Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:54:39 -0700
Subject: Re: whither -AT- list


On 19 Apr 01, at 14:34, john bechtel wrote:

> 
> Kristopher wrote;
> 
> >If there is an argument between militias or individuals concerning
> >borderline actions,
> 
> I hate to nitpick on one particular item, but..."borderline actions"
> implies the existence of a state. If me and my neighbor get into a
> fight concerning property lines, if police (community militia?) must
> be called in to stop the carnage, if a judge/jury (state sanctioned
> arbitrator) must settle the dispute, then we are right back at
> statism. There should be nothing owned that is worth fighting for,
> except our own lives.

I'll try to be more specific next time.

Replace the phrase "borderline actions" with "actions where it is 
not obviously clear who was the party initiating the use of 
force/coersion ".

I was not advocating a statist Judge, but rather voluntary mediation 
of a dispute. No one would be required to seek midiation, but rather 
a victim would probably want to get confirmation acceptable to 
most folks that he is indeed a victim, before seeking any kind of 
redress for a nasty act.

I am not advocating giving a "judge" any authority. I simply feel it 
would be prudent for a victim to get some kind of consensus 
together that he/she was victimized, before seizing some kind of 
justice, simply as a matter of prudence.

As for nothing being owned, well, property is not required to exist 
for folks to be nasty to each other. A rapist ( or a thrill killer, or a 
statist bastard ) is more interested in coercing you for a personal 
power trip, and could care less about property.


Regards,

Kristopher K. Barrett