It is my writing. I wouldn't call it my creation per se. I claim the word combinations but none of the individual concepts.

Well if all we cared about was the fact he was dead, and it was by my hand, then we should just dispense with all of the fancy wordplay and just call it murder. Thusly, we should then make everyone pay for the crime (death by another person) in exactly the same way (equivalent number of years served in prison, or capital punishment, restitution, pain etc.)

Otherwise, what would be the point of having murder 1, 2, 3, manslaughter, etc. All of those call to intent. To wit, at the time of my friends death, I had no intention of killing him. That intent preexisted his death no doubt, but it was a mere passing thought and not what I acted upon (supposition based upon testimony).

If we examine the intent at the time of my friends death (there was none), then you should apply the rules to match the circumstances. Anything else, and you could draw all sorts of inferences from all sorts of places and situations, and since I'm not perfect, could conclude that I must have just wanted him dead, hence a murderer.

Where do you draw the line?

So you like the idea of thought crimes? What if I wrote about killing somebody in a book and they forthwith died? Does that make me guilty of any crime? Does that make me an accomplice?

A much simpler scenario might clear things up.

Let's suppose I have a gun in my hand and I'm demonstrating it to my neighbor with whom I have a friendly relationship. Someone comes up from behind me and produces a loud percussive bang. In response and without provocation, I reflexively contract my muscles due to the unexpected startling noise. The gun discharges a bullet instantly killing my friend.

Who's at fault, and for what?

Does it matter if anybody was laughing afterwards? What if there was no remorse by the noise maker? What if I said my friend deserved what he got? What if I said I was planning on shooting him anyway? Should the aforementioned change the punishment, if any?

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.

Before I begin, I laud you for taking the position you do. It's a hard and arduous one to convince others especially when the outcome results in harm that seemingly originated with the prankster. However, it presents a few interesting challenges, which I'll proceed to inquire with you. Mind you, these will be merely logical situations to consider, not ones in which I would ever be a party to, nor convince others to engage in.

Scenario:

Two individuals are located in close proximity to each other (Man A and Man B). They both carry loaded weapons. Both have been openly cleaning and handling their weapons within view of nearby bystanders. At this point no threats of violence are imminent or perceived by anyone. Neither man knows the intent of the other, or has any former knowledge of each other (they have had no past dealings for the sake of this argument).

     Situation 1: A completely independent and unrelated but close proximity explosion occurs of unknown origin. This startles man (A) as he believes the explosion is a result of the other man (B) discharging his gun at him. He fires (presumably in self defense) killing B. Who's at fault, and for exactly what are they liable?
   
    Situation 2: A man (C) in the vicinity personally knows B (past dealings), and believes B's life to be endangered by A. He wishes to defend B and discharges his weapon at A and misses. Man A perceives the shot came from B and thus shoots (presumably in self defense) and kills B. Who's at fault, and for exactly what are they liable?
   
    Situation 3: Man C is contracted to kill A. He was paid by man B for this purpose. C fires his weapon and misses A, A returns fire (believing the shot originated from B) killing B. C escapes undetected with his life. Who's at fault, and for exactly what are they liable?

You're stating the obvious. There is no doubt that a more powerful group, should they wish to apply violence, would likely get the upper hand. This is how it has transpired since the dawn of time. The animal kingdom is the same way. The superior species becomes de facto dominant.

Some nations overcome others and typically it's because one side must surrender to the other or bear the consequences of more bloodshed. But none of that speaks to the reasons for the warring in the first place and the conditions that brought it about.

None of the above is an excuse to conscript their citizenry to avoid being invaded. A little mutual respect would be nice. I personally believe, although I may never get the chance to prove it, is that cooperation will always produce better outcomes than being compelled to do the same.

When did either of you last read the NAP?

For reference lest you forgot, or are complete bozos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

In dispute resolution, sometimes it requires force to resolve an issue. Ultimately, having to use force is never peaceful, just necessary betimes. Duh.

Never said you couldn't use it, just when. The when, why, how much, and applied to whom, should be at the root of the issue. Don't act so ignorant, it's unbecoming. We should all aspire to the NAP including you and your precious authoritarian elitists. The world would be a better place.

Another quote to stoke the fire:

"The harm done by ordinary criminals, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders", who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that that the ends justify the means." -- Henry Grady Weaver.

I do care about the interpretation of law and any of its attendant logical outcomes. I'll accept any ruling, from any lawgiver, in any place, and at any time should he/she/they properly apply the non-aggression principle. Every time.

How you like them apples?

Your statist rant is going nowhere. Repeating it oft, doesn't give it legitimacy any more than a hoard of invading mercenaries plundering the same town every day for a year is justifiable. Might makes right is so last millennia. Try to pretend to be a little more enlightened instead of an authoritarian whore puppet.

And if I don't demonstrate an actual "suitable" solution (whatever that may be)? What then? I still have to remain under your "democratic" iron-fisted rule? If we're going to pretend to be gentlemen here, let's try to be a little more subtle with the authoritarian overtones. It's the least you could do. Fool me once, shame on me...

If you don't use the <bleep> words directly, you certainly imply their utility. I can use substitutes all the day long too. It's called semantics. It's all the same to me. It seems you prefer an involuntary ruling organization, to one that requires consensual agreement. See how I did that? Sneaky huh? Let's stop playing games and get down to the brass tacks for once.

You are arguing, and you are not using facts. Laws are not facts. The actions that result from the execution of said laws are facts (observables). Laws are 'is-ought' constructs. To put it another way, laws are reified extrinsic objects (abstract concepts). If you need a dictionary, I'll wait.

I merely point out the illogicality of the interpretation of laws the state attempts to impose upon their subjects (personal freedom is remotely considered). Most of it is senseless drivel. You gave a perfect example of the aforementioned drivel. Thanks for driving the point home.

