Say that there’s a website which a particular individual decides it would be lulzy to mess with, would it be a violation of property rights in order to violate the website agreement?
What about radio raids, would prank calls to a radio station be considered a violation of private property rights?
The more I think of this NAP, it seems like virtually everything I do for fun I will have to give up.
Nice to know the phrase “crank calls” would basically sum up virtually everything you do for fun.
I didn’t know Austrians have fun. I thought we all just study economics all day and never leave our computers; kind of like how teachers never leave school, right?
i spray painted a classroom for fun once (public school). i guess thats not a violation of property rights since public schools are well, public (government owned). viva la revoluciya!!!
/lol
As far as websites, defacing websites via sql injection or any other means (haxing) is a violation of property rights.
Prank calling although is not since the person you prank called against voluntarily chose to pick up the phone, and voluntarily chose to get angry at you. No one has to pick up their phone after all right?
I’ve never seen any memo regarding “fun.” Is it in the low content thread?
It’s in the Members Issues group.
Aren’t you violating the self ownership I have over my mind with your malicious comments?
I don’t know, maybe I’m taking this stuff too far.
I have another question: what about using proxies in order to view websites. Am I violating the website owner’s wish that I do not check out his website?
lol wut?
Care to explain that?
What? This is why there are passwords and logins…
My mind dislikes being insulted, insults hurt my feelings, I own myself therefore insulting me violates the non aggression axiom.
By using proxies I intrude on the website owner’s property.
In what way do insults violate the NAP? You have just stated the same thing twice.
How are you intruding by using proxies? They made their website available to the public. Accessing it is not intruding. It’s like driving down a street. Just because you look at a house doesn’t mean you have intruded…
Buzz Killington,
You seem to have a very confused understanding of rights and their implications. I suggest you read “Human Rights” as Property Rights by Murray Rothbard. It’s pretty short.
Sure.
Yeah, JJ beat me to it. Really, all you have to do is look at his username.
When people say that they own their website, they usually mean that the own the domain name. Obviously, what you are talking about is unauthorized usage of the server, which kinda by definition is violation of the NAP. That is, modifying files or database entries on a server without permission is, by definition, a violation of the NAP.
If you want to get into the issue about nothing physical being touched, modified, etc., then when the changes made on the server, heat emanating from the computer was generated by the person making the changes. So, yeah, there you go.
By that reasoning, turning you down for a job (which you presumably dislike) also violates the non-aggression principle.
You’re talking about using one or more proxies while defacing a website, right? How is this any different in principle from someone wearing a mask while he vandalizes a store?
Exactly, the problem is that someone is unilateral reassignment of property rights. Clayton has a good post on this on a separate subject here, but the theory applies to websites and computers too.
EDIT: Fixed link to proper post.
But if they own their website, then they have a right to exclude anyone from that website.
So I’ve violated their property rights?
Exactly. The NAP makes life on earth impossible, you cannot do anything if you take the non aggression axoim seriously, a voluntary society could not realistically exist.
Perhaps you’d like to elaborate on your reasoning here.
Anything slightly offending or “hurting” someone would have to be considered a violation of the non aggression axiom (and college students would be punished for pulling pranks on their room mates).