FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Audley Strange]

@ Seth.

"This does not necessarily require the dismantling of voluntary groupings like religion, but it does require the removal of power and authority from those who seek to impose any ideology on anyone else involuntarily."

Bingo! That's exactly what I was getting at.



Marxists (liberation theologists) or Fascists (Christian Reconstructionists) are a bigger threat to both the U.S. and the ideas of libertarians than any left leaning political group since such social/liberal ideology has been all but discredited, they don't have the chops intellectually, morally or financially. The churches increasingly do though Seth (not ALL denominations of ALL faiths) and I'm wondering why it is you choose to avoid denouncing such religious power-mongers in your usual manner.

Is it a target audience thing?

[Seth]

@ Seth.

"This does not necessarily require the dismantling of voluntary groupings like religion, but it does require the removal of power and authority from those who seek to impose any ideology on anyone else involuntarily."

Bingo! That's exactly what I was getting at.



Marxists (liberation theologists) or Fascists (Christian Reconstructionists) are a bigger threat to both the U.S. and the ideas of libertarians than any left leaning political group since such social/liberal ideology has been all but discredited, they don't have the chops intellectually, morally or financially. The churches increasingly do though Seth (not ALL denominations of ALL faiths) and I'm wondering why it is you choose to avoid denouncing such religious power-mongers in your usual manner.

Is it a target audience thing?

In part. Certainly any religion that has governmental powers falls into that category, but there are no such religions in the United States at this time, and those that wish to hold such power only become a threat which justifies forcible intervention in self-defense if they attempt to assume or exercise governmental powers. Until then, they are free to believe what they like, and say what they like, and live as they like, so long as they don't attempt to initiate force or fraud upon others.

To denounce people who are voluntarily living an ideology that doesn't factually initiate force or fraud on others is to violate the principle of individual liberty and freedom to pursue happiness however one chooses to peaceably do so. I don't care if Marxists or Fascists or Communists or Buddhists want to create communities in which the members all agree to live by those principles and laws, so long as they don't try to impose it on others. If and when they do so, then they can be resisted and prevented from doing so using whatever force is required.

The problem with Marxism is not Marx or his ideology, it's that Marxists want to forcibly impose their ideology on others. If they would give up that, I'd be happy to let them stew in their own juices...but I'd still refuse to trade or associate with them.

[Seth]

Are there police forces to arrest someone who engages in fraud?

If the community voluntarily pays to form and support one. If not, they can do so themselves, since all power and authority flows from the people to the government and is not abdicated by the people, they merely authorize concurrent authority to enforce the law to government agents.

And, is there a judicial system to review cases where fraud is alleged?

If the community voluntarily pays to support one. Otherwise one must hire a professional judge at one's own expense to hear the case.

If person A says person B is committing fraud, is person A's recourse limited to his own right of self-help and his friends to help him? If there is something more than that, what is it?

Whatever the community decides to fund voluntarily.

What I meant was, if person A funds a police force and a judiciary voluntarily, but B doesn't, and B does not consent to be bound by what A's community wants, what is the basis for the community taking action against B? Are people involuntarily subject to the laws of A's community?

If they initiate force or fraud upon some member or members of the community, the community may react in self defense and may require them to compensate those harmed and even be punished for doing so, so yes, they are, if they act within that community by initiating force or fraud. Generally, it is those who are harmed or defrauded who would take action, including the use of force, but the community can of course act voluntarily among themselves.

In situations where the force or fraud is not significant harm (like assault or rape or murder) in general Libertarians prefer to use non violent methods such as shunning and exclusion. Thus, if someone was initiating fraud by using public amenities he had not paid for, the community would simply bar him from those amenities and would refuse to trade or associate with him unless and until he fulfilled his obligation to pay for what he uses. Then again, if he stole something from someone (which is fraud) the community could use physical force to recover the stolen items along with damages. This could be done by the harmed individual and his friends, or by a police force and a court, depending on how the community wants to do things.

In situations where there is physical violence, physical violence can be used in self defense. It can be applied by the victims, their family, friends and neighbors, or by the police and courts, and yes, it can be used against a person who does not subscribe to the community's rules because an initiation of force or fraud is malum in se and may be defended against, punished and compensated for by anyone who is harmed or defrauded.

Let's envision a community of 10,000 people living in Podunk County, Arkansas, and we live in a libertarian nation of the kind you are trying to explain to us.

So, 9,000 people vote for a bunch of laws, including: (1) you cannot commit fraud within the community limits, and they cannot sell postcards on streetcorners in the community, (2) you cannot be a vagabond within community limits, which means that you must carry with you at least $50 on you at all times, or you can be jailed, (3) all persons residing within the community limits must pay a $100 a year residence fee, and (4) each person is assessed a tariff on all of their income earned within the community limits at a rate of 5% of total income. The 9,000 have created a court system and police force, and a judiciary.

