so what would the negotiation be like when you try to nonviolently stop the man from beating his girlfriend to death?
what kind of power does each have and how the does the imminent danger effect the girlfriend and your actions?
i don’t think the guy beating his girlfriend gives much about agreements that don’t use force.
Nah, nah, nah.
I said it’s possible to negotiate an agreement without force. It’s not always possible. If you come up with a mutually-beneficial solution to a problem between you and someone else, it can be adopted without use of force.
I think I see the disconnect between you and Autolykos (and Clayton). There can only be one law or norm or custom or rule regarding a certain dispute. In other words, you cannot have the norms: “Thou shalt drive on the right side of the street” and “Thou shalt drive on the left side of the street” for the same road at the same time (unless it’s a one way, but that’s clearly not the context).
The point of norms and customs is that there is only one way in that specific context. So if there is an accident on Road X, whichever disputant was driving on the normal side of the road (or the mandated side by an owner) is the disputant who was in the right. Of course, if they both were, then we would have to look to a different norm or rule. But if one of the disputants was driving on the wrong side of the road, then he is in the wrong.
It’s the same with murder and theft. You cannot have simultaneous norms and rules (for a specific context) saying that “Murder is right” and “Murder is wrong”. It’s one or the other. This is true of any legal system. For example, if you or I were to tase a man trying to prevent his house from burning down, we would be charged with assault (or whatever the relevant torts are), and rightfully so. But if a cop were to do the very same thing, it’s legal. At first glance, you might think I’m contradicting myself, but if we look closer, we can see that the context is different. One of us is an agent of the state, and the other isn’t. And that changes the context entirely. But there cannot be simultaneously contradictory norms or rules for the same context. In other words, there cannot be a rule saying that it’s okay for you to tase this man where at the same time there is a rule saying that it’s wrong for you to tase this man.
There can always only be one law. But in a private law society, there is not necessarily only one group helping to resolve disputes. I think that should clear up the disconnect, but maybe not. I may be misunderstanding what you guys are arguing.
Did you see what I posted @ you? It’s possible it got lost under the later posts. Your input would be greatly appreciated.
Nah, nah. It’s appropriate to define the word in this context.
With all due respect, I think that’s irrelevant to my question.
I believe that everyone has the right to do that to begin with. What do you think doesn’t give me the right to do that?
The notion that only members of a particular organization that’s been labelled with the word “state” have the right to do that itself constitutes aggression IMHO, except in the case of people outside that organization who’ve already voluntarily agreed to give up that right. But I don’t see why anyone would do that.
Do you think that, if a particular purported organization that you’re calling “the government of Ruritania” didn’t set down those rules, then people necessarily wouldn’t follow them? Aside from that, when you say things like “cannot be competed with”, what do you really mean? To say that a person cannot (i.e. is physically unable to) do something doesn’t necessarily mean that he actually cannot do it. With your office-building example, it seems to me that an employee of office building A certainly can try to follow the dress code of office building B even if it differs from that of office building A.
Well I think you have the right to, but if someone were to argue that you don’t have the right to, I suppose it would be on the grounds that you do not own your neighbor’s property. Kind of like how the State does not own your neighbor’s property, or any property. So if your action is legitimate, why not the actions of those in the Ruritanian government?
I’m not arguing that. I suggested that individuals who work for the State also have the right to estop aggression.
No. But what I’m trying to determine is whether or not setting down those rules with “the government of Ruritania” is coersive, not whether or not it’s necessary (i.e. could not be provided by other entities).
As in it would not be permitted.
If you think I have the right to, then why did you ask “What gives you the right to do that?”, which to me clearly implies that you don’t think I have the right to do it?
But to answer your question, if I think everyone inherently has the right to stop aggression against third parties, then it doesn’t matter what organization(s) he happens to be a part of.
Could you please point out where you suggested that? It seemed otherwise to me.
Well it seems to me that all you mean by “setting down those rules” is the organization in question simply saying that it expects people to follow particular rules and that it will use force against known violations of them. That in no way physically prevents anyone else from saying the same thing, either with different rules or with the same ones. If you ask me, nearly everyone already does this implicitly.
Furthermore, it seems to me that what you’re really trying to determine is whether a monopoly over “law” is necessarily aggressive (a.k.a. “coercive” in your apparent semantics). I’m not yet sure what determination to make about that, because I’m still not sure what you mean by “law”. For instance, would you say that “law” is a (set of) procedure(s), or a (set of) outcome(s), or both?
In other words, any employee of office building A who violated its dress code would then be considered a trespasser by the owners of office building A and their agents?
To try to track your reasoning.
I’ll try to be clearer next time. My writing skills are inferior. 
Yes, over property the organization does not own. So “the government of Ruritania” lays down the rules for all of the property within the “national” boarders.
Hmmm…
Yes, if the rule is you get fired for breaking the dress code at work. That wouldn’t be aggressive. So would it be aggressive for “the government of Ruritania” to remove someone who broke the rules the government established (let’s say, the rule that you can’t steal from anybody)?
