First Post

Okay. I am Facebooking. and I am cruising around the net looking at stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/user/brainpolice2

I found this interesting guy on the Alliance of the Libertarian Left Wiki. His name (So far as I know) is "brainpolice2" - He has many, many thinkies. And large ones.

I listened to his Video "The problem with Noam Chomsky." and I agree with him

So I listened to his Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5UuXtNcd2w

So then I listened to his Video "PUtting the NAP into it's proper context."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ_WMtcyClI

Then I wanted to comment. The comment section on youtube is limited - 500 characters. It's also a playground for drooling, violently stupidd retards.

I am also discovering that I am going TL:DR on facebook, too often.

So I grabbed this area on blogspot - and I am posting my longer ideas here.

This post is phrased as a reply to Brainpolice2 about his NAP video. Maybe someday he'll see it.

I am seeing your example of the tressapser as a conflict of rights, on one side the right of the property owner to control who comes and goes from his property, and on the other side the right of the tresspasser to continue to be whole and alive.

Your point seems to be that tresspass and loitering require a proportional response - that there is a defense of land property rights that is proportional to a small insult. I agree. However defining these in any consistent way is sort of slippery. Me standing on your lawn as I watch another incident happening in your neighborhood is one insult, Me going into your house and making myself a sandwich from your supplies is another. Me going into your bedroom and watching you and your partner enjoy an intimate moment is a higher level of creepy.

Each of these is only really defined by how BAD they make you feel, and how threatened you feel.

In the last two, I imagine some battary, assault and physically removing me from your property is entirely justified, while in the first example "Hey! Get off my lawn!" seems like a properly proportional response...

How do I know that? What Standard do I use to judge it?

So, if you come into your house and find me eating a sandwich, we are in a conflict of property rights. You have rights to your home and your sandwich fixings. You "Capping" me would be a disproportionate response.

How do we resolve the conflict? What mechanisms and tools do we have to do so?

-*-

Then I have to question the temporal aspect. You come home to find your TeeVee missing and discover that it's in my possession (apparently in this example I am sort of a creep) - So there is an ex-post facto conflict of rights. You owned a thing. I ganked it. In the straight forward NAP/Property-Rights Scheme, you then come around to my house, weapon in hand and shoot me. I asked for it. I stole your TV.

Now - on the one hand, the THREAT of this sort of response is supposed to A) Incentivize me not to steal your TV and B) Motivate me to cooperate with peaceful conflict resolution mechanisms. Giving you back your TV and making some restitution is cheaper than having a shoot-out with you.

Do you have another frame work for resolving disputes that works in the case of me helping myself in your kitchen or helping myself to your TV?

-*-