1,000 people do not consent to those laws, and they are living within the community limits. They refuse to pay the tarriff and fee, and they routinely walk around the town, selling postcards on street corners. Some of them have been known to walk around penniless.

Would the community of Podunk County have the right to arrest the 1,000 non-members, try them, and jail the guilty? On what basis? Can they impose the tarriff and fee upon the 1,000? If not, why not?

You misunderstand Libertarianism. There would be no such laws. The only Libertarian requirements are "you cannot commit fraud" and "you cannot initiate force against another." Otherwise, what someone does is none of anyone's business, unless that person contracts to do or not do some thing voluntarily. The community has no authority to enforce any other laws on anyone who does not voluntarily subscribe to those laws. Anyone can sell postcards, they can be a vagabond so long as they don't violate the force/fraud provisions, they can be penniless, and they don't have to pay anything they don't want to pay unless they have voluntarily contracted to pay it. Then again, vagabonds and the penniless may be denied the use of community amenities that they have not paid to use.

Libertarians will ignore postcard vendors and vagabonds and let them live as they please. Or they will buy postcards and give charity to vagabonds and the penniless, if that's what some individual chooses to do.

Libertarianism does not mean that a community can set rules for everyone who might enter that community, it means that only those rules that everyone agrees to be personally bound by can be enforced against them, except for the initiation of force or fraud, which is enforceable against everyone all the time.

[aspire1670]

Are there police forces to arrest someone who engages in fraud?

If the community voluntarily pays to form and support one. If not, they can do so themselves, since all power and authority flows from the people to the government and is not abdicated by the people, they merely authorize concurrent authority to enforce the law to government agents.

And, is there a judicial system to review cases where fraud is alleged?

If the community voluntarily pays to support one. Otherwise one must hire a professional judge at one's own expense to hear the case.

If person A says person B is committing fraud, is person A's recourse limited to his own right of self-help and his friends to help him? If there is something more than that, what is it?

Whatever the community decides to fund voluntarily.

What I meant was, if person A funds a police force and a judiciary voluntarily, but B doesn't, and B does not consent to be bound by what A's community wants, what is the basis for the community taking action against B? Are people involuntarily subject to the laws of A's community?

If they initiate force or fraud upon some member or members of the community, the community may react in self defense and may require them to compensate those harmed and even be punished for doing so, so yes, they are, if they act within that community by initiating force or fraud. Generally, it is those who are harmed or defrauded who would take action, including the use of force, but the community can of course act voluntarily among themselves.

In situations where the force or fraud is not significant harm (like assault or rape or murder) in general Libertarians prefer to use non violent methods such as shunning and exclusion. Thus, if someone was initiating fraud by using public amenities he had not paid for, the community would simply bar him from those amenities and would refuse to trade or associate with him unless and until he fulfilled his obligation to pay for what he uses. Then again, if he stole something from someone (which is fraud) the community could use physical force to recover the stolen items along with damages. This could be done by the harmed individual and his friends, or by a police force and a court, depending on how the community wants to do things.

In situations where there is physical violence, physical violence can be used in self defense. It can be applied by the victims, their family, friends and neighbors, or by the police and courts, and yes, it can be used against a person who does not subscribe to the community's rules because an initiation of force or fraud is malum in se and may be defended against, punished and compensated for by anyone who is harmed or defrauded.

Let's envision a community of 10,000 people living in Podunk County, Arkansas, and we live in a libertarian nation of the kind you are trying to explain to us.

So, 9,000 people vote for a bunch of laws, including: (1) you cannot commit fraud within the community limits, and they cannot sell postcards on streetcorners in the community, (2) you cannot be a vagabond within community limits, which means that you must carry with you at least $50 on you at all times, or you can be jailed, (3) all persons residing within the community limits must pay a $100 a year residence fee, and (4) each person is assessed a tariff on all of their income earned within the community limits at a rate of 5% of total income. The 9,000 have created a court system and police force, and a judiciary.

1,000 people do not consent to those laws, and they are living within the community limits. They refuse to pay the tarriff and fee, and they routinely walk around the town, selling postcards on street corners. Some of them have been known to walk around penniless.

Would the community of Podunk County have the right to arrest the 1,000 non-members, try them, and jail the guilty? On what basis? Can they impose the tarriff and fee upon the 1,000? If not, why not?

You misunderstand Libertarianism. There would be no such laws. The only Libertarian requirements are "you cannot commit fraud" and "you cannot initiate force against another." Otherwise, what someone does is none of anyone's business, unless that person contracts to do or not do some thing voluntarily. The community has no authority to enforce any other laws on anyone who does not voluntarily subscribe to those laws. Anyone can sell postcards, they can be a vagabond so long as they don't violate the force/fraud provisions, they can be penniless, and they don't have to pay anything they don't want to pay unless they have voluntarily contracted to pay it. Then again, vagabonds and the penniless may be denied the use of community amenities that they have not paid to use.

