If i can’t own everyone’s free will, then i would trade their free will with renting some of my matter (you can live on my farm if you only think about plowing fields, etc).
But my point is that anarcho-capitalist centers around one’s free will and their personal gain through action and interaction, but the actual wealth of matter does not include the potential energy of someone else’s thought. How could I efficiently obtain free will, given that I “own” and can exploit all matter to my needs?
I’m not sure that this is possible. Even if you contracted someone’s free will, how would you enforce it if they broke the contract?
As far as my scenario goes, it is not my concern that they have nowhere to go. I’m not evicting them somewhere, I’m simply evicting them. Where they choose to go is not my concern, so long as it isn’t on my property. If they remain on my property, I can legally use force against them, as they are trespassing.
But if you own everything in existence, isn’t the universe your “property”? If they leave one area of your property and reside in another area, that’s just transferring. In this case, if you were to evict this person, he’d be floating in space with no possessions.
Exactly. It is death by vacuum or death by me.
Is that a “godly” ultimatum?
Is that a “godly” ultimatum?
No, that is the only legal options if I a) owned all matter except them in the universe and b) chose to evict them from my property.
You cant own it all, an embargo is an act of war. You must allow for passage in designated areas.
Is that a positive obligation? [:D]
Winner!
Perhaps, but perhaps you could take the negative stance that you aren’t going to shoot people that cross your grass? That seems way more dangerous to me than making a fenced alley way.
Truthfully?
IF there are no positive obligations and…
IF you are allowed to deny access to your property, whether it be your lawn or the universe and…
IF you are allowed to use force to counter someone else’s initiation of force, such as trespassing…
THEN there is nothing illegal about shooting someone who happens to step onto your lawn.
To say you have to give them time to comply, or an adequate warning, or whatever, is to say a positive obligation exists. Now, I happen to believe this, but I think positive rights exist. Anybody who doesn’t, however, cannot hold that it is illegal to use lethal force immediately on trespassers.
However, I don’t wish to debate the issue of positive rights here - I already derailed the thread enough. 
When one creates an embargo you initiate aggression.
This is not an embargo. I’m not refusing to trade with them. I’m simply refusing to let them trespass.
Moreover, an embargo is not initiation of aggression. A blockade might be, but not an embargo.
I agree, embargoes don’t seem aggressive… but what if your embargo included basic necessities like food or water and you were the only supplier?
An embargo is not simply disallowing trade from you, its disallowing by force others from trading. If you were asleep and that night all your neighbors sold their houses and the government sold the square of road in front of your house and they erected a 200 foot tall electrified fence around your house, my claim is this is initiation of aggression.
Well, if you define an embargo as using force to prevent others from trading, then of course an embargo is an initiation of force. You just defined it that way. However, that definition is debatable. Further, I would not say that refusal to allow someone on your property is an embargo, since you aren’t stopping them from trading their property with others - you simply aren’t allowing them access to your own.
Now, I have already said in another thread that I don’t consider it inherently immoral to violate someone else’s rights, and I think there are moral arguments in favor of trespassing when one has been completely blocked off like this. But I don’t see it as initiation of aggression to keep people off your property. And in the situation we are describing, under a law system that bases all legal decisions on property rights, it would be legal to evict people into space.
Of course its not immoral you’ve defined it that way. I’m right your wrong. Is that an accurate summary?
You misread me. I am saying that in a legal system based on the NAP, refusal to allow someone on your property, even if it entraps them, is not illegal, because is not initiation of aggression. It is, however, immoral. In this case, trespass is illegal, but it is not immoral. It is not always immoral to initiate aggression.
However, since people seem to think morality is subjective, this whole thread looks only at the legality of things under the NAP. Therefore, in the situation I described, the only legal option is death by vacuum.
And my contention was that entrapment by property is initiation of aggression.