Comment: Property is whatever

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Defense of property, because (see in situ)

Property is whatever

an individual claims it is, until an enforcing body gives it a meaning. This requires that individuals who are in violation of that enforcing body's idea of property can be tried for breaking the rules. That requires these third parties have the jurisdiction to define property in an area. This requires that they have to be able to harm an individuals body to protect another individuals 500 acres. This is a democratic or at least governmental principle, and does not extend from self ownership. Shooting someone on your property is not self defense until you plug in a definition of property to be self defense, and NAP alone is incapable of defining property.

I haven't seen any good theories of property from the anarchists. Clearly property is what the group permits the individual to acquire on the basis of common rules, or else what the individual can hold b force, and not something that comes from nature or derives logically from ethics.

NAP says that its wrong to act with force except in self defense or in another's defense (i.e., anything else is aggression).

It doesn't grant jurisdiction to any public or private body or set a specific boundary to certainty, it offers no legal guidelines for justice.

It is useless precisely because anyone can grab hold of it and say you are aggressing against me. What then? Some group of people with weapons has to decide who is right on the basis of normal legal concepts and principles that have nothing to do with NAP and ultimately will violates it's strict letter.

If someone accuses you of being on their property, and you deny it, are you gonna submit to the jurisdiction of their private arb agency? Only if it can over power you, and aggress upon you. Not because it has proper jurisdiction. If you have your own gang on speed dial, they will fight it out, because neither one is recognized as having PUBLIC jurisdiction to decide disputes on this piece of land that one party claims is theirs.

Also, during self defense certainty is 100% possible. The parties involved and the eye witnesses are certain. But third parties coming in after the fact based on claims/accusations are not 100% certain. For their judgments to be valid or just requires a different principle, such as that there is public/group jurisdiction over all individuals when there is an accusation of criminality that passes a certain bar of evidence.

If there is a principle of proper jurisdiction, it is not going to be a hired agency by one of the victims, it will be a majority consensus of some sort in an area.