I'm sorry, I have to push back on this. I have very good reasons.

I can see that it is going to be very hard for me to change your mind, but I am going to try.

I don't think collectivists are necessarily against borders. China is pretty closed off, as is North Korea.

You can't simply claim huge parts of the universe as yours. According to my definition of property, you can only claim your labor (or labor that you exchanged with somebody else). These are claims that cannot be disputed and can always be proven. You are also naturally limited in how much stuff you are able to own. You don't want somebody to be claiming the whole universe. Everybody else will have nothing left over to own. This is how you get wars. You need a system in which all participating parties can agree to a universally acceptable set of rules. Preempting someone on the claim of the whole universe (or currently accessible universe - Earth) is not something that people will agree with.

Having said that, I would like to point out that you can have borders for stuff that affects your labor. I think that is fair. If you invested into a farm and you take care of it and grow food on that piece of land, you own it to the extent of your investment. If someone was to harm it, they would be liable for damages. Building a road would automatically grant you ownership of that land, provided that you didn't cause any damage to anybody else's land. There are some details left to work out with my idea, but I think it is workable.

I think claiming something isn't very labor-intensive. In fact, it is basically zero labor. Maybe you have to put a fence around it and maybe use it for something that would require preventing people from accessing it. Such as, it being your private residence or a business. Only then do I think your claim is valid.

You can have associations of people claiming collections of properties as part of an association. I guess you can possibly fence that stuff off if everyone inside agrees. However, what's going on with country borders is a little different.

I view country borders as something that a the state (the mafia organization) conjures. People have no say in what their borders are. States organize wars. At the end of the war they renegotiate borders. Populations in redrawn lands want to be in the other country after the war but they have no say. Populations can't switch sides. States tax populations residing within their borders. When they want more tax revenue, they organize wars. States force male populations on their territories into fighting their wars for them. People are brainwashed into thinking that their country is theirs and their government is their parent. However, in reality, their government is their master and the people are its slaves. People's borders are the borders of their masters which they have forcefully taken away from somebody else. Americans took their land from the Indians. They didn't have to. They may have been able to work things out. I think both sides even proclaimed the right of conquest. What a brutal and uncivilized bunch.

Some people are part of the government, so, they will defend it because their livelihood depends on it. However, they are guilty of organized crime.

There are even some stateless people. Nobody wants them. Their current country wants them out. What are they supposed to do, die? You guys are cruel. I would like to be stateless myself, but then I would need to commit suicide. The situation which you statists have created is impossible.

People should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Or, as I might reword it, people should not be judged by their birth country but by their adherence to the universal law.

It is not a good idea to prevent people from cooperating with you. If you decide to screw them over (by withholding access to some geographical area) then don't be surprised when they return the favor.

Now, if you guys decide to have a conflicting set of laws in both of your countries then I guess you do need borders to keep yourselves away from each other. You are going to need some occasional wars then. I guess you guys like killing each other.

A lot of problems are solved with my universal law idea. I hope for a future in which humanity is able to live peacefully without organized crime running everything, without wars and without Earth being fenced off everywhere.

"easier version of slavery"

I think 'predation' is a better word for what is going on there.

"Punishment implies a justified use of force."

When I observe 'punishment' in the current justice system, I see death penalty, imprisonment or fines. I don't consider these justified or permissible. These are supposed to cause 'pain' and 'damage' by design. These are things that you are not supposed to do to people.

The only justified version of 'justice' that I would allow is one where:
1. victim is paid back by perpetrator
2. perpetrator pays for costs of enforcement (of that particular case)
3. perpetrator goes through rehab (if they don't admit wrongdoing and repay voluntarily, otherwise they'll come back and cause more damage)

Right, I will agree with some of that.

I would argue that 'exclusive right of use' is a property 'right', not property itself. What is property though?

