Change States but don't move

What should happen to someone infringing on your property rights? ...and why should anyone respect the authority of the deciding body?

Property rights can only be upheld by a greater body, that is they are meaningless unless the opinion on "rights" is shared by a wider group of people: If property rights are restricted to what we think individually the concept becomes redundant because our separate views would not matter. Their validity (such that they have any) is derived from the group.

If property rights can only be respected by a group and become meaningless as individuals, by what "right" does the group supersede the individual?

So how would a conflict be resolved, between two groups for instance? By improving the circumstances of the (perceived) transgressor... Unless a personal vendetta exists, once the needs of the "transgressor" have been met they will no longer infringe on the rights of others.

In the case of a personal vendetta (or stalking)... steps should be taken to make the person realise that their behaviour is unacceptable. If they have been given sufficient time to change and have failed to do so, retributive action can be taken. This is analogous to a persistent (violent) criminal: any action taken against them should be judged by those affected. Will they escalate the issue? If the repercussions (retaliation) are preferable to the suffering of being present with the criminal (or stalker) then it is sensible to attack the criminal. If the repossessions of doing so would be worse then they will desist from doing so and tolerate the intrusion.

This is "natural justice" every man for himself and is the means by which the State justifies property rights... and hence all restrictions such as planning laws, certification of professions, even access to the printing press.

But it doesn't justify the need to force anyone to pay for it... the State can withdraw protection from anyone not considered to have made a sufficient contribution. So whilst property rights are required to allow people to be free of intrusion, they do not need to be protected in a coercive environment... they should be protected by free association of individuals protecting each other. Those benefiting would be required to pay taxes to those who are working to protect them... in this manner disputes within the "tribes" are resolved... Disputes between the tribes could be handled with broader affiliations among tribes. This is less of an issue because each tribe would have sufficient resources and be collectively intelligent enough to realise their folly.

It does not need to be geographical... or at least the jurisdiction of each State does not need to be tied to an area enclosed by a specific boundary, for example a town or village could be made up of people affiliated to different States. This would be different to the situation now where a State is not able to refuse citizenship to someone who is of that jurisdiction... Since geography would no longer confer membership, they could be refused whereas presently they will eventually be consigned to prison within an unchosen State, if they are criminal.

Would a concerned State object to another State imprisoning a non-affiliated person? They might conclude that there must have been a legitimate, or at least compelling reason to do so. Perhaps the State could share a collective prison (as well as their own prisons) for such people?

It would allow disputes to be resolved between groups, isolated in ideology or circumstance but sharing a common locality... People of different States would live between and among each other sharing their environment to a certain degree. People would be aligned by voluntary affiliation rather than geography although the population of each State would likely clump by location. It would remove involuntary, forced association...


19th January 2009

Update: If a warring State considers an immediately neighbouring State (or one that has many members among a region dominated by that State) to have gained unfairly from their strategic position, in benefiting from their protectorship without making a contribution, then the conflict extends from the engaged States to those who were previously peaceful neighbours.

This is a good thing because it enables difficulties to be negotiated locally as well as at long distance, so helps ease tensions and reduce conflict. (19th Jan09)

Update2: The stalker would need to sleep... So to be effective a malicious stalker would need to be part of a group. What if one group unfairly exploits another individual or group? We have warfare and it makes sense to be a member of a strong State.

In warfare we can hope that the cost to each side would be higher than the perceived benefits... So the answer is to show that there is nothing to be gained, even if it might appear as though there is. (19th Jan09)

Update3: If the justification for a State is to effect protection against a stalker or similar criminal, then that need is obviated when people carry guns. Personal arms mean that we are each protected against harassment by an individual. We cannot do anything about a "senseless" attack, but someone who repeatedly acts against the wishes of others can be dealt with by an individual in this way. If a group of (armed) people persecute a minority this leads to an arms war but there is no reason for them to so unless others co-operate as a group.

So what is to protect the individual against those who associate in tribes when there is no State? People can form voluntary associations where all of the individual needs are met... there is no need for it to be prescriptive. The need for weapons of mass destruction is reduced since people are not assembled in nation States, but assembling freely.

Provided the disincentive to any destructive action is greater than the potential rewards, peace will prevail. So collaborating with others to persecute a minority will be productive only to the extent that the minority has been unable to align itself with another powerful group. If is possible for the aggressors to forma a group then it must also be to the advantage of a second group to allow the minority to join them.

If it is the case that a fearful minority has just as much ability to join a protective group as the agressor has to form one then there should be little incentive to atack. In voluntarily joining a group a minority can pre-emtively protect themselves from vulnerability to a larger group. If we are fearful of a larger group (or State) arbitrarily targetting an innocent individula there is little that can be done to prevent this unlikely scenario... The only question to answer would be what, if any, retributive actions are taken...

If there is no need for the State then what justification is there for property rights, by whom would they be upheld? (20th Jan09)