I may have a somewhat flimsy way of expressing what I think is freedom (it's much simpler than everything else I've seen or read) and how it could be a achieved, but I'm absolutely appalled and disgusted at the way government currently functions.

And besides, since when should I be burdened with demonstrating to some political authoritarian that I deserve my freedom? He certainly doesn't afford me the same (quid pro quo). It's a two-way street, otherwise you're merely overpowering me (force majeure) because you can, not because you should. Where's the logic in that?

I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?

I accept that property rights are a "legal construction" insofar as one person recognizes that the property not in his possession, or within his control, is not his/theirs, and should not be infringed; and should he/they infringe, restitution may be the consequence.

The word legal has been abused and misconstrued so much, it has practically lost it's meaning. I prefer the words and/or phrases 'force' (physics domain), 'mutual consent', and 'private contract'. It makes you think a little harder about the legislative consequences of your actions.

How one goes about enforcing that is an entirely different matter altogether. A 'state' may accomplish this to some extent, but so can anybody else smart enough to provide the same service. You're arguing possible vs. impossible, instead of should vs. could.

The state creates no rights (there's is inherently nothing to create in the first place). That would be impossible. And even were it true, the state is still comprised of individuals. So individuals such as myself, could just as likely "create" rights.

States recognize some human/civil rights, they may even defend them from time to time, but rest assured, they are not the creators thereof.

What on earth are you talking about!!!??? I have never, not once, not so much as breathed, or intimated that I would ever take other people's property or would justify theft. The state primarily protects itself. The citizenry is a secondary concern.

Are you high on something? Can you read? Is English not your first language? Your comprehension level is atrocious.

So I need to prove that private contract, solidarity, voluntary association, and personal freedom needs to be proven just so I can acquire my independence?

Wherein does that make sense? The mere fact I can elucidate it means I should automatically gain personal sovereignty and autonomy; and should you deny me that, you become just like the idolatrous elitist felons you worship so much.

Your state is just as much an 'is-ought' construct as my voluntary consensual contractual society is. Yours may be the way it is right now, but that doesn't justfy it's existence. Logic demonstrates that any individual should have no more or less freedom and privilege than any other individual or group of individuals. What's so hard to understand about that?

Or was I born a slave and now I must purchase my freedom back? What say you massah? Next time, phrase you questions more accurately.

That's BS, and you know it. Private property is a philosophical 'is-ought' construct and merely needs one or more persons to defend it -should it become necessary. The state means nothing in that context. So the actual and real physical outcome would be this, "no defense, possible property loss", no state needed.

Thru private contract, everyone can achieve the effect of property status. You don't need a violent involuntary state construct for that goal. There is nothing intrinsically different between the state and a gang of highwaymen or mafioso. One merely has the scent of lawfulness at his disposal, while the other hides in the dark.

You almost make it sound like your omnipresent, omniscient, almighty state is some incorporeal demi-god. Enjoy the groveling you liege.

Oh really? Wow! Real freedom is that bad huh? So, shall I bow down to my benevolent overlords now and kiss their feet, since I'm nothing more than "clay in the potter's hands" of the intelligentsia; ready to be molded to whatever suits their fancy? Nothing is free, including freedom. Freedom to associate (solidarity) is what I'm looking for, not forced association or collectivism. Sadly you're also suggesting that nobody can get along without the state. No doubt a fantasy of your own it seems.

The fact I have any freedom at all, has much to do with my founding fathers who mostly got it right. Had you lived back in the day and graced the presence of so many impressive "statesmen" would you have told them the same drivel? That it's all a fantasy and we should all just go back to our miserable lives and pay homage to the English? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sound familiar?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

"It is seldom that any Liberty is lost all at once." --David Hugh

"The argument for Liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reasoning can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privilege, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better." --F.A. Hayek

"Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness." --James Wilson

"A frequent reference to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty, and keep a Government free." --Benjamin Franklin

"We will never be through with our fight for Liberty, because their will always be people who do not want the responsibility of freedom, and there will always be people who will gladly take that responsibility away from them, for the power it brings." --N. Scott Mills

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death."  --Patrick Henry

I'm not avoiding anything. The state is people (state == people). People are comprised of individuals (people == many individuals). I'm and individual (1 person). I don't need you to tell me what property is. And even if I did learn from your precious little "state" thugs, I still don't need them to assist me in maintaining it. I can do that just fine for myself.

And to be perfectly accurate, property rights are based on the potential use and individual right of self defense, which derives from force. If nobody stole or trespassed, there would be no use of force. Your conflating the use of voluntary and property rights. My argument is one where the right of the individual to privately contract for his security is his business, if he sees fit to do so. He may do that in any number of ways, but stealing the resources of his neighbors to achieve this (we call this theft or plunder, in case you were wondering) WOULD BE A NO-NO.

Wake up Hawker. Your logic stinks to high heaven. Go peruse Wikipedia and get aquainted with fallacy, logic, aggression, force and other most abundantly obvious topics. It's philosophy 101 stuff. I can explain it to an 8th grader and they can understand just fine. You've been indoctrinated and brainwashed. Wake up and smell the freedom.

If the state commits an act of aggression against the very people it was entrusted to protect, why should we give them a pass? I like debating the issue of liberty and what it means in a peaceful manner as much as the next person, but if the government plunders (involuntary imposts and ingratiating emoluments etc.) why don't we punish them for theft? To wit, I can't come into your home and steal your things. Were I attempt to do so, it would be extremely likely I'd end up in prison. However, when the state does it (legalized or legislated theft), we bless it.

Utterly bassackwards. It seems our benevolent and ingenious overlords have pulled the wool over our eyes. Either that, or we're so pathetic, ignorant and lazy to even care anymore.