to say, your version which you execute upon another man (for reasons justified by you) is merely competing with another man's version of the law. The question is, if you're right, then yours should be the ipso facto standard. Unfortunately that doesn't suffice. Truth doesn't make things happen, implementation does. That requires real force applied to real objects (including people in some instances).

Saying that we can compete for the definition of the law is to apply force your way, or their way, or some other way. In the final analysis and outcome of things, it isn't so much that you may be right (no harm, no injury, do as ye will) it's who has the superior force.

You and your collective force (mutual solidarity) must merely have superior strength, not superior truth. We can't break the laws of nature (as far as I know), but we can violate each others basic human rights. For that -collectively- we must have a standard, and then, and only then can we compete for services (governmental or otherwise) under that premise and principle.

Competing jurisdictions would work well if the boundaries to those 'jurisdictions' couldn't be invaded or penetrated by external forces. If that were possible, we could all start our own societies and see who comes out on top. Sadly, this is near impossible

Here's my take on it. Took me a bit, but I think I got it covered.


Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
 6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.    That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.