I thought you were talking about joining a business venture within a given enclave, I must have misunderstood. Even with immigration though, it seems it would make sense to background check people coming in. Do you really want random people joining a given community? I see value in determining whether or not these people are trust worthy (creditworthiness, reputation) whether or not they are known thieves or murderers or rapists, and what their previous political affiliations were, if any. Basic standards of entry are not uncommon in private communities.
To just trust anyone off the street seems dangerous, but to each is own I guess. There are private and gated communities in existence today that do indeed have requirement for new buyers. An example of this is a senior living area. They can say “only people over 55 can live in this community” and then check the information of potential buyers to that effect. Why is it different for an enclave? I can understand if you are saying it shouldn’t be that way, OK, but it IS that way now.
Andrew Cain said :
“The NAP stands up to all lifeboat situations, all that is needed is to establish rightful owners and their property.”
What is needed is an agreed upon definition of aggression. Again, this is hotly debated. The HP says don’t harm people’s person or property. Someone’s money is their property. Losing money is akin to losing property. Therefore, monetary loses due to fraud or theft are covered. The people using the principle can use their brains to decide where it should be applied or not applied and not just apply it wherever. Judges and courts exist to decide where to apply these principles and it’s that same with the NAP. People will disagree about whether or not they aggressed, especially if no definition was generally agreed upon and you go to a judge or court or “DRO” to figure out who’s right. Same with the HP. ther eneeds to be a legal definition for both aggressiona nd harm in both cases.
“Communities do not have rights, individuals do. A community has no claim over any border system or demarcation line, only individuals do.”
Um… of course a community has rights and can own property. A most basic example is a family unit. A husband and wife both own a house. That mini-community can decide separately or as a group who comes into and out of the house. A company, with many shareholders is owned in common. Perhaps you are saying you don’t believe property owned in common is legitimate, which is fine, but I assure you it is real and it is happening right now. People do not lose ‘rights’ just because there are more of them. If one person has free speech, three people have free speech. I one person has the ‘right’ to contract; three people have the ‘right’ to contract. The same goes for property. If a friend and I decide to buy a car together, we can both decide who can come into and go out of the car. Therefore, if a group purchases land as a joint venture, they can write down what rules they want people coming onto the land to follow. Again, this is common, when you go to Wal-Mart, there are Wal-Mart standards of admission, when go to the mall, there are mall standards of admission. Why don’t we get to make standards?
“Social ostracism, mental torment, actions that do not involve coercion, while terrible are not acts of violence against an individual. Feeling left out because you don’t get to get the Jesus cracker on Sunday is a personal issue which is not connected to legal codes.”
OK, so mental torment does not count as coercion. This is an interesting question. I stated previously that the NAP depends on the definition of aggression. A contract signed under mental torment, for example, is not valid because even though the person signed it voluntarily they did so under duress. (This is today’s law, which you may or may not agree with.) One can say “I only threatened to blow his brains out, but I didn’t actually do it therefore I did not coerce him into signing it”
Again, this is where judges, courts and “DROs” come in. It is not as cut and dry as just stating a principle. I wouldn’t say being in an environment where you are denied food and shelter because you do not believe, and lacking means to leave, gives you much leeway. We are back to the love it or leave it concept.
Surely you must agree that there are many instances of religions, without a state, forcing their views upon people. I have already demonstrated a few examples in my previous post. Many countries literally have religious police. Here is an example of the latest such event:
http://www.examiner.com/article/indonesian-man-jailed-for-atheist-comments
“Genital mutilation, if voluntary, is acceptable. If it is not, I will be against it.”
The genital mutilation I was referring to happens when the individuals are babies, typically. It also happens to young women who are held down and have their clitoris cut off. Unless you think babies can consent, I assume you are against it. Of course, anyone who consents to some kind of procedure does so at their own risk.
“Are there laws that force individuals into certain behavior? Yes. These are acts of the state, and I welcome that state’s demise. Religious legal codes that do not involve the tradition murder,rape, assualt etc. (the natural rights portion) are acted upon because of the largesse of the state. The state allows certain religious fundamentalists to enact their vision of a moral society upon their peers and I think without the state, these crimes would be largely absent.”
My argument is that even without a state, many powerful religious institutions have always forced their views upon others at the point of the sword or gun. The aztecs cut people’s hearts out on Temple as a religious sacrament. The Crusades were fought in large part by armies that recruited religious pilgrims from both sides. Religions take the place of the state in a vacuum. Personally, I think they are the same thing and they simply claim to derive authority from different sources. In other words, if the state disappeared tomorrow, the catholic church would start recruiting soldiers to enforce divine will and thus become the state de facto. We say Somalia has no state even though it has armed religious groups enforcing religious law over given territories and extracting “tithes” from people. Sounds like a state to me.
The only reason we don’t see religious police in America is because the police already enforce religious laws under the guise of public health and safety. The church has already infiltrated the state.
My position, with regard to historical references, has many instances of religious institutions engaging in war and murder and forced conversions without any state guidance or help. Even when there was, say,a kingdom that went along or supported conversion it was the churches that were the main proponents of the conflicts I cited. Look at the history of the Caliphates. Neither of us can predict the future, however, and perhaps absent the state the churches will just keep to themselves and stop proselytizing, even though in Christian and Muslim religious texts, they are commanded to convert people, by force if necessary.
“Sure, some people want to have Sabbath laws and liquor laws. However, they are just like anyone else who wants to control others.”
That’s right, they do seek to control us all. Agreed. At this moment in time their most effective tool is the state. However, I am convinced that post-state, their desire for control and world conversion will not dissipate.
Superficial symmetry perhaps 
