ACism - property rights enforcement

[BuddyQ]

Interesting this ACism, yet having read the sticky and some of the treads, I agree that property rights are paramount, but who enforces them? Say someone pulls a truck onto my crop I planted on 'my' land and starts harvesting? - do I just tell him to leave? And if he refuses and pulls out a knife? Do I use deadly force if it comes to that? Who is to say deadly force is justified or not, and by what authority?
If some private police force is engaged instead to apprehend the 'thief' what if the thief doesn't recognize, or has never acknowledged their authority and they start cuffing him and taking him away by force, why is the force they are employing justified, who gave them the authority to do that? Without some, minimal at least, state authority over the reasonable use of force to enforce property rights, doesn't this 'community' just become a jungle of 'might makes right'?

[ALawPoker]

Why would someone be likely to start harvesting on your land when he knows you will not necessarily let him, and that the consequence to him (if nothing else, wasted time, energy, and resources) will near certainly outweigh the tiny chance he gets some production out of this endeavor.

If he did do that, you could do a lot of things. What would you do now? Call the cops I suppose? If removing people from your land was a problem, why do you assume the market would not provide a solution? You could just as easily call whomever the market decides is responsible for such infractions.

If you choose to handle it yourself, and he pulls out a knife, sure why wouldn't you consider using force if you felt threatened? Who is to say for sure whether deadly forced is justified now? The government is not omniscient. Just because a certain court rules one way does not mean that their insight was divine. There's always grey area. You should be more concerned with "which is more likely to do better more often," rather than "how do I know for sure."

I think a lot of the misconceptions about government stem from misconceptions of our nature. That being, that a certain problem will necessarily HAVE a perfect solution. You might not (and indeed should not) agree with every ruling a private court issued. But all you should be concerned with is whether it will be better or worse than government mandated justice.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would someone be likely to start harvesting on your land when he knows you will not necessarily let him, and that the consequence to him (if nothing else, wasted time, energy, and resources) will not outweigh the tiny chance he gets some production out of this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he is stupid, I assume there will always be stupid people.

[ QUOTE ]
If removing people from your land was a problem, why do you assume the market would not provide a solution? You could just as easily call whomever the market decides is responsible for such infractions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but where does 'the market' get the authority or the legitimacy to enforce infractions? And who decides what the infractions are? What if someone disagrees and decides to 'infract' why is his decision 'wrong' and on who or what authority is he forcibly acted upon?

[ QUOTE ]
Who is to say for sure whether deadly forced is justified now?

[/ QUOTE ] We have elected legislators to say, and juries to find the facts. Those bodies claim the authority to do so based on some theory of legitimacy. This what I'm getting at.

[ QUOTE ]
You should be more concerned with "which is more likely to do better more often," rather than "how do I know for sure."

[/ QUOTE ] I am concerned with efficacy, but first with legitimacy.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would someone be likely to start harvesting on your land when he knows you will not necessarily let him, and that the consequence to him (if nothing else, wasted time, energy, and resources) will not outweigh the tiny chance he gets some production out of this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he is stupid, I assume there will always be stupid people.

[ QUOTE ]
If removing people from your land was a problem, why do you assume the market would not provide a solution? You could just as easily call whomever the market decides is responsible for such infractions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but where does 'the market' get the authority or the legitimacy to enforce infractions? And who decides what the infractions are? What if someone disagrees and decides to 'infract' why is his decision 'wrong' and on who or what authority is he forcibly acted upon?

[ QUOTE ]
Who is to say for sure whether deadly forced is justified now?

[/ QUOTE ] We have elected legislators to say, and juries to find the facts. Those bodies claim the authority to do so based on some theory of legitimacy. This what I'm getting at.

[ QUOTE ]
You should be more concerned with "which is more likely to do better more often," rather than "how do I know for sure."