Libertarians will ignore postcard vendors and vagabonds and let them live as they please. Or they will buy postcards and give charity to vagabonds and the penniless, if that's what some individual chooses to do.

Libertarianism does not mean that a community can set rules for everyone who might enter that community, it means that only those rules that everyone agrees to be personally bound by can be enforced against them, except for the initiation of force or fraud, which is enforceable against everyone all the time.

LOL. Libertarianism will conquer all in your basement, Seth.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, you said, "You misunderstand Libertarianism. There would be no such laws. The only Libertarian requirements are "you cannot commit fraud" and "you cannot initiate force against another." Otherwise, what someone does is none of anyone's business, unless that person contracts to do or not do some thing voluntarily."

In my example, the 9,000 did, in fact, contract to do all those things voluntarily. They all consented. Only, the 1,000 consented.

So, if I understand you correctly - the 9,000 ARE free to create the no vagabond law, and the no selling postcards law, and the fee and tarriff law, but they can ONLY enforce that as among those 9,000 that consented to it. Yes.

As for the 1,000 who live in the community who did not consent to it, the 9,000 are powerless, and they have to allow those persons to remain within the community limits, so long as they don't initiate force or fraud on anyone, right? Or, do the 9,000 have the power to drive the 1,000 out of town? I would think that if they did anything more than ask the 1,000 to leave, they would themselves be initiating force, but you'll have to clarify.

Am I correctly understanding you?

[Coito ergo sum]

And, you said, "Libertarianism does not mean that a community can set rules for everyone who might enter that community,"

I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, under your theory.

What if the 9,000 put up signs at all entry points to their town and on the signs it says, "By entering this community and proceeding past this visible and readable signage, you agree to abide by the following rules: [insert list of rules]" - and they should be able to set up a toll, right? A toll booth on the road that says, "The 9,000 paid for these roads, and if you want to drive on them, you have to pay these tolls..."

Can't they do that?

And, if they can do that, then can't they say on the sign: "By entering the community of the 9,000, you consent to be bound by the Rules Applicable to Visitors, which are on file at the town center and which can be viewed on our internet web site." Also, "If you choose to reside in the community of the 9,000, your act of taking up residence constitutes acceptance of the Rules Applicable to Residents, and the Taxes, Fees and Tariffs applicable to Residents."

Among those rules, can't there be a "no vagabond" rule and a "no selling postcards on streetcorner" rule that visitors and residents agree, by entering into the Community, to abide by?

And, since they've agreed by their act of proceeding on in the face of the signage, then aren't they bound by the laws, and then subject to arrest and penalty as described in the rules of the Community of 9,000?

[MrJonno]

What if the 9,000 put up signs at all entry points to their town and on the signs it says, "By entering this community and proceeding past this visible and readable signage, you agree to abide by the following rules: [insert list of rules]" - and they should be able to set up a toll, right? A toll booth on the road that says, "The 9,000 paid for these roads, and if you want to drive on them, you have to pay these tolls...

Is that just what a country is on a larger scale?, want to be part of it you obey the rules and pay the bills as defined by the people who already are in it

[Seth]

Seth, you said, "You misunderstand Libertarianism. There would be no such laws. The only Libertarian requirements are "you cannot commit fraud" and "you cannot initiate force against another." Otherwise, what someone does is none of anyone's business, unless that person contracts to do or not do some thing voluntarily."

In my example, the 9,000 did, in fact, contract to do all those things voluntarily. They all consented. Only, the 1,000 consented.

So, if I understand you correctly - the 9,000 ARE free to create the no vagabond law, and the no selling postcards law, and the fee and tarriff law, but they can ONLY enforce that as among those 9,000 that consented to it. Yes.

Correct. But they can enforce a no force/no fraud law against anyone, as I explain below.

As for the 1,000 who live in the community who did not consent to it, the 9,000 are powerless, and they have to allow those persons to remain within the community limits, so long as they don't initiate force or fraud on anyone, right?

Correct. Where a person resides or travels is nobody's business but his own, so long as he remains within the NF/F (No Force or Fraud) constraints.

Or, do the 9,000 have the power to drive the 1,000 out of town? I would think that if they did anything more than ask the 1,000 to leave, they would themselves be initiating force, but you'll have to clarify.

Am I correctly understanding you?

Almost. The 9000 have no power to ask, demand, order or expect anyone to do anything, including staying or leaving a community, unless that person is violating the NF/F principle.

However, let's suppose that a shop owner doesn't like dirty vagabonds entering his shop. He is free to bar them. It's his private property and he may do as he pleases and impose any restrictions or requirements on the use of his private property he wishes.

