Do any of you hold that life is above other property? Or more specifically, would any of you agree that ownership of ones property is absolute in that there can be no arbitrary rules assigned to another ownership.
Maybe an example would serve,
May I invite someone into my home and proceed to charge them for trespassing (or initiate force against them)? If you do not subscribe to this then do you subscribe to the notion that an implicit contract exists between us?
to be invited is to be welcomed in. this does set the bounds.
of course someone can be asked to leave, and then the bounds change.
it seems clear enough to me that the bounds set by the invitation instruct what is permissable within the context of asking someone to leave.
Yeah. Libertarian rights on their own aren’t enough to delineate our behavior. You need to clarify libertarian rights with consequentialism insofar as you don’t violate the NAP etc.
Little bit of tongue and cheek here… might be serious though. I can never tell with myself.
Given this, don’t you see us branching off until ambiguity? For example, how much time does one have before they leave after being asked? Why can’t I invite my enemies to dine with me so that I may hurt them? What if an action is taken as an invitation but it is not?
Aside from the ad infinitum of analogies of which the only answer is arbitration agencies what about the system of ethics that you would be instilling. To state what a property owner can do with their property (i.e. when they can determine the use of force, when they can determine what is truly trespassing, what rights another has on your property without them being explicitly agreed upon by the property owner) is to assume mutual ownership?
unfortunately the real world is a difficult place to apply theory to.
however it is a false standard to hold ones knowledge/beliefs/systems against an absolute standard of hypothetical apriori perfection given that you are straying away from purely apriori investigations…
the appropriate standard is against competitors to the title of knowledge in the field.
perhaps ‘applied libertarianism’ (if you forgive the clumsy terminology), need only be better than ‘applied statism’ on whatever the ‘important criteria’ are.
All you indicated that sometimes, it is difficult to judge when it is proper to say someone is trespassing if you ask them to leave.
The only legal question that should ever be asked is if force was used. It is not an assumption of mutual ownership. Why would it be (that’s not rhetorical, I’m asking)? Also, trespassing has a definition. So an individual cannot just claim trespassing to mean something it is not. It’s just a matter of rights. Rights are really not much more than a legal standard.
If you accept that trespassing has an accurate definition or even a standard, my question is that once violated, the initiation of force should be contingent on the property owners will unless it was previously contracted that such action is not authorized. If there is no previous contract, you can’t state that an implicit contract exists in its absence. Who has the authority to implicitly assume anything with someone else’s property? This where I derived the phrase mutual ownership from
I hold that the NAP is constrained by the Principle of Proportionality: “If I aggress against you, you have the right to coerce me in whatever way is necessary to remove me from your sphere of authority, so long as your coercion is not disproportionate to the seriousness of my aggression.”
See also this, Section IV.
I would say that if you refuse to leave someone’s property at any point if requested to leave, you would be trespassing. That would be entirely up to the owner of the property. It has nothing to do with any contract. It is simply about rights. I’m not sure what you’re trying to figure out here. Legal questions about property at no point would invalidate anything about property rights. If a right weren’t absolute, then it wouldn’t be a right.
“May I invite someone into my home and proceed to charge them for trespassing (or initiate force against them)? If you do not subscribe to this then do you subscribe to the notion that an implicit contract exists between us?”
You could not, because by inviting someone into your home is not trespassing. They would then be on your property with permission. But if for any reason you revoke that permission, they would be trespassing and must then leave. It is not because any contract was nullified or invalidated. Rights are not an implicit contract.
essentially when you invite someone onto your property you have granted them an easement. when you ask them to leave you are revoking the easement. generally you would need to show cause to revoke their easement. once their easement is revoked, then they are trespassing.
i am a surveyor and will be happy to survey easements and prepare plats for your next party, lol.