I was trying to propose an improved definition of property that would be a bit more mathematical. Instead of having claims of physical matter or space, you would claim the labor that was put into something to make it into the form that the 'property' currently takes.

So, if one was to deprive someone of their property by violence or fraud, one would be on the hook to replace it by putting the needed amount of labor into producing it.

There are still issues with this definition, but I am working on resolving them.

"conventional wisdom"

Maybe conventional stupidity? That is known to happen.

This is about rights and about using violence to violate them.

"And what about automobile manufacturers?"

They also have to decide this based on free market. If they fuck up then it is on them. They better not fuck up.

It is their right. Some self-important morons in congress don't have a right to force it by violence.

"consequence of allowing people to drive on whichever side of the road they choose"

As I've said previously, the road owner should make that determination. Free market would sort it out.

Road users better follow the rules, otherwise they would have to repay damages that result from their not following the rules.

"In a world of perfect beings with perfect knowledge, that would probably work."

Being imperfect is no excuse for not trying. Society should at least put some effort into it. By the looks of things, you guys are purposefully ignorant.

I don't agree with you that something much closer to perfection (than what exists now) cannot be achieved when it comes to laws.

Predation is the problem. Society is way too comfortable with predation. You guys are unwilling to admit that you are guilty of it.

'This gets back to the whole "Golden Rule" discussion.' 'commonality'

I said somewhere in another part of this ginormous thread that, in my world view, this isn't about commonality but about a 'social contract' or 'mutual agreement' between parties not to screw each other over and to cooperate. The two parties don't have to be common.

If you start dictating made up laws to me (that I don't even agree with) and you start punishing me for not following them, don't be surprised when I fuck you over one of these days. We had a deal. You overstepped your bounds.

The current social interactions appear very strange to me. You guys are engaged in a game where you are trying to screw each other over and get away with it. This is how I view society right now. I have a strong urge to fuck all you guys over myself so intensely that you might finally realize what the fuck is wrong with your little game. (I apologize for the colorful language).

"comply with their wishes?"

You are trying to confuse me here.

By 'wish' I mean voting in an arbitrary law. All I'm saying is that you can't punish other people for not follow your made up law.

Let's say a city council votes in a law stating that all roofs must be red in my town. I paint my roof black. The city punishes me with a fine. This is the situation that I was referring to when I said "Also, you don't have the right to punish them for not complying with your wishes."

Rape is not a law. I guess you can make a law that allows rape... But it wouldn't make it right.

Also, rape violates my universal laws which are not arbitrary. Rape is unjustified violence. Violence is only allowed in certain cases of self-defense. If you get raped then you are allowed to force the perpetrator (by violence) to pay you back for the damage that was caused. Raping them back (or something similar) isn't allowed. The damage was probably substantial anyway, the perpetrator isn't getting off easy. They are probably going to be paying you back for the rest of their remaining life. This begs the question, how would you quantify the damage? I have some ideas about that, if you are interested.

On the other hand, what damage was caused by painting my roof black? My roof is my property. You can't tell me what to do with my property. I didn't break any kind of contract either.

This is not a hole in my logic. I don't understand why you would twist my words this way.

You did say a few things but I was either able to provide a valid counter argument or admit that I am not sure yet how those issues would be resolved in my view. I will be thinking about those issues to try to find a solution as time goes on. Thank you for your input.

I should read your book too.

I was actually thinking about writing a book myself. However, now that I had a chance to debate with you guys, I am afraid my ideas are so far out that nobody would even understand what I would be saying. This wouldn't necessarily be because my world view is invalid. I think people will not accept it just because it will be accusing them of wrongdoing. They would just deny these ideas because to consider them would be to admit the possibility of guilt. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." According to some statistics, half of US economy is basically government.

"You might want to re-read that sentence."

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but I assume you think it is some sort of contradiction. It is not.

I don't know some details, but what I know at the current point of my development process already looks better than the current state of things.

"What is actually going to differentiate them?"

