How to run an Anarchy

[LastBattle]

The normal demonstration on the Internet is to call each other a bot when they first meet, and then ask each other if they are a bot. No wonder they do not make sense to each other. Nothing changed, and something needs to change to make a dent in physical science.

Life is harder with canned responses, and so did my attempt to reply to the original post.

Like a fossil tree
from which we gather no flower
sad has been my life
fated no fruit to produce

[1714000911]

1714000911

[1714000911]

1714000911

[1714000911]

1714000911

[AyeYo]

Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

FAIL!

I did not contest the claim that the Japanse have the lowest wealth disparity in the world, I was demanding support for your conclusion.  It does not follow that low wealth disparity implies that the poor are magicly those most affected.  The "most well off people in the world" is a vague metric, and I was giving you the chance to support this claim.  I actually know already that it's false by almost any real metric available; but quality of life is a hard thing to measure.  The poor in Japan certainly have access to much more quality of life than the poor in Kenya, but absolute comparisons are rarely instructive.  Your probably thinking of the UN's MDG metrics.  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx  These would imply that Japan has long been in a tight matchup with some states in Europe for the top spot, but that's based upon the percentage of total national wealth that the bottom 20% possess.  This metric alone actually means very little with regard to quality of life, because nations like North Korea are automaticly removed from the comparisions because the government owns everything, so there is a bias from the start.  Also, how do you compare the lifestyle of a poor japanese family in Kyoto to that of a poor American family in Spokane?  Which has access to quality health care?  Living space per household member?  Effective public transportation?  Consumer products?  Internet?  Most of these issues are about comparable between nations except living space per person.  By any measurement, Americans (of any class) have, on average, the most living space per person compared to any of their class peers anywhere in the world; while Japan sits at the other extreme among first world nations.

This was in regards to income, not some vague, non-measureable sense of quality of life.  Nice try though.

[MoonShadow]

Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

FAIL!

I did not contest the claim that the Japanse have the lowest wealth disparity in the world, I was demanding support for your conclusion.  It does not follow that low wealth disparity implies that the poor are magicly those most affected.  The "most well off people in the world" is a vague metric, and I was giving you the chance to support this claim.  I actually know already that it's false by almost any real metric available; but quality of life is a hard thing to measure.  The poor in Japan certainly have access to much more quality of life than the poor in Kenya, but absolute comparisons are rarely instructive.  Your probably thinking of the UN's MDG metrics.  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx  These would imply that Japan has long been in a tight matchup with some states in Europe for the top spot, but that's based upon the percentage of total national wealth that the bottom 20% possess.  This metric alone actually means very little with regard to quality of life, because nations like North Korea are automaticly removed from the comparisions because the government owns everything, so there is a bias from the start.  Also, how do you compare the lifestyle of a poor japanese family in Kyoto to that of a poor American family in Spokane?  Which has access to quality health care?  Living space per household member?  Effective public transportation?  Consumer products?  Internet?  Most of these issues are about comparable between nations except living space per person.  By any measurement, Americans (of any class) have, on average, the most living space per person compared to any of their class peers anywhere in the world; while Japan sits at the other extreme among first world nations.

This was in regards to income, not some vague, non-measureable sense of quality of life.  Nice try though.

Income isn't the best metric to determine the "most well off people in the world", as different thinkgs cost different amounts in different cities.  That was the point of it all, and even based upon income of the bottom quintile, which is what the UN metric measures as compared to the rest of the same socieity, Europeans win.

[myrkul]

If you make a million dollars a year, and the smallest home on the market costs 1.5 mil per year, you're living in a box, regardless.

[AyeYo]

Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

FAIL!