[/ QUOTE ] I am concerned with efficacy, but first with legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much illegitimacy have various 'states' engaged in since the beginning of time in your opinion? HOw many illegitimage deaths, starvations, etc, etc, etc? If you are concerned with legitimacy I can't for the life of me understand why you would support a predatory territorial monopoly that slaughters millions upon millions.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
How much illegitimacy have various 'states' engaged in since the beginning of time in your opinion? HOw many illegitimage deaths, starvations, etc, etc, etc? If you are concerned with legitimacy I can't for the life of me understand why you would support a predatory territorial monopoly that slaughters millions upon millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I'm sorry you misunderstood, I'm not defending the current state or its theory of legitimacy. I merely stating that it has one. Your reply addresses a point I never raised. Start a different thread for that.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much illegitimacy have various 'states' engaged in since the beginning of time in your opinion? HOw many illegitimage deaths, starvations, etc, etc, etc? If you are concerned with legitimacy I can't for the life of me understand why you would support a predatory territorial monopoly that slaughters millions upon millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I'm sorry you misunderstood, I'm not defending the current state or its theory of legitimacy. I merely stating that it has one. Your reply addresses a point I never raised. Start a different thread for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said your concnered with legitimacy, didn't you? Where does legitimacy come from? What is legitimacy? Does one human have legitimacy over another human?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

If some private police force is engaged instead to apprehend the 'thief' what if the thief doesn't recognize, or has never acknowledged their authority and they start cuffing him and taking him away by force, why is the force they are employing justified, who gave them the authority to do that? Without some, minimal at least, state authority over the reasonable use of force to enforce property rights, doesn't this 'community' just become a jungle of 'might makes right'?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that different from the state at all? I can say the exact same things:

If some state police force is engaged instead to apprehend the 'thief' what if the thief doesn't recognize, or has never acknowledged their authority and they start cuffing him and taking him away by force, why is the force they are employing justified, who gave them the authority to do that?

The only real difference is who is or is not being forced to pay for this police force.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
How is that different from the state at all? I can say the exact same things:
If some state police force is engaged instead to apprehend the 'thief' what if the thief doesn't recognize, or has never acknowledged their authority and they start cuffing him and taking him away by force, why is the force they are employing justified, who gave them the authority to do that?
The only real difference is who is or is not being forced to pay for this police force.

[/ QUOTE ]

The state claims legitimacy based on a popular mandate, and its officials are accountable form time to time by the electors. The police power is merely a function of this state.

Are you saying right now I could, on my own, create my own police force, accountable only to my whim, and that would be as legitimate as the current police force?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The state claims legitimacy based on a popular mandate, and its officials are accountable form time to time by the electors. The police power is merely a function of this state.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US Golf Association claims legitimacy based upon a popular mandate, and its officials are accountable from time to time by the electors. Their police power (to set rules, approve equipment, etc) is merely a function of the association.

Is the USGA justified in telling me how I may design my own private course, and what equipment I may use on it?

If people want to voluntarily join the USGA, and abide by its rules, and participate in whatever collective decision making process it uses, that's great.

And those who want to play golf with exotic, unapproved clubs and balls can do that too, without having any affect on those who observe USGA rules.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying right now I could, on my own, create my own police force, accountable only to my whim, and that would be as legitimate as the current police force?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. Your private police force may very well be MORE legitimate than a state police force if your private police force only projects power over your own private property.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
The US Golf Association claims legitimacy based upon a popular mandate, and its officials are accountable from time to time by the electors. Their police power (to set rules, approve equipment, etc) is merely a function of the association.

Is the USGA justified in telling me how I may design my own private course, and what equipment I may use on it?

If people want to voluntarily join the USGA, and abide by its rules, and participate in whatever collective decision making process it uses, that's great.

And those who want to play golf with exotic, unapproved clubs and balls can do that too, without having any affect on those who observe USGA rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. So the basis for the legitimacy of the AC 'community' is voluntary participation. Thats fine. But what of those who choose not to join - they emigrate? What if they refuse to move and refuse to join? Is force justified on them if they 'infract'?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying right now I could, on my own, create my own police force, accountable only to my whim, and that would be as legitimate as the current police force?

-It depends. Your private police force may very well be MORE legitimate than a state police force if your private police force only projects power over your own private property.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed. But what if they venture beyond my private property? Are they indeed less legitimate?