RE: Middle Theory Episode For 08.25.17. Antifa in America
Negative rights, such as self-ownership and property, can't be enforced but only defended. You can't enforce "non-invasion" of property, you can only defend it from invasion.
Positive rights, such as healthcare, must be enforced and can't be defended. You must enforce someones right to healthcare. Healthcare isn't defended from invasion, such as a negative right - it's defended from "non-invasion." To enforce healthcare, you must force a person to perform it.
Thus, no person will enforce these morals, but defend them form invasion. That is, property is necessarily defended, and not enforced.
In practice, this could be either self-defense or hired defense (private defense agencies.) Such agencies could sell insurance contracts to clients - essentially a private police force (but with competition.)
Semantics. If a court grants me title to lands based on a tax deed am I the invader or the defender? Does it matter?
It's not just "semantics" it's the difference between negative and positive rights.
If the land you were granted by the court is the court's rightful property, then you would become the new owner, or "defender," of it. If the court did not own the land, but stole it from someone because he didn't pay taxes to the government, the land was stolen, thus you become the invader of it.
It does matter if you violate another's NAP or not. The outcome of either to actions may be equal, but that doesn't make the methods equal - one would be exchange, the other theft.
In the Americas we own the Native American lands by Right of Conquest (by Force). The Corporation of the United States retained jurisdiction over all lands and sold it Fee Simple retaining the sovereign right to collect taxes on it and delegating part of that Sovereignty of certain parts of the Country to the 50 States foregoing the right to collect property taxes to the States and Counties parishes and districts themselves and authorizing repossession for failure to pay those taxes. So when the previously owner tries to invade; the fealty that the police have is to the law not the previous owner.
Property rights are the exclusive right to control physical things.
If person A has property rights to thing X, and person B takes it without permission from A, he has stolen it. Person B is thus exercising unjust control of thing X, and his ownership claim is therefore not rightful.
The State has done just this, taken the rightful property of the Indians, and thus has no rightful claim to it.
You need to define property before you can define rightful property.
The States' sovereignty over previous Indian territory is definedin International law and upheld by Right of Conquest in International courts. The force used to retain that sovereignty is therefore legitimate force. It is not defined as theft; it's Conquest, being An entirely different word.
So if theft is backed by a large enough amount of guns, it's not theft? How about rape? If the States' agents raped your wife, and they claim Conquest, it's legitimate consensual intercourse? If I kidnap and enslave a bunch of people, are they now my property -- purely because they can't escape?
The U.S. took the Indians' land (not talking about the tribes' land, but individuals',) and claimed it as theirs -- it's the definition of theft. It doesn't matter if they have the whole world backing them, fundamentally it's violation of property.
We are talking about how Sovereign Entities interact with each other. There is no jurisdiction to punish anyone for any so called crimes. Crimes only exist where there is a set of laws that when broken the perpetrator(s) can be punished for. Ergo, Rape is not a crime in a lawless world, but if the woman or man is able to defend themselves and kill the perpetrator(s); then that murder isn't a crime either. Now you might say that self defense makes the death of the perpetrator(s) "acceptable" - and not Murder.... where is the punishment for "murder" codified in a lawless world? Generally speaking, rape isn't an issue between sovereigns unless we are dealing with monarchs. But back to the question. If the State doesn't have laws punishing rapists then no, it's not a crime. Plenty of cases of what westerners consider injustice in sharia law dealing with this subject.
I guess you're right, in a lawless world, no crime could be committed. Looking at the practical side of this situation, it wouldn't surprise me, if the society naturally developed a common law based on libertarian ethics. Depends on the society, religion, habitat, etc.
I don't think that State's has the power to define actual criminals. The only "true" criminals, are those who invade other's private property. The U.S. and ISIS can't define criminals, when they're the criminals themselves.
Link:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/jurisdiction-where-does-it-come-from