I did not contest the claim that the Japanse have the lowest wealth disparity in the world, I was demanding support for your conclusion.  It does not follow that low wealth disparity implies that the poor are magicly those most affected.  The "most well off people in the world" is a vague metric, and I was giving you the chance to support this claim.  I actually know already that it's false by almost any real metric available; but quality of life is a hard thing to measure.  The poor in Japan certainly have access to much more quality of life than the poor in Kenya, but absolute comparisons are rarely instructive.  Your probably thinking of the UN's MDG metrics.  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx  These would imply that Japan has long been in a tight matchup with some states in Europe for the top spot, but that's based upon the percentage of total national wealth that the bottom 20% possess.  This metric alone actually means very little with regard to quality of life, because nations like North Korea are automaticly removed from the comparisions because the government owns everything, so there is a bias from the start.  Also, how do you compare the lifestyle of a poor japanese family in Kyoto to that of a poor American family in Spokane?  Which has access to quality health care?  Living space per household member?  Effective public transportation?  Consumer products?  Internet?  Most of these issues are about comparable between nations except living space per person.  By any measurement, Americans (of any class) have, on average, the most living space per person compared to any of their class peers anywhere in the world; while Japan sits at the other extreme among first world nations.

This was in regards to income, not some vague, non-measureable sense of quality of life.  Nice try though.

Income isn't the best metric to determine the "most well off people in the world", as different thinkgs cost different amounts in different cities.  That was the point of it all, and even based upon income of the bottom quintile, which is what the UN metric measures as compared to the rest of the same socieity, Europeans win.

And we all know that Europeans are some raging libertarians. 

Quality of life is a totally separate discussion that once again, ironically, though not surprisingly, does not favor "libertarian leaning" nations.

[MoonShadow]

This was in regards to income, not some vague, non-measureable sense of quality of life.  Nice try though.

Income isn't the best metric to determine the "most well off people in the world", as different thinkgs cost different amounts in different cities.  That was the point of it all, and even based upon income of the bottom quintile, which is what the UN metric measures as compared to the rest of the same socieity, Europeans win.

And we all know that Europeans are some raging libertarians.  

Quality of life is a totally separate discussion that once again, ironically, though not surprisingly, does not favor "libertarian leaning" nations.

I wasn't making any such claim, I just wasn't about to let you make a bs claim and just let it go by unchallenged.

[TheGer]

Maybe that's why they riot in the streets when their Govt's submit to the big mega banks attempts to attach the populations income onto their bad debt.

Banker Bailouts anyone?

At least they have the sense of self worth to riot.  More than I can say for us in North America.

"And we all know that Europeans are some raging libertarians.  "

[LastBattle]

Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

FAIL!

I did not contest the claim that the Japanse have the lowest wealth disparity in the world, I was demanding support for your conclusion.  It does not follow that low wealth disparity implies that the poor are magicly those most affected.  The "most well off people in the world" is a vague metric, and I was giving you the chance to support this claim.  I actually know already that it's false by almost any real metric available; but quality of life is a hard thing to measure.  The poor in Japan certainly have access to much more quality of life than the poor in Kenya, but absolute comparisons are rarely instructive.  Your probably thinking of the UN's MDG metrics.  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx  These would imply that Japan has long been in a tight matchup with some states in Europe for the top spot, but that's based upon the percentage of total national wealth that the bottom 20% possess.  This metric alone actually means very little with regard to quality of life, because nations like North Korea are automaticly removed from the comparisions because the government owns everything, so there is a bias from the start.  Also, how do you compare the lifestyle of a poor japanese family in Kyoto to that of a poor American family in Spokane?  Which has access to quality health care?  Living space per household member?  Effective public transportation?  Consumer products?  Internet?  Most of these issues are about comparable between nations except living space per person.  By any measurement, Americans (of any class) have, on average, the most living space per person compared to any of their class peers anywhere in the world; while Japan sits at the other extreme among first world nations.

This was in regards to income, not some vague, non-measureable sense of quality of life.  Nice try though.

Income isn't the best metric to determine the "most well off people in the world", as different thinkgs cost different amounts in different cities.  That was the point of it all, and even based upon income of the bottom quintile, which is what the UN metric measures as compared to the rest of the same socieity, Europeans win.

And we all know that Europeans are some raging libertarians. 

Quality of life is a totally separate discussion that once again, ironically, though not surprisingly, does not favor "libertarian leaning" nations.