Let's further suppose that the 9000 have banded together voluntarily to create a park for the use and enjoyment of those who contributed to the building and maintenance of the park. A vagabond takes up residence on a bench in the park without paying the requisite share of the costs the 9000 agreed to pay. He is initiating fraud upon the 9000 because he is using an amenity that he did not pay for, and therefore he may be justly ejected from the park. Or the sidewalk. Or the street. Or anywhere else that those who have paid to improve the commonly-held property determine is reserved for those who pay for the privilege of occupying that space, subject to the rules the community sets for such use.

Or, let's say that a commercial trucker decides to drive on the parkway paid for by the 9000. He can be required to pay for that privilege, and if he does not, he's initiating fraud and can be held accountable.

Or, it may be that the 9000 voluntarily pay an annual assessment to pay for improving and maintaining a park and voluntarily decide that it will be open for anyone to use and enjoy without paying a specific use fee, but subject to certain rules of conduct and decorum as well as limitations on length of occupancy and what activities may be engaged in. A vagabond sets up a tent on the lawn in violation of these rules. He is initiating fraud upon the owners of the park, who can eject him. The owners can even set up a system of fines for violations of the rules and provide notice that use of the park by any person constitutes voluntary agreement to the rules and the contract for use, which makes payment of any fines for misbehavior obligatory.

The entire system is very much as it is today. Municipalities are created and ordinances are enacted that control public behavior, and violators are sanctioned for violations.

The only real difference from the way things are done at the local, municipal level now is that there are only two metrics applicable to any regulation: Force or fraud. Absent an initiation of force or fraud by someone, whether a paying member of the community or merely a visitor, the "government" has no authority to dictate or regulate individual behavior.

Therefore, in a public space open to everyone free of charge, if a person wishes to walk around naked, that's their right. There are no "morality" laws permitted that would authorize the creation of rules and regulations regulating anything OTHER THAN the initiation of force or fraud. All laws and regulations, at every level of government, must pass this test and show clearly how the conduct regulated is an initiation of either force or fraud, or the regulation is not valid.

Any attempt to regulate a vagabond selling postcards would have to show how its an initiation of force or fraud for that person to engage in that activity in that place. The fact that the 9000 may not want vagabond card sellers on streetcorners is not enough justification for them to regulate that liberty interest in and of itself.

If, however, the community requires the payment of a fee for the commercial use of sidewalks built and maintained by the community, then selling postcards without paying the fee would be initiating fraud, which can be sanctioned.

But the rule must be uniform and directly connected to the NF/F principle, rather than to some community moral judgment that vagabonds selling cards are "undesirables" and must be forced to leave town.

[Seth]

And, you said, "Libertarianism does not mean that a community can set rules for everyone who might enter that community,"

I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, under your theory.

What if the 9,000 put up signs at all entry points to their town and on the signs it says, "By entering this community and proceeding past this visible and readable signage, you agree to abide by the following rules: [insert list of rules]" - and they should be able to set up a toll, right? A toll booth on the road that says, "The 9,000 paid for these roads, and if you want to drive on them, you have to pay these tolls..."

Can't they do that?

Yes, they can. If they paid for the amenities, they may restrict use of the amenities to those who have paid to use them, or assess a fee for use by others on a per-use basis.

And, if they can do that, then can't they say on the sign: "By entering the community of the 9,000, you consent to be bound by the Rules Applicable to Visitors, which are on file at the town center and which can be viewed on our internet web site." Also, "If you choose to reside in the community of the 9,000, your act of taking up residence constitutes acceptance of the Rules Applicable to Residents, and the Taxes, Fees and Tariffs applicable to Residents."

Among those rules, can't there be a "no vagabond" rule and a "no selling postcards on streetcorner" rule that visitors and residents agree, by entering into the Community, to abide by?

Yes and no. The basis of any rule or regulation that is to be enforced against anyone who has not voluntarily consented to such a regulation must be founded in the prevention of an initiation of force or fraud by the person regulated. "Status" regulations (being a "vagabond" or "black" ) or any other characteristic that has nothing to do with the actual initiation of force or fraud by that person are not permitted under the Libertarian system because such regulations are themselves inherently an initiation of force against the individual who has done nothing to initiate force or fraud against the community.

So, yes, a set of rules for the payment of fees, taxes and tariffs applicable to residents are permissible because those who are residents have paid their share and new residents can be required to pay their share as a contractual condition of living in the community. But no, a rule saying "no vagabonds" would not pass muster, although a "no selling postcards on streetcorners" might, if the community assesses a fee and places restrictions on the use of public sidewalks for all residents.

And, since they've agreed by their act of proceeding on in the face of the signage, then aren't they bound by the laws, and then subject to arrest and penalty as described in the rules of the Community of 9,000?

