RE: Why Are Peaceful People Becoming Anarchists?
I pick the school yard because that is a real life scenario. Not a hypothetical.
"no one owns" it is not true, it is the property of the city.
Do you have a right to let some teenagers to be violently removed from the yard of your neighbour because they make noise, and you make assumptions that you have that right because the MIGHT turn out violent?
Looks like you made the same assumption, if they are not violent why would they need to be violently removed? If they leave when the police ask them then there will be no violence. If they don't then the police are responsible for the liability of the violence, not me personally. I don't really want to deal with a lawsuit fro some dead kids family because that kid was a violent asshole.
So you harras them for making noise?
Nope, they are violating my rights and harassing me, in addition to trespassing, I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property, they have no right to trespass or be loud.
"the city" can't own anything "the city" is not a person.
They are violently removed. If I would personaly would go to the kids and ask them to move and if they didn't do than I would be Liability for the violence I use. I'm the one using violence. You can't shift liability or responsibility for the harressment and violence by letting someone else do it.
What is that; I have a right to quiet enjoyment of my property. This is very vague, noise can come from everywhere and everything. They have no right to trespass (on your property), that's right then you can remove them or have them removed Because you own the place you get to say what happens there.
But can you give someone else a right that you don't have, to do something that you yourself have no right to do?
In the same way that a corporation can own property a municipality can own property.
I didn't see any violence, of course that is an implied threat any time you are violating the rights of another and you refuse to stop right?
yes I can, that's what is great about having civil servants, I don't have to be liable for any harm that results. If the cops shoot them then that is their problem, they will be sued not me. Why would you want to bear that liability personally? Not to mention if the kids shoot you in the face, then you are really screwed right? Better for me for the cops to deal with it in both cases.
Nope, it is a very basic tenet of all property law that people have a right to quiet enjoyment of their property, the rules about this are very clearly defined. This only applies to people or their activities making noise, not to birds and thunder, people have to respect the rights of others right?
Once again this is not my property but a playground across the street that is posted as "no trespassing at night police take notice"
I have a right to go over and deal with it myself but that creates a lot of liability for me so I send my civil servants to go deal with it and take all of that liability on themselves. That's what I pay them for. Sort of like the garbage man, I pay to have my trash taken away so I don't have to deal with it anymore. Without any police lets say I go over there and the kids get violent and then I have to dispatch them, don't I then have to kill anyone who comes to avenge their deaths? where does it end?