We can see the success of the Europeans in such prosperous nations as
Greece
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Ireland
France
Sweden
etc

Come to think of it, the only western European nation that has been doing even remotely well recently would be Germany, which is having to drag the rest of its neighbors along for the ride.

Funny thing about Germany, though; Up until it joined the Eurozone, its central bank was one of the least intrusive central banks in the world, leading to German money becoming a relatively safe store of value. Going by the train of logic you were riding earlier:

Hong Kong: Very few regulations/taxes + large central bank = FAR AWAY FROM LIBERTARIANISM

Germany: A fair amount of regulations/taxes + a small central bank = VERY CLOSE TO LIBERTARIANISM

Seeing as how you think central bank size is the most important measure of how close a country is to the standard of being libertarian, this makes Germany one of the most libertarian nations in the world using your logic.

[cpunks]

Regarding anarchist ways to deal with crime...

...well, it's a complex topic, and somewhere quite early into this topic, terms like "mutual aid networks" and "self-defense" pop up.

In an anarchist society, opportunities for catching and punishing a person for their crimes after the fact, will be limited. At the very least, true freedom of movement and lack of central and mandatory identification of persons would ensure that. One may recognize a person if one managed to record them, or in case of crimes which offend prevalent ethics, gain the voluntary assistance of numerous people to help with that, or negotiate some assistance in return for a compensation... but that doesn't go far. It's a safe bet that nobody is going to respect the authority of any court, and any attempt to build a prison will be promptly stopped.

Thus, the focus in an anarchist society must inevitably reside on preventing crime -- both preventing the material reasons for crime (poverty), preventing ethical preconditions for it (not giving a fuck about others), and finally, preventing crime from succeeding or being profitable (self defense; material objects with owner loyalty; deniable and destructible representations of value [1]).

[1] This is where Bitcoin fits in, by the way, as it's easily destroyed by having a machine forget an encryption key, easily restored from offsite backups, its existance can be easily denied.

These goals can be pursued in countless ways. The networks of mutual aid which some anarchists already participate in (to maintain some safety against state and other likely attack vectors, e.g. nazis) are not only suitable for existing under oppression, but likewise perfectly suitable for helping out neigbours. Their "quality of service" can be vastly improved.

It's such a long topic, so that for a change, I would like to offer an example of one anarchist encounter with (non-state [2] ) crime.

[2] The state itself is a big can of worms, it nicely fits the pattern of organized crime, but clearly even intuition can tell that unlimited action is not justified against it. High-intensity conflict ("war") against a structure which people are dependent on, is unlikely to bring success. Being a complex and deeply rooted institution, state (just like mafia) needs to be uprooted through a prolonged campaign of attrition, creating independent alternatives for its useful functions, offering paths to independence of its doubtful services, and incapacitating its harmful functions.

There is a squat (an abandoned house which has been illegally occupied) somewhere. I (note: one of the users of the "cpunks" account, the number of whom shall remain unspecified) occupied it with friends, and has been using it for 2 years now. Mostly as a factory.

Recently some guy, probably a short-term inhabitant of a neigbouring summer gardening slum (also a squat, specifically built on squatted land, just with no political tendencies), saw a lot of aluminum on the ground floor of the workshop (cut and readied for welding, since we build stuff there). That sight overcame his ethics. Thus one morning, when everyone had left to various errands, he brought a big hammer and started hammering the concrete beam cast around the lower part of the window bars.

He successfully broke in, and took a look into the corridor, where a large bottle of argon and various interesting stuff was located. That's when the motion sensor noticed him and dispatched an alert to a handful of people. One of the people activated the eavesdropping functionality of the alarm system, and confirmed that this was intrusion, not a false alarm.

That person had a car nearby, so they grabbed 2 cans of pepper spray, a revolver, a camera, a phone (we don't have autonomous emergency communication unfortunately, though I want this to change at some point) and sped off towards the squat. That person then called another one, who got a taxi, and likewise got on their way to the site, together with their friend. A third inhabitant couldn't be reached until a later time, and a fourth was out of town, etc. Some non-inhabitants were also called, and some set on their way to the house, awaiting more info about the situation.