Not unless they become residents and/or make use of amenities provided by the community without paying the required fee for such use. Merely existing is not an initiation of force or fraud, generally speaking. But of course such a sign does constitute a contract, and so persons can become obliged to that contract if they choose to enter the community voluntarily, even as a visitor.

If the community does not want visitors to make use of amenities, it has the right to make and enforce such a rule, and the right of the community to determine the conditions under which their amenities may be used by non-residents outweighs the desire of an outsider to make use of those amenities by entering the community. If the visitor doesn't like the requirements, then the visitor is free not to enter the community. If he does, he may find himself obligated to the community in accordance with the contract. Of course, the contract must be voluntarily entered into, which means that the community either has to publish the contract in full at every entry point, so a person can read and agree to the contract as a "meeting of the minds," or it must allow leeway for a person to proceed to the place where the contract can be read and agreed to, and it must allow a person who rejects the contract to leave without penalty.

To do otherwise, to set someone up to be involuntarily bound to a contract that they have not had the opportunity to read in full and agree to, is itself an initiation of fraud by the community that would absolve the visitor of any liability under the contract.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, you said, "Libertarianism does not mean that a community can set rules for everyone who might enter that community,"

I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, under your theory.

What if the 9,000 put up signs at all entry points to their town and on the signs it says, "By entering this community and proceeding past this visible and readable signage, you agree to abide by the following rules: [insert list of rules]" - and they should be able to set up a toll, right? A toll booth on the road that says, "The 9,000 paid for these roads, and if you want to drive on them, you have to pay these tolls..."

Can't they do that?

Yes, they can. If they paid for the amenities, they may restrict use of the amenities to those who have paid to use them, or assess a fee for use by others on a per-use basis.

And, if they can do that, then can't they say on the sign: "By entering the community of the 9,000, you consent to be bound by the Rules Applicable to Visitors, which are on file at the town center and which can be viewed on our internet web site." Also, "If you choose to reside in the community of the 9,000, your act of taking up residence constitutes acceptance of the Rules Applicable to Residents, and the Taxes, Fees and Tariffs applicable to Residents."

Among those rules, can't there be a "no vagabond" rule and a "no selling postcards on streetcorner" rule that visitors and residents agree, by entering into the Community, to abide by?

Yes and no. The basis of any rule or regulation that is to be enforced against anyone who has not voluntarily consented to such a regulation must be founded in the prevention of an initiation of force or fraud by the person regulated. "Status" regulations (being a "vagabond" or "black" ) or any other characteristic that has nothing to do with the actual initiation of force or fraud by that person are not permitted under the Libertarian system because such regulations are themselves inherently an initiation of force against the individual who has done nothing to initiate force or fraud against the community.

Well, then they can't make whatever rules they want among themselves, even if they do consent. So, you're talking in circles.

You've said they could make whatever rules they want, if they all consent. But, now you say they can't make a "no vagabond" rule even if they consent.

So, yes, a set of rules for the payment of fees, taxes and tariffs applicable to residents are permissible because those who are residents have paid their share and new residents can be required to pay their share as a contractual condition of living in the community. But no, a rule saying "no vagabonds" would not pass muster, although a "no selling postcards on streetcorners" might, if the community assesses a fee and places restrictions on the use of public sidewalks for all residents.

Ah, the "if Seth likes it" rule of government...

Moreover, again, if they all consent, on what basis do you say they are not allowed to consent to it? And, if they consent, it can't be the initiation of force or fraud. They consent. Remember - I stated very clearly that the 9,000 clearly posted to visitors that they must agree to the no vagabond rule, and if they don't consent, they can stay out of the town. Why can't they do that?

And, since they've agreed by their act of proceeding on in the face of the signage, then aren't they bound by the laws, and then subject to arrest and penalty as described in the rules of the Community of 9,000?

Not unless they become residents and/or make use of amenities provided by the community without paying the required fee for such use. Merely existing is not an initiation of force or fraud, generally speaking. But of course such a sign does constitute a contract, and so persons can become obliged to that contract if they choose to enter the community voluntarily, even as a visitor.

You make no sense.

If they enter as visitors, they can be asked to agree, at a tollbooth, to all the rules of the community. If they don't agree, they can turn around. If they do agree, they proceed on. Nobody is initiating force or fraud against anybody. They are just being asked to abide by the rules.

If the community does not want visitors to make use of amenities, it has the right to make and enforce such a rule, and the right of the community to determine the conditions under which their amenities may be used by non-residents outweighs the desire of an outsider to make use of those amenities by entering the community.

And, one of the conditions is the no vagabond rule. They only want people with money in their pocket in their town. They all agree, they have a right to set the conditions, and one of the conditions for entry past the toll is agreement to the no vagabond rule. Why not?

If the visitor doesn't like the requirements, then the visitor is free not to enter the community.