What do you mean exactly by "differentiate?"

"who is ultimately going to authorize these various companies all providing the same service?"

I would not allow anybody to get special privileges authorizing stuff. Either everybody can do it or nobody can.

The answer to that question would be: the universal law. Once a certain criteria is met, anybody should be allowed to enforce the law.

"one of the biggest problems in governance is waste"

How do you suppose free market solves that? (competition, alternatives that do it cheaper)

"Why create more overhead just to solve the same problem"

I thought "capitalism"/"free market" proponents were ok with competition.

Again, you take a very simplistic stance which sounds good until actually put to the test.

Take water use, for example. Would you use the same rules for water in the Amazon as you would the Sahara desert? Or if you want to use places in the United States, how about Denver and Portland? Regional adaptation is critical.

It's also kind of funny to note, but you assert here a centralized rule-making engine yet in many of your other posts you go on and on about de-centralization of authority...

Yes, the leftists are seeking to abolish individual property rights - of which national boundaries are a part. And you indicate that you agree with them in that matter.

"I have the highest respect for property rights..."

If you respect property rights, you MUST also respect borders. They are the same thing. To assert a respect for property rights in one sentence yet to claim national borders are immoral is a gross contradiction.

"property is the result of labor, not first dibs on something"

Does not one have to go to the effort of claiming something?

"What I mean by punishment is a 'retaliationary action'."

Then use retaliation. Punishment implies a justified use of force.


I'll give you an easier version of slavery: looting. It's a transfer of wealth from one person to another without equitable payment. Fraud, bribery, theft, extortion... All forms of looting.

"someone who knows them"

I would rather take rules from someone publishing proofs for their rule set than someone not doing that.

"regional differences"

Universal rules would account for regional differences.

"how do you know which system is the correct one?"

You prove it with logic. Rules must not be arbitrary. They must be derived from ones that are universally accepted.

As I've said previously, the "leftists" are doing it to gain a population that would be voting for them. This is about gaining control of monopoly on violence so they can engage in predation. They are not doing it because they believe in what I believe.

I have the highest respect for property rights, but how I define property is slightly different and, IMHO, better (property is the result of labor, not first dibs on something).

Agreed that it is my job to persuade others of the validity of my claims. However, some of my stuff is a bit theoretical and incomplete and not exactly practice-ready. That doesn't mean it is not valid, maybe vaguely valid. But I would argue it is better than what is currently done in practice though.

I think what is happening is a failure to communicate. This is very interesting. For some reason, the terms we use are confusing everything. I guess what we need to do is define new terms.

What I mean by punishment is a 'retaliationary action'. This action has nothing to do with repayment. It is just the victim (or someone on behalf of the victim) causing damage to the perpetrator. This damage isn't necessarily equal to the amount of damage that was caused by the original damage-inducing action performed by the perpetrator.

So, a retaliationary action creates more damage overall. It is meant to create a deterrent for the future. It does not improve victim's objective situation.

A repayment, on the other hand, restores victim's original state (as best as possible) and does not cause any additional overall decrease in society's wealth.

I am arguing that we should not be retaliating. We instead should be making the perpetrator pay back the victim for the damage that was caused.

'How does one who doesn't believe in punishment "force" someone to pay back damages?'

The same way you retaliate (using violence) except you don't cause damage but direct the perpetrator to create/transfer value to the victim. For example, take stolen goods away from the thief and give it back to the victim, take some additional stuff away from the thief to pay for enforcement and thief's rehab classes. The transfer of value can take many forms. It might be transfer of currency/money or it might involve labor camps.

Freedom in this context means no slavery (prior to causing damage to the victim and refusing to pay back). I guess the perpetrator will not be free temporarily, but their enslavement is entirely due to their own actions.

Slavery is when one person (a master) uses violence/fraud to cause another person (a slave) to follow the master's orders. This is usually done to create/transfer value (time/effort) from the slave to the master.