The person with the car arrived first, parked it 50 m away behind a natural obstacle, approached and assessed the situation, confronted, suprised and thorougly pepper-sprayed the thief (in compensation for their hard work at breaking and stealing shit). The thief tried throwing a crowbar at them, but having been throughly pepper-sprayed, failed miserably. Since the anarchist had no intent of attempting to stop the thief from running away, he settled with taking a photo of the guy to aid future recognition (this actually failed, since the anarchist in question was not very competent at handling two pepper spray cans and a camera simultaneously) and finally fired a warning shot from a blank cartridge at the thief who was already running away (to emphasize the reasons why he should not return, even if he could raise some more theft capacity).

Then, others arrived and helped carry the stuff back into the house, and cast the window bars back in place. The squat is again fortified to its usual degree. The thief will need to wash their face for about 2 days, since they got a quite extraordinary quantity of pepper spray (reserved for managing a confrontation with at least 4 nazis in case of problems). The thief will also need to acquire (steal, probably) a new demolition hammer, crowbar, pair of pincers, rucksack and handbag. Then, they can figure out if they want to continue stealing or perhaps gather scrap metal instead. Enough of that lying around from Soviet times (yeah, I've partially disclosed my location by telling this). Or perhaps they'll prefer to get otherwise occupied with some productive form of activity. Perhaps if he needs some stuff badly enough, he can visit the local freeshop where people bring stuff which they don't need, and get it for free.

Either way, this rather pedestrian crime was first obstructed by fortification and early warning systems, then stopped by rapid response by a private mutual aid network, and some form of retribution was dispensed, which the individual involved certainly found unpleasant enough. However, I am perfectly aware that this little story only covers a tiny part of the scope of the word "crime".

Furthermore, I am perfectly aware that the definition of "crime" covers myself too. :D After all, I have participated in seizing for anarchist use, a house which was (right?)fully built by the Soviet state, for money it had honestly monopolized the creation of, resources it had honestly robbed, on land it had straightforwardly annexed. :D None of the parties involved is beyond blame, and the stuff about property and theft is not as simple as Proudhon wrote. :P

The current form of state thus has a "valid" claim to its "property", which we are in violation of. :D Well, we reckoned that something abandoned for 20 years cannot possibly considered anyone's property, so we took it, repaired it, and nobody came to complain. :P Life is somewhat complicated.

And to add complexity, well myself personally, in addition to squatting abandoned houses, I would whole-heartedly welcome workers taking over their businesses in most commonplace capitalist conditions (except if it was a fair business in which its owners would also be actively involved, as opposed to dispatching commands via 11 intermediaries), and well-targeted sabotage (destroying without taking, out of inability or unwillingness to attempt seizing it for own use) of state property.

One might thus perceive a degree of hypocrisy or inconsistency in the above, which I would however advise to examine closer. The principles of running one's own life, and not running other people's lives, and not messing with them unless they mess with you, is the key to understanding it. The potentially unjust activities which I wholeheartedly support, I support for counteracting injustice being done, if they seem proportional to it.

[AyeYo]

Funny thing about Germany, though; Up until it joined the Eurozone, its central bank was one of the least intrusive central banks in the world, leading to German money becoming a relatively safe store of value. Going by the train of logic you were riding earlier:

Hong Kong: Very few regulations/taxes + large central bank = FAR AWAY FROM LIBERTARIANISM

Germany: A fair amount of regulations/taxes + a small central bank = VERY CLOSE TO LIBERTARIANISM

Seeing as how you think central bank size is the most important measure of how close a country is to the standard of being libertarian, this makes Germany one of the most libertarian nations in the world using your logic.

You're back to the "2 year olds are the great drivers because 40 year olds drive better than 90 year olds and 2 is closer to 40 than 90."

It's not logical.  Neither Germany nor Hong Kong is remotely libertarian.  Once again, the only places on earth you'll find even vaguely libertarian nations is in the worst off of the third-world countries.

