Comment: This would then require

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: There's a lot to say (see in situ)

This would then require

This would then require unanimous founding consent. Here's why: If even one person in the founding group was coerced rather than consented, then the removal of those coming to majority and refusing to sign violated their rights since the 99 did not have the right to prevent the 1 from permitting the refusers. So even years after the this one original died, all those who signed in order not to be removed from his land were coerced; if they were coerced, then their inability to harbor future refusers to sign extends the coercion. So on your view, it is the original unanimity of the founding group that makes all future "sign or leave" statements legitimate for the entire private law community. Even one act of coercion taints the entire future pool, on this particular theory of just property use and transfer.

On the other hand, let's suppose, hypothetically, that the original founding population of some state were in fact in unanimous agreement to its laws, and if everyone was made to understand as they entered the state or came to majority that "not leaving is construed as agreement by our laws," and if those laws included the granting to the government the right to punish law violators, then all of this would be within bounds.

After this lengthy exchange I have to just say for myself that the absurdity lies in the property theory and not in the idea of non aggression. The idea of non aggression is common to pretty much all legaly-ethical systems, it is simply a question of which system of property rights you subscribe to.

In this system, property is:
1) obtained only by title transfer
2) homesteading - with no limits on how much you can grab that aren't arbitrary
3) absolute, inalienable
4) defensible with any force
5) one's domain where one can commit any acts whatsoever
6) one's legal domain where no law holds unless agreed to by contract
7) a place where trespassers can be captured, tortured, etc. since they are criminal trespassers and guilty parties

We can call this the sovereign or feudal property theory, and if this is the property theory you believe in, it will of course lead to all manner of absurdities of the sort we went back and forth with.

In such a system, aggression would be trespassing on someone's square 500 mile homesteaded kingdom to pick an apple, in which mercenary robocop armies from private agencies could descent from skynet to machine gun the hungry person.

All enforcement of these property claims must be privately obtained by purchase, donation or maybe volunteer serfs...

On the other hand, of 100 to the 850th power of people agree to X rules and force 1 person to adhere to those same rules, grave injustice has been committed.

If people bought up the 4 spaces of land around my holding and built a tower of Babel around my property and cut my water off, I would be the aggressive party to climb over the wall.

If I walked by a drowning person in a river and he grabbed onto my leg and pulled himself onto the bank, I could shoot him down as an aggressive trespasser.

A person making gigantic bonfires in their yard sending flaming debris and ash through the sky can't be stopped - that would be aggression. But if the entire town caught fire, he would be sued in a private arbitration... or something.

If ten adjacent properties that formed a square shared an outer perimeter, and a mob of violent freemasons was descending on the town, and nine property owners told the tenth not to permit access into the defensible square, and tried to stop him, then the nine are aggressors and the one is the victim.

If one man homesteaded the entire earth except for the city of Fargo, North Dakota, and all the rest of humanity existed inside of Fargo, it would be aggression for them to force a redistribution.

If a man was on his property torturing exotic ring tailed lemurs from Damascus for personal amusement every day, it would be aggression to enter his property to stop him and he would be entitled to shoot you down unless he had signed a contract with PETA/Blackwater.