Exactly what I said. But, you said that the community is barred by some Seth-principle that certain rules are not allowed. Taxes and tarriffs and fees - you said "yes," they could. "No vagabond" rule - you said "no" can't do that.

If he does, he may find himself obligated to the community in accordance with the contract. Of course, the contract must be voluntarily entered into, which means that the community either has to publish the contract in full at every entry point, so a person can read and agree to the contract as a "meeting of the minds," or it must allow leeway for a person to proceed to the place where the contract can be read and agreed to, and it must allow a person who rejects the contract to leave without penalty.

Contracts are routinely agreed to via references to "Standard Terms and Conditions" as amended from time to time in the sole discretion of one party. And, one doesn't have to see the Standard Terms ahead of time. Parties can have a meeting of the minds over the term that the visiting party will abide by the Communities terms, whatever they are, sight unseen.

To do otherwise, to set someone up to be involuntarily bound to a contract that they have not had the opportunity to read in full and agree to, is itself an initiation of fraud by the community that would absolve the visitor of any liability under the contract.

They have had the opportunity to reject the terms because they haven't had a chance to read them. Moreover, I did say the Community posted them at the town center and on the community's website.

But, let's say they have all the rules available for review at the entry toll. They let you pull over to the side, and read the rules if you want. Why can't the no vagabond rule be a rule that the Community of 9,000 consents to, and that all visitors must consent to as a condition of entry?

[Seth]

And, you said, "Libertarianism does not mean that a community can set rules for everyone who might enter that community,"

I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, under your theory.

What if the 9,000 put up signs at all entry points to their town and on the signs it says, "By entering this community and proceeding past this visible and readable signage, you agree to abide by the following rules: [insert list of rules]" - and they should be able to set up a toll, right? A toll booth on the road that says, "The 9,000 paid for these roads, and if you want to drive on them, you have to pay these tolls..."

Can't they do that?

Yes, they can. If they paid for the amenities, they may restrict use of the amenities to those who have paid to use them, or assess a fee for use by others on a per-use basis.

And, if they can do that, then can't they say on the sign: "By entering the community of the 9,000, you consent to be bound by the Rules Applicable to Visitors, which are on file at the town center and which can be viewed on our internet web site." Also, "If you choose to reside in the community of the 9,000, your act of taking up residence constitutes acceptance of the Rules Applicable to Residents, and the Taxes, Fees and Tariffs applicable to Residents."

Among those rules, can't there be a "no vagabond" rule and a "no selling postcards on streetcorner" rule that visitors and residents agree, by entering into the Community, to abide by?

Yes and no. The basis of any rule or regulation that is to be enforced against anyone who has not voluntarily consented to such a regulation must be founded in the prevention of an initiation of force or fraud by the person regulated. "Status" regulations (being a "vagabond" or "black" ) or any other characteristic that has nothing to do with the actual initiation of force or fraud by that person are not permitted under the Libertarian system because such regulations are themselves inherently an initiation of force against the individual who has done nothing to initiate force or fraud against the community.

Well, then they can't make whatever rules they want among themselves, even if they do consent. So, you're talking in circles.

You've said they could make whatever rules they want, if they all consent. But, now you say they can't make a "no vagabond" rule even if they consent.

Right. Because they cannot decide for the vagabond where he chooses to go. If the vagabond signs the contract that applies to the community, then it can be enforced against him, but the 9000 can neither force him to sign the contract nor act to exclude him from the community because he refuses to sign the contract.

Contracts are not one-sided agreements. The 9000 cannot say "if you enter here you agree to the contract" they have to get actual agreement to the terms of the contract for it to be valid.

But they can make any rules they like among themselves which means among those who have voluntarily consented to have those rules applied to and enforced against themselves.

So, yes, a set of rules for the payment of fees, taxes and tariffs applicable to residents are permissible because those who are residents have paid their share and new residents can be required to pay their share as a contractual condition of living in the community. But no, a rule saying "no vagabonds" would not pass muster, although a "no selling postcards on streetcorners" might, if the community assesses a fee and places restrictions on the use of public sidewalks for all residents.

Ah, the "if Seth likes it" rule of government...

Moreover, again, if they all consent, on what basis do you say they are not allowed to consent to it? And, if they consent, it can't be the initiation of force or fraud. They consent. Remember - I stated very clearly that the 9,000 clearly posted to visitors that they must agree to the no vagabond rule, and if they don't consent, they can stay out of the town. Why can't they do that?

Because contracts are a meeting of the minds and require express voluntary agreement to the terms. By "no vagabond rule" I assumed you meant a rule imposed on persons who come to the community who do not consent to a "no vagabond" rule. If one comes to the community, signs the contract which says "you can't be a vagabond in this community," then it's enforceable as a voluntary contract. But if a person who is a "vagabond" wanders into town and takes up residence, absent force or fraud on his part, the community cannot enforce that rule against him without his express voluntary consent.