[myrkul]

Regarding anarchist ways to deal with crime...

First, I'd like to thank you for your well thought-out post.

As someone who has actually lived through the collapse of a state, you're uniquely qualified to speak on this.

Firstly, Reclaiming property from the state is not, in my opinion, theft. Ideally, the people who got it taken away would get it back, but this is not often remotely possible with state property. Taking from capitalist owners, however, is theft, but I fully support a worker's collective getting together and buying out the capitalist.

I see no real difficulty in tracking down criminals in a modern Anarchist society, though it would be more difficult than in a state-controlled one. And while it is true that few, if any people will respect the authority of any court which claimed monopoly on justice, but I advise you to read up on the concepts of Mediation and Arbitration. Prison is sort of a touchy topic, but there would be need for secluding the offender from society for the duration of the dispute resolution in some cases, so private secure facilities would be needed and therefore made available, Even if it is just a Hotel room that locks from the outside.

Everything else in your post is pretty much spot on.

[myrkul]

You're back to the "2 year olds are the great drivers because 40 year olds drive better than 90 year olds and 2 is closer to 40 than 90."

What was that you said about Hyperbole?

[AyeYo]

You're back to the "2 year olds are the great drivers because 40 year olds drive better than 90 year olds and 2 is closer to 40 than 90."

What was that you said about Hyperbole?

No, that's called applying the same logic to other scenarios: e.g. the fact that Germany MAY have some SLIGHTLY more libertarian characteristics THAN the United States, doesn't NOT make Germany libertarian or make any comparison using it in an attempt to prove true libertarians principles even the slightest bit valid.

That fact that I'm MORE dark than an Irish person doesn't make me a black person, nor does it make me an adequate substitute for a black person for example purposes.

[LastBattle]

You're back to the "2 year olds are the great drivers because 40 year olds drive better than 90 year olds and 2 is closer to 40 than 90."

What was that you said about Hyperbole?

No, that's called applying the same logic to other scenarios: e.g. the fact that Germany MAY have some SLIGHTLY more libertarian characteristics THAN the United States, doesn't NOT make Germany libertarian or make any comparison using it in an attempt to prove true libertarians principles even the slightest bit valid.

That fact that I'm MORE dark than an Irish person doesn't make me a black person, nor does it make me an adequate substitute for a black person for example purposes.

You are being inconsistent with your definitions.

I don't consider Germany to be libertarian (though it is, frankly,  closer than almost all of Europe barring possibly Estonia and arguably Poland), I was exposing your inconsistency. It would seem your definition of "libertarian" is "warzone" or "in a state of chaos".

Although this is probably a waste of time, I will demonstrate in detail:

I say: Hong Kong is reasonably close to being libertarian because it has few regulations and few taxes.

You say: Hong Kong has a strong central bank so it isn't libertarian

I say: Oh? A single statist feature (strong central bank) overrides every other feature that is more market oriented? Well then, presumably you assume that the aforementioned single statist feature (strong central banks) is an incredibly important one if it overrides everything else, so that means a country with some measure of taxation/regulation IS libertarian if it has a weak central bank. Ergo, Germany is libertarian.

Stop hiding behind vague, empty claims.

[AyeYo]

I don't consider Germany to be libertarian (though it is, frankly,  closer than almost all of Europe barring possibly Estonia and arguably Poland), I was exposing your inconsistency. It would seem your definition of "libertarian" is "warzone" or "in a state of chaos".

Although this is probably a waste of time, I will demonstrate in detail:

I say: Hong Kong is reasonably close to being libertarian because it has few regulations and few taxes.

You say: Hong Kong has a strong central bank so it isn't libertarian

I say: Oh? A single statist feature (strong central bank) overrides every other feature that is more market oriented? Well then, presumably you assume that the aforementioned single statist feature (strong central banks) is an incredibly important one if it overrides everything else, so that means a country with some measure of taxation/regulation IS libertarian if it has a weak central bank. Ergo, Germany is libertarian.

