Common Law vs Positive Law

[Brainpolice]

@Sphairon

Forcing your personal value system onto your neighbor is stupid, and nobody denies that. What Byzantine talks about is an issue of basic property enforcement. A Hasidic township with Hasidic rules may not allow anti-Hasidic people on their grounds under threat of violent punishment, period.

Such a township could come about by entrepreneurial creation or single-purpose property pooling. That’s the point of anarchy, right? Different strokes for different folks.

Anyway, I don’t see why everyone gets upset about Byzantine every time he talks about his value preferences. If you don’t like him, discriminate against him and all who agree with him, and that’s it.

This isn’t a matter of strictly voluntary interaction. Byzantine is endorsing communitarianism or localized authoritarianism. The argument against the statist social contract applies to his ideas just as much as any state. What’s in question is the uniform and compulsory enforcement of social preferances, without the explicit consent by everyone involved - not the right of legitimate property owners to be exclusive with their own property, and paleolibertarians tend to conflate the two in the attempt to justify authoritarian models for a libertarian society. In the absence of unanimous contractual consent, it devolves into either majoritarianism or a defacto state. Just because compulsory laws are on a local level does not mean that they are suddenly vindicated. That flies in the face of a libertarian conception of individual rights.

What’s in question is not Byzantine’s value preferences, but his support for institutionalizing them into a body of uniformly applying positive law for an entire community without the consent of everyone in the community. It is highly doubltful that an entire community would unanimously consent to his social preferences, and the idea of his social preferences absolutely applying to everyone in a given region or city by a decree of law is hard to justify on libertarian grounds. It is dubious to the point of reaking of municipalism; one must suspect that this isn’t non-rulership, it’s localized mobocracy. When Byzantine talks about burning people’s houses down and lynching people for not agreeing with his social preferences within a given community, it should be obvious that what he’s talking about flies in the face of the NAP.

[wilderness]

@Brainpolice

@Sphairon

Forcing your personal value system onto your neighbor is stupid, and nobody denies that. What Byzantine talks about is an issue of basic property enforcement. A Hasidic township with Hasidic rules may not allow anti-Hasidic people on their grounds under threat of violent punishment, period.

Such a township could come about by entrepreneurial creation or single-purpose property pooling. That’s the point of anarchy, right? Different strokes for different folks.

Anyway, I don’t see why everyone gets upset about Byzantine every time he talks about his value preferences. If you don’t like him, discriminate against him and all who agree with him, and that’s it.

This isn’t a matter of strictly voluntary interaction. Byzantine is endorsing communitarianism or localized authoritarianism. The argument against the statist social contract applies to his ideas just as much as any state. What’s in question is the uniform and compulsory enforcement of social preferances, without the explicit consent by everyone involved - not the right of legitimate property owners to be exclusive with their own property, and paleolibertarians tend to conflate the two in the attempt to justify authoritarian models for a libertarian society. In the absence of unanimous contractual consent, it devolves into either majoritarianism or a defacto state. Just because compulsory laws are on a local level does not mean that they are suddenly vindicated. That flies in the face of a libertarian conception of individual rights.

What’s in question is not Byzantine’s value preferences, but his support for institutionalizing them into a body of uniformly applying positive law for an entire community without the consent of everyone in the community. It is highly doubltful that an entire community would unanimously consent to his social preferences, and the idea of his social preferences absolutely applying to everyone in a given region or city by a decree of law is hard to justify on libertarian grounds. It is dubious to the point of reaking of municipalism; one must suspect that this isn’t non-rulership, it’s localized mobocracy. When Byzantine talks about burning people’s houses down and lynching people for not agreeing with his social preferences within a given community, it should be obvious that what he’s talking about flies in the face of the NAP.

Now this is exactly the reasoning I was looking for behind the denouncing of Byzantine’s position, not merely a, “He’s wrong.” Anybody could be wrong, but I don’t want to take somebody’s word on it, unless there is some context and reasonable insight into the event.

Thank you Brainpolice!

I wonder how Byzantine would argue against this. Brainpolice thanks for taking the time to reason this out. Excellent!

[liberty_student]

As usual, block quoting and fantastic strawmen.

@Brainpolice

Byzantine is endorsing communitarianism or localized authoritarianism.

Source?

@Brainpolice

his support for institutionalizing them into a body of uniformly applying positive law for an entire community without the consent of everyone in the community.

Source?

@Brainpolice

When Byzantine talks about burning people’s houses down and lynching people for not agreeing with his social preferences within a given community, it should be obvious that what he’s talking about flies in the face of the NAP.

You’ve either misunderstood his argument, or deliberately mis-characterized it. It’s likely the latter based upon my past experience with you. You rarely if ever specifically quote the statements you reference.

As usual BrainPolice, back up your statements with evidence.