View RSS Feed


How to defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct?

Rate this Entry
Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but letís consider some more detail. Consider the following situationsÖ
And it has its problems. It is a partial answer at best.

1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?
By killing them to eliminate them from the book of immediate and potential future threats to others, including yourself.

Once one chooses to willfully violate the rights of another by presenting a threat to the latter's property, a fact that is prudently and reasonably assumed in all such situations, the perpetrator forfeits his claim to life. It is only through the demented post-modern vision of "society" that corrupt stooges have foisted the idiotic notions of "proportionate force", "stopping the threat", and so forth all the way up to "you have no right to defend yourself" upon entire populations, worldwide.

2) One of your loved ones is murdered, how do you seek justice? How do you know you have the right person?
I am in favor of apprehension by anyone's means, and trial by jury upon presentation of evidence. Once convicted, next of kin gets to pronounce sentence, but if it be death, that individual is obliged to execute. No pawning of that responsibility to others. You want death, you bring it. If death be truly just, you should have no hesitation in making it real. This is all very serious business and should be structured such that all parties in question maintain their proper perspectives in these sorts of matters. It is one thing to be way pissed at someone even unto imposing a sentence of death. It is quite another to carry that sentence out, oneself. It is, OTOH, relatively easy to so pronounce when you know someone else will be doing the actual dirty work. I would never allow such a thing. You want it, you make it.

3) Someone falsely accuses you of a crime, how do you defend yourself? Who decides your fate?
All false witnesses face death or life in a cage (minimally) as the consequence of their choices. No exceptions at any time. If you are not 100% certain of an event, you do not state it as "fact". Let a jury decide what your experience means in point of fact. Therefore, in a case where a witness is not absolutely certain of the identity of an accused murderer, rather than say "I saw the defendant murder the deceased", the wise witness might say, "A man looking to my eyes precisely as the defendant appeared to me to have murdered the deceased." This may sound like silly games in semantics, but it is really not. It all boils down to the cultivation of an attitude of extreme care in what is said and how. Preferable to let all criminals go free than to unjustly imprison even a single innocent man, and to that I say let all accusers stand in peril of their own liberty or even their lives if they bear false witness, whether knowingly or otherwise. As I wrote, this is very serious business.

Now, why does the potential for allowing criminals to go free not bother me in the least? Because, assuming such a society were properly structured, all men would stand centrally within the circle of their rightful prerogatives to end the lives of those who criminally trespass against them. This boils down to crime becoming an enormously high-risk endeavor in which far fewer people would engage, and those so choosing would most likely be killed in the process of carrying out their perfidious acts. This, of course, would lead to very few trials, and so even in the event there a man "gets away with murder" on Tuesday, by Wednesday he will have been shot dead by his next intended victim. Either way, such people are likely to find justice catching up with them in time. Yes, it may ultra-suck that some will get away, only to strike again, but that is one of the prices you pay and risks that you face as a free man living in a free land. This is the not-so-attractive side of freedom - the one that requires courage and accountability of the individual. This is one of the faces of freedom in which the average man holds absolutely no interest, and in fact recoils into his desire for pretty servitude where he recedes into the darkness of the tyrants false promises of saving him from such ugliness in exchange for just a smidge of his freedom. Well guess what: there is no such thing as a smidge of freedom. It is an all-or-nothing affair. You are either free or you are something else. There is literally nothing in between freedom and servitude. There are only degrees of servitude to other men. No matter how slight those degrees may be, you are still not free, but rather tethered to the will of another. This is what 99.999% of all men choose to call "freedom" and it is the grandest, most insidious, utterly shameful, unforgivably disgusting, criminal, and dangerous of all human lies. It is the very heart of human darkness.

4) A neighbor moves the fence marking the property line between you two, in his favor of course, how do you prove what land was yours?
Hire a bloody surveyor.


5) Your private security firm turns corrupt and robs you, how do you deal with the situation?
Robbery is a crime employing physical violence or the threat thereof. Response to such acts should be unequivocal.

6) Your access path to your water supply is now fenced off as private property as someone moved into the area and needed farm land. How do you deal with the situation?
A stateless society must perforce be one of clued-in, cautious, and diligent people. The circumspect man understands the risks, and stakes his claims early on. He obtains right-of-way, an easement, or purchases the strip of ground defining his path, thereby protecting himself from being cut off. Whatever the case, he establishes his claim to the means of access. In such a world, few would remain ignorant on such matters for long and it is likely that there would arise markets for experts in such affairs.

7) You are concerned of an invading army from a far-away land, how do you prepare?
Firstly, you decide whether you want to remain free and unconquered. Then you decide how serious you are about it. Then you begin investing in the means of best ensuring your abilities pursuant to the degree of seriousness.

This is a special case of sorts because it is the one situation where the collective action of another land holds the potential for negatively impacting your own land in terrible ways. There are many factors to take into account, but the bottom line is that to some degree and in some manner, one must match the common denominator of one's neighboring lands in order to speak to power that may be turned against you. This is simple material reality. Therefore, the free land must be populated with those of a minimally common mind such that men are impelled from within to join ranks with their fellows for the common good, if the goal be to remain free. The moment you force it, as through conscription and taxation, you are no longer a free people.

Not every man is a warrior, and perhaps those who are unable/unwilling to fill that role even in the most dire times make up for their shortcoming by providing other benefits to the congress of their fellows. I firmly believe that a society that has evolved into true human freedom will also evolve into one where everyone has their rightful places, as well as the attitude of voluntary cooperation in various affairs. Achieving the things that are desired (e.g., sanitation, water systems, roads, air traffic control, justice, etc.) without having to resort to the use of force in order to make them real would be the defining hallmark of such a people. And another truth about freedom, one in which most men have no interest due to wanting what they want, is that those things which do not find voluntary realization are those that people will have to forgo because the market has spoken. If a population does not want to pay for putting in sewers, then they may choose to live in filth and disease. The rest will avoid them, and I suspect that in time their noses will drive them to a new understanding of what it is they really want.

Note: The goal of this thread is to catalog the best solutions to potentially dicey situations, this isnít an argument that something wonít work but proís and conís can be explored. Information may be used for the Foundational Knowledgebase project.

Thanks for any responses.
Freedom provides benefits to men. Those benefits carry costs and responsibilities.

Here are the three basic characteristics of freedom in the context of proper human relations:

1. Freedom provides the benefit of unfettered latitude of praxis in individual affairs.

2. Freedom, as a matter of structural reality, carries the cost of the individual responsibility to respect the equal freedoms of others.

3. Freedom demands the courage, will, and practice of men to assume the risks inherent to free men acting amongst one another.

The vast and crushing majority of people want the benefits of point 1 while assuming none of the costs and responsibilities listed in points 2 and 3. This stems from the corrupted nature of men; corruption that arose with Empire, which in turn is the very manifestation of men living off the backs and sweat of their fellows in the quest for getting something for nothing. Forget the fruit of the tree of knowledge; the downfall of man was sealed the moment the first man set himself above the rest and the latter assented under whatever false promise or threat the king made unto them. Had all people at all times rose to escort into death all who presumed the monarch's seat, I daresay this would be a vastly different and improved world.