Stop hiding behind vague, empty claims.

State of chaos is as close to libertarian as you're going to get in the real world.


Hong Kong is not "reasonably close" to being libertarian because it has a few LESS regulations than the next guy, any more than a dog is "reasonable close" to being a elephant because they both have four legs and two eyes.

[LastBattle]

I don't consider Germany to be libertarian (though it is, frankly,  closer than almost all of Europe barring possibly Estonia and arguably Poland), I was exposing your inconsistency. It would seem your definition of "libertarian" is "warzone" or "in a state of chaos".

Although this is probably a waste of time, I will demonstrate in detail:

I say: Hong Kong is reasonably close to being libertarian because it has few regulations and few taxes.

You say: Hong Kong has a strong central bank so it isn't libertarian

I say: Oh? A single statist feature (strong central bank) overrides every other feature that is more market oriented? Well then, presumably you assume that the aforementioned single statist feature (strong central banks) is an incredibly important one if it overrides everything else, so that means a country with some measure of taxation/regulation IS libertarian if it has a weak central bank. Ergo, Germany is libertarian.

Stop hiding behind vague, empty claims.

State of chaos is as close to libertarian as you're going to get in the real world.


Hong Kong is not "reasonably close" to being libertarian because it has a few LESS regulations than the next guy, any more than a dog is "reasonable close" to being a elephant because they both have four legs and two eyes.

...You do realize libertarian is not synonymous with "Anarcho-capitalist", right? Because if that was what I was claiming, you would be completely right. However, libertarianism covers a very broad spectrum, something you would know if you weren't talking out of your ass on a subject you aren't bothering to familiarize yourself with.

For example, you would agree Socialism covers a broad spectrum, correct (if you don't there are many angry Europeans I have come across who you can argue with instead.)?  For example, most European countries (Germany too, if less so these days, Sweden and France being the ideal examples) have large social welfare states that are generally considered to be socialistic in nature (and calling them "progressive" instead is semantical and a waste of time). Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and Cuba are obviously socialistic, too. The difference is that the USSR and Cuba are Communist, whereas most of Europe isn't. It would be hyperbole to claim that France is communist; it wouldn't be to say France is socialist.

Socialism is to communism as libertarianism is to anarcho-capitalism (or voluntarism, or agorism, or what have you). Anarcho-capitalism (the only kind of libertarianism you are acknowledging) is the FAR extreme end of Libertarianism. The moderate wing (aka the Beltway Libertarians) actually view Hong Kong as being EXACTLY what the want, limited regulations, low taxes, strong central bank and all. Think of Milton Friedman: He supported a strong central bank (As in Hong Kong), but he considered himself to be libertarian. Of course, putting that as the example of libertarianism would be the opposite problem, so the centre of the spectrum falls around the minarchist wing (think Ron Paul give or take a couple of positions).

Hong Kong is a light year away from anarcho-capitalism; it isn't especially distant from minarchism.

[myrkul]

I'm afraid I'm at least partially to blame for that... I have a tendency to conflate "libertarian" with "anarchist" due to the fact that I consider Anarchism to be the inevitable end of following libertarian principles in a consistent fashion.

[AyeYo]

I'm afraid I'm at least partially to blame for that... I have a tendency to conflate "libertarian" with "anarchist" due to the fact that I consider Anarchism to be the inevitable end of following libertarian principles in a consistent fashion.

No worries.  If it could exist in the real world (and it can't) libertarian society would very quickly degrade into anarchy, which is why I tend to interchange the two.

[myrkul]

I'm afraid I'm at least partially to blame for that... I have a tendency to conflate "libertarian" with "anarchist" due to the fact that I consider Anarchism to be the inevitable end of following libertarian principles in a consistent fashion.

No worries.  If it could exist in the real world (and it can't) libertarian society would very quickly degrade into anarchy, which is why I tend to interchange the two.

Anarchy != Chaos.

[FredericBastiat]

Is nobody going to respond, or am I getting to complicated here. Seems pretty obvious...

THE LAW

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.