Where does it End, Part II

Libertarianism has much room for development. This is apparent when two, twelve, or any number of believers don't agree with a proper application of the non-aggression principle, whether in this reality or the Utopian ideal. Worse yet is when this argument has both sides arguing from one perspective or the other, without clarity on what "world" is the setting for their championed stances.

At least, for this subject, the where, when, and/or "what reality" isn't an issue.

If a property owner has absolute right to said property, are they granted carte blanche to operate as they see fit with the property, and to defend their stake from involuntarily giving up said property? The short Libertarian answer is "yes", the asterisk to the answer is "provided they do not initiate uninvited aggression on another." Then what of defense against trespassers, burglars, or any possible villainy that might come to violate an individuals property rights? I'm hard pressed to demand that someone being aggressed against isn't allowed to respond, or has an obligation to discern motive and goal of the aggressor - particularly in circumstances where it's clear that the individual doesn't want trespass, such as breaking through a locked door or window. Insisting on such an obligation could cost a person everything.

What happens when circumstances are clear, and it's been discerned that life and physical well being isn't in danger? Does the owner have the right to operate as Judge, Jury and Executioner? Would he judge where property begins and ends? Would he impose the maximum value upon lost property, and perhaps the maximum penalty? Does this property owner define the minimum and maximum penalty?

Most importantly, is there a Libertarian justification for the property owner to act on these gauges of justice? Some believe so. I disagree. Others do as well, for reasons that are theirs.

In an earlier writing, I posed such questions - tackling the belief that the Property Owner has this right in the most extreme:

If I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, and I can smell my neighbor's cigarette smoke wafting onto my property, am I within my rights to kill said neighbor for robbing me of air on my property that would otherwise be clean? Is my neighbor's wife within her rights to kill me for the loss of household revenue and the destruction of the family unit?

What if my neighbor's newborn won't stop crying at a time that's most disruptive, taking away my right to a peaceful property? Do I have the right to exact a righteous justice of my choosing, raising high my knife as I roar triumphantly for Anarcho Capitalism? Could I use a tiny nuclear device instead?

If a farmer has the right to shoot a juvenile apple thief, why not operate in the extreme for these scenarios? If this is the case, then where does the right to retaliate end? If there's a universal answer regardless of the infinite scenarios that carry a heavy weight, I don't have it. Even if I did, I wouldn't be within my Libertarian rights to impose it on the entire human population. Unless I'm a Libertarian central planner, and I enforce my rights by initiating force. But I thought Libertarians weren't necessarily champions of that.

But what happens when we answer in the affirmative to all of the above? I'd say there's no work left for such Libertarians to do, except buy the Champagne and choose where to host the party. Our goal is achieved, as there is at least one of such property owners, operating on funds they call theirs, all to inflict punishments for transgressions in extremes of their subjective choosing, steadfast in belief that their property lines end where their gaze does, and fully within their rights to enforce outrageous penalties on "aggressors".

We could go to Washington D.C, this property owner's base of operations, to host this celebration of Libertarian victory, then applaud and cheer for exercised property rights as we are incarcerated, or executed on sight by merit of their self-granted rights, for a transgression that the property owner believes happened and is owed infinite restitution.

I'd insist that we instead get back to the drawing board.

Intellectual Property

Property isn't always clear cut and dry. Even when claiming parcels of land, whether vast farmland or a tiny chunk of a neighborhood, where one holding ends and another begins has the potential to come into dispute. Intellectual Property is even less clear, especially in the digital age. Films, software, music, literature, video games, schematics, recipes or even leaked memos have the potential to be distributed quickly and easily at the cost of little more than the search engine's effort.

It bears standing that if someone used their time, effort, knowledge, and resources to develop any of this media, they'd like to be compensated when someone wants it. Who could fault them? None among us can say we don't want to be compensated for our efforts, barring labors of love. However, I can't say that it's fair to lay the protection of Intellectual Property on consumers. What is the incentive to consumers? What is their moral obligation? If a thief steals from a storefront, we do not lay the responsibility for the theft at the feet of another patron - but the owner may be grateful if this patron chose to intervene.

A producer that leaves their Intellectual Property unprotected may be within their rights to object to the methods of it's distribution, just as I may be within my rights to object to someone using my unlocked front door without my consent. The burden of protecting my home from entry fell on me, and I chose not to exercise my ability. Whether the invasive entry was right or wrong, I forfeited a reasonable, and perfectly acceptable ability to prevent it.

Intellectual Property being less tangible than the example, how does the Producer defend the creation? Coming back to Libertarian principal, contract is an acceptable and reasonable defense - and it finds use in this application today. We call it a Terms of Use.

We have this for a wide variety of goods and services today. Digital distribution services (Netflix, Steam, iTunes, internet variations of cable channels) employ this method, and they may go a step further to add some sort of protection to the end-user product. Even a rented living space comes with a terms of use, as does a leased commercial property. A Terms of Use even applies to the tangible. I can grab three items that I've paid for the right to use, and I may find some variety of a Terms of Use.

• My forklift training card comes with the disclaimer that I've only completed a course, and that my competence in operation isn't endorsed.
• My dish soap's label advises me not to add bleach
• I was getting worried, as not every product I chose at random had an explicit terms of use, but close enough for me but maybe not for all. But aha! An old computer software manual has six pages worth of terms of use (These pages are maybe the size of a Blu Ray case, and the print is large. I don't need an attorney to explain it), contents of which also states that the Intellectual Property owner offers me the software on lease, not ownership. It even states that if I disagree, I can forfeit my lease and the hard copy containing the leased material for a refund. This hard copy of the lease also informs me that I will need to agree to these terms again during the installation process.