And, since they've agreed by their act of proceeding on in the face of the signage, then aren't they bound by the laws, and then subject to arrest and penalty as described in the rules of the Community of 9,000?

Not unless they become residents and/or make use of amenities provided by the community without paying the required fee for such use. Merely existing is not an initiation of force or fraud, generally speaking. But of course such a sign does constitute a contract, and so persons can become obliged to that contract if they choose to enter the community voluntarily, even as a visitor.

You make no sense.

If they enter as visitors, they can be asked to agree, at a tollbooth, to all the rules of the community. If they don't agree, they can turn around. If they do agree, they proceed on. Nobody is initiating force or fraud against anybody. They are just being asked to abide by the rules.

They can enter whether or not they agree to the rules. Absent an initiation of force or fraud on their part, their freedom of movement cannot be infringed upon because they have not agreed to that restriction. If they make use of public amenities that charge a fee for use and don't pay that fee, then they commit fraud. But absent force or fraud on their part, the community has no authority over them at all.

Can a community assess an entry fee for the use of streets, sidewalks, parks and suchlike? Yes, it can, and anyone entering that community is obliged to pay that fee because to not do so is to initiate fraud. Their alternative is to not enter the community. But as to other rules of, say, decorum or behavior, no rule that the entrant has not expressly agreed to can be enforced against them absent force or fraud on their part. A rule that women must wear black bags only applies to those who have consented to that rule. Anyone else can ignore that rule.

But what moderates such behavior on the part of a community is the moral suasion of other communities and persons. A community that attempts to impose harsh rules or exorbitant fees on visitors will find itself isolated and shut out of trade and interaction with other communities. A KKK community with racist rules will find itself unable to buy or sell to anyone outside that community that does not support the racist intentions of the community.

Since trade and interaction are essential to any community, the force of moral opprobrium will moderate the behavior of every community except those of the most radical and isolationist bent, and those will be shunned by the wider community, which will make life hard for the residents.

The same sort of thing occurs now in communities that have high taxes and harsh, intrusive regulations. People who don't like the tax structure or regulations simply move away and refuse to visit or spend money in that community.

I, for example, boycott California. I will not go there or spend my money there because I disapprove of their political and social ideologies. Likewise I will never visit New York City, because they infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights.

In a Libertarian society, the inertia of wider public opinion and the legal right of every individual to discriminate against any other individual or group without any legal constraint against such discrimination acts to impose moral suasion that modifies and moderates radical anti-social behavior.

If the community does not want visitors to make use of amenities, it has the right to make and enforce such a rule, and the right of the community to determine the conditions under which their amenities may be used by non-residents outweighs the desire of an outsider to make use of those amenities by entering the community.

And, one of the conditions is the no vagabond rule. They only want people with money in their pocket in their town. They all agree, they have a right to set the conditions, and one of the conditions for entry past the toll is agreement to the no vagabond rule. Why not?

Because while they can ask for agreement, their only recourse if the agreement is not agreed to is to discriminate and refuse to trade with or interact with someone in their community who hasn't signed the contract, absent an initiation of force or fraud by the visitor.

They cannot involuntarily enforce a condition on entry, they can only react if force or fraud is initiated by the visitor, unless the visitor voluntarily agrees to abide by the condition of entry. Until then, they can only "shun" the visitor.

If the visitor doesn't like the requirements, then the visitor is free not to enter the community.

Exactly what I said. But, you said that the community is barred by some Seth-principle that certain rules are not allowed. Taxes and tarriffs and fees - you said "yes," they could. "No vagabond" rule - you said "no" can't do that.

Right. That's because a tax, tariff or fee is payment for the use of property, goods or services provided by the community that others have paid to establish. You can't ride the bus without paying the fare. But you can walk the street, unless it's a private street, in which case you have to pay for that privilege.

But being a "vagabond" is a status, not an act, and in a Libertarian society, the only thing others can do regarding the status of a person they dislike is to refuse to trade or interact with that person. So, if the streets and sidewalks and parks are open to everyone and there is no specific fee for such use that's applicable to all, wandering the streets as a vagabond cannot be prevented because that would be initiating force. But no store owner is obliged to sell to a vagabond, or buy cards from him, or allow him to use private property, or even acknowledge his existence.

If he does, he may find himself obligated to the community in accordance with the contract. Of course, the contract must be voluntarily entered into, which means that the community either has to publish the contract in full at every entry point, so a person can read and agree to the contract as a "meeting of the minds," or it must allow leeway for a person to proceed to the place where the contract can be read and agreed to, and it must allow a person who rejects the contract to leave without penalty.

