ACism - property rights enforcement

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Emmigrate to where? From where? You interact with people under mutally-agreed upon rules.

If someone tries to initiate an interaction with you without gaining your consent first, he's initiating force against you - and you can therefore justifiably close that transaction with force. Why would someone need to move? If he's not interacting with you, there's no problem.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends, again. What are they doing when they venture beyond your property? Are they participating in voluntary interactions? If not, are they using force only in response to someone else's initiation of force?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre either going to pay much more for this police force than you would under a state, or youre going to buy insurance to cover these events. and dont forget to add into your property costs the warehous youre going to need for all of your contracts and policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you're saying then, is that under a state I can get someone else to pay for stuff I use, right? That would make me a free rider, wouldn't it?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private police forces claim legitimacy based on a popular mandate, and its officials are accountable all the time by shareholders and customers.

[ 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 ]

You wouldn't have a "popular mandate." You might also have a difficult time competing with something paid for by theft (taxes).

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
You interact with people under mutally-agreed upon rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I read that part, but again, what about those who choose not to follow your agreed upon rules? BTW how are these 'rules' mutually agreed upon, by majority vote?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW how are these 'rules' mutually agreed upon, by majority vote?

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
You interact with people under mutally-agreed upon rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claim the legitimacy to use force on those who you claim are committing some harm on you, like the harvest thief, is based on participants voluntary participation in this 'system' which promulgates rules, somehow, by way of mutual agreement. Yet this gives you no legitimate authority to use force on the person who has chosen not to participate in your 'system.' For some reason, in the 'thief's' opinion, the corn is his to take, and your rules are irrelevant to him, he has chosen not to participate. So, I'm still at a loss.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting this ACism, yet having read the sticky and some of the treads, I agree that property rights are paramount, but who enforces them?


[/ QUOTE ]

At the most basic level, the owner of the property enforces them. If he employs a third-party to assist in this enforcement, all the better.

This is no different in AC or the current state.

[ QUOTE ]

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?


[/ QUOTE ]

Conflict is resolved either by agreement or by force. If the intruder refuses agreement, I would employ force.

[ QUOTE ]

Do I use deadly force if it comes to that? Who is to say deadly force is justified or not, and by what authority?


[/ QUOTE ]

You would hopefully apply deadly force if it indeed does "come to that", and not so much just for sport, mind you.

It can be deemed justifiable or not by whatever authority has the ability to enforce their decision upon you, either through agreement or force.

This is the same in both in AC or under the state.

[ 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


[/ QUOTE ]

If they can't reach an agreement on the resolution of their conflict....yep, you guessed it...force.


[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

The abscence of a higher authority that can enforce it's decision over them by either agreement or force gives them the authority.

It is the same authority currently enjoyed by the state, and it wouldn't turn anything into a jungle of "might makes right"....you're already living in that jungle, it would only serve to 'deregulate' that authority currently held by the state and turn it over to private enterprises that would be selected over time based on their efficiency.

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW how are these 'rules' mutually agreed upon, by majority vote?

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that difficult to understand? A group of individual voluntary participants can come to mutually agreed upon rules even if there is dissenting opinion. But if its your position that the 'rules' need be unanimously agreed to, thats ok.

[Felz]

I claim it's my property, you claim it's your property.

property rights enforcement gogogo

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting this ACism, yet having read the sticky and some of the treads, I agree that property rights are paramount, but who enforces them?


[/ QUOTE ]

At the most basic level, the owner of the property enforces them. If he employs a third-party to assist in this enforcement, all the better.

This is no different in AC or the current state.

[ QUOTE ]

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?


[/ QUOTE ]

Conflict is resolved either by agreement or by force. If the intruder refuses agreement, I would employ force.

[ QUOTE ]

Do I use deadly force if it comes to that? Who is to say deadly force is justified or not, and by what authority?


[/ QUOTE ]

You would hopefully apply deadly force if it indeed does "come to that", and not so much just for sport, mind you.

It can be deemed justifiable or not by whatever authority has the ability to enforce their decision upon you, either through agreement or force.

This is the same in both in AC or under the state.

[ 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


[/ QUOTE ]

If they can't reach an agreement on the resolution of their conflict....yep, you guessed it...force.


[ QUOTE ]
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 ]



It is the same authority currently enjoyed by the state, and it wouldn't turn anything into a jungle of "might makes right"....you're already living in that jungle, it would only serve to 'deregulate' that authority currently held by the state and turn it over to private enterprises that would be selected over time based on their efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the replies. I see that the system is, according to you, not ultimately based on voluntary participation.