If these solutions exist today then why aren't these enough? Because the muscle-bound arm of the State is willing to enforce abstract terms instead, sometimes to the detriment of the producer.

Who would enforce this, if not government? The producer, and whoever said producer chooses to aid in the defense of the  property in question.

What would be the compensation for a violation of the Terms of Use? The producer may specify such in the Terms of Use. This happens today when I play a movie on a home system. Difference being, it's accompanied by threats from the FBI and Interpol.

But doesn't that warning describe an unreasonable fine and imprisonment term? Yes, that's the strong arm of Government (financed by the victims), not the producer.

What stops the Producer from imposing such a penalty, or a worse penalty? Who can say definitively? We haven't had a private sector Intellectual Property defense. Cultural norms, peer review, and the cost of enforcement would likely prevent anything outrageous. Why spend millions of dollars to incarcerate hundreds or thousands of "pirates"at a cost to the producer? It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You've just pleaded a case for a corporation having incentive to harm or murder several someones. I challenge you to name one private enterprise that has gained from thinning it's market share, fatally at that. Enterprises that enjoy the boon of government connections and protections do not count, and only plead my point.

This does nothing to prevent corporate espionage or reverse engineering. Corporate Espionage might be another topic in itself, though many of the same methods detailed here for Intellectual Property can be applied. Instead of Terms of Use, you could call it Terms of Relations - never mind Non-Disclosure Agreements. Reverse Engineering too might be it's own topic, but might even fall under Terms of Use. A successful Reverse Engineering might even yield a positive opportunity for the original producer and the engineer in question. This also ignores WD40, which remains a strong brand despite it's numerous knock-offs, many of which may be flawed or have poor brand recognition.

Nothing about a printed agreement prevents action that violates said agreement, that's how violations of law happen today.  That's called life in all relationships, personal and commercial. The point of this is who shields the burden. Right now, it's a little bit of the consumer and the government - everyone except the party invested in protection.

Edit: Whoa. I wrote this without realizing that there had been a lengthy discussion about it on Bionic Mosquito's page. This post was spurned as a challenging question on another libertarian site.

Borders, boarders, and property

I'm of a mind that nobody is allowed in or on my premises without my explicit consent, or consent granted by proxy via right of contract. There was a time when this was a general rule of thumb. Now it seems to be a gray area, depending on what demographic we'd like to allow the right to trespass.

Let's say you run an apartment complex, or another rentable living space. There's several duties involved in this, not limited to:

• You'll need to hire groundskeepers and maintenance technicians
• You'll need to fill apartments with tenants
• You can't initiate aggression against your tenants, nor can they do so unto you, or to other tenants
• You need to protect yourself against any mishaps, unless you're willing to run the risk of losing your property, safety or wealth.

Point four is in bold. It is the most important aspect, and is the reinforcement and guiding point behind the first three points. The burden of safety falls upon the endorser. In this hypothetical, it's you. How might you protect yourself from these mishaps?

Insurance is an obvious answer, but it's not the end all be all. The goal is to avoid a problem in the first place. There's a lot of different people involved, each with their own backgrounds, experiences, and predilections. The only resource you have is to vet and interview.

A history of violence or delinquency for one of these individuals you're vouching for? You're not likely to let them in, or at least I'd hope not. What about burglary, robbery, or petty theft? Or, what if they committed what could arguably be the greatest violation of property rights, and have a history of sexual assault?

Are you willing to subject your tenants and co-workers to these possibilities?

Lets consider that a potential participant in this community passes all of this criteria, but is without the means to sustain. Who shoulders the burden of keeping them clothed, fed, and sheltered? Do you look to other members of the community, who did not vouch for anybody, to shoulder this burden? Do you let them wither and die, providing for a bleak and withering community?

If not, what do you do when any of the above drains on resources are thrust on you? What if you already have a problem sustaining the community as it is?

Maybe for the folly of your judgement, you are held responsible. Maybe the delinquent in question, now that said delinquent is here, is considered wholly a part of the community, and the damage is done. The burden may fall on you to compensate the victims of a delinquent that didn't just come in, but one that you've welcomed with open arms and an endorsement.

Maybe, if you know you're going to be held responsible, you won't be so quick with the welcome wagon.

Contrast this with a bloated governing body, who rules only by demand. The same government that boasts a large surveillance project, yet couldn't decipher the information that could have prevented the massacres in Paris, or at the Boston Marathon. Still yet, the same government whose operatives admit can't determine who's who that's coming in. Imagine if Pelosi's justification for Obamacare was used here.

"We have to let them in to see what all they are and what they'll do!"

I don't take issue to politically correct Statists advocating a "come on in" border. I expect them to, even when reality flies in the face of their delusions. Europe is suffering dearly for the multicultural convictions of it's decision makers. A casual google search reveals a crisis of rape, displacement of current residents, re-purposed churches (into shelters or toilets ), and a new and improved class of welfare parasites, ever ungrateful to it's host.

I do, however, take issue with alleged libertarians that insist I'm obligated to roll out the welcome wagon, or trust the gate keeper - especially after the disastrous results in Europe. Pair this with the grand plan of their Basic Income Guarantee, and it's grossly apparent who will shoulder the burden of their delusional fantasies.

I am inclined to ask - to anyone who wants our borders open to everyone, will you be donating your living space, clothing, food, safety and labor to these efforts? Or will you be donating mine?