Contracts are routinely agreed to via references to "Standard Terms and Conditions" as amended from time to time in the sole discretion of one party. And, one doesn't have to see the Standard Terms ahead of time. Parties can have a meeting of the minds over the term that the visiting party will abide by the Communities terms, whatever they are, sight unseen.

Not in a Libertarian society. Contracts are not "implied" they must be expressly agreed to. Can a person agree to abide by an unseen contract? Yes, I suppose so, despite that being a stupid idea. But the community may not infer consent, it must have actual, verifiable consent to the terms of the contract, or it's not a contract. Moreover, a visitor can say "I agree to pay a fee for the use of streets and sidewalks, but I refuse to abide by the restriction stating that all women must wear big black bags that conceal everything." The only recourse of the community in that case is to shun the individual, but it cannot prevent him from paying the fee and using the streets and sidewalks and it cannot initiate force to drive him out of the community because an "all women must wear black bags" rule does not address either force or fraud, and therefore cannot be enforced against anyone against their will.

To do otherwise, to set someone up to be involuntarily bound to a contract that they have not had the opportunity to read in full and agree to, is itself an initiation of fraud by the community that would absolve the visitor of any liability under the contract.

They have had the opportunity to reject the terms because they haven't had a chance to read them. Moreover, I did say the Community posted them at the town center and on the community's website.

But, let's say they have all the rules available for review at the entry toll. They let you pull over to the side, and read the rules if you want. Why can't the no vagabond rule be a rule that the Community of 9,000 consents to, and that all visitors must consent to as a condition of entry?

Because there cannot be "conditions of entry" that can be enforced to prevent someone from entering or going where they will for reasons other than force or fraud. A condition of entry saying "you can't enter without paying a fee for the use of the streets and sidewalks" is a valid fraud-related condition, and is therefore acceptable. A condition of entry saying "no vagabonds" is neither fraud nor force related and cannot be enforced involuntarily against anyone, although it can be enforced against anyone who voluntarily agrees that the condition applies to them.

[MrJonno]

This thread made me look UK discrimination laws and sensible its non discrimination based on religion OR belief, i.e there is no legal difference in whether you believe in jesus, mohammed, Margaret Thatcher or Lenin when it comes to employment laws

[Seth]

This thread made me look UK discrimination laws and sensible its non discrimination based on religion OR belief, i.e there is no legal difference in whether you believe in jesus, mohammed, Margaret Thatcher or Lenin when it comes to employment laws

Interesting. Do you have a citation? Does this mean that the Jewish ex-concentration camp survivor running a butcher shop in London is compelled to hire six Neo-Nazis with shaved heads and swastikas tattooed on their heads, or can he "discriminate" against them based on political belief?

Edit: After a brief review, "belief" includes "religious or philosophical belief" which arguably extends to literally any belief, including that Jews should be shoved into ovens, so yes, in the UK, a Jewish Holocaust survivor can be compelled to hire a Neo-Nazi against his will.

What a bunch of fuckwits the Brits are...

[Audley Strange]

This thread made me look UK discrimination laws and sensible its non discrimination based on religion OR belief, i.e there is no legal difference in whether you believe in jesus, mohammed, Margaret Thatcher or Lenin when it comes to employment laws

Interesting. Do you have a citation? Does this mean that the Jewish ex-concentration camp survivor running a butcher shop in London is compelled to hire six Neo-Nazis with shaved heads and swastikas tattooed on their heads, or can he "discriminate" against them based on political belief?

Edit: After a brief review, "belief" includes "religious or philosophical belief" which arguably extends to literally any belief, including that Jews should be shoved into ovens, so yes, in the UK, a Jewish Holocaust survivor can be compelled to hire a Neo-Nazi against his will.

What a bunch of fuckwits the Brits are...

It does seem like that yes, there is an ethic here that professionalism, outside politics and journalism, means businesses should be ideologically neutral places. The holocaust survivor would not reasonably be expected to hire them, but if it could be proven that he refused to hire therm solely on the grounds of their politics, then they might have a case. Frankly I don't think the opposite is much better to be honest, especially during a time of paranoid propaganda bombardments, it can lead to and has led to witch-hunts, blacklists and worse, extermination.

[MrJonno]

There have been discussion about sacking teachers who are known to be members of the BNP (British KKK) as their jobs require them to sign up to a contract of treating everyone equally including on the grounds of race. However currently I think its how you act in the classroom not what you believe that can be 'discriminated' on.

There are also laws on inciting hatred so someone who had tattoo's saying gas the Jews on the forehead isnt going to get as far as a job interview at a synagogue. But if they have fascist but legal tendencies in their spare time I don't see why they could be turned down for a job.


There are also a few legal exceptions you can't get a job as a policeman if you even associate socially with known criminals even through this in itself isnt a crime but on the whole what you belief in as opposed to how you act in a job can't be discriminated against