Michael Edelstein emails:
Mark Addleman, a passionate defender of the PPS, suggests referring to the respect for property as a PPS “convention" rather than as a “rule." I plan to use it in future discussions.My response:
I think using the term "convention" moves things off track.Michael Edelstein:
How does it move things off track?My response:
I am not sure where you are applying this at the PPS top level or under the PPS umbrella but it doesn't work from either perspective.
I believe most people think of "convention" as
(via Dictionary.com) "a rule, method, or practice established by usage; custom."
At the PPS level, there are no rules or conventions. It has nothing to do with custom (though it could in the far distant future as a second derivative).
At the PPS level, you only have a structure of society for a region whereby people agree to respect each other's property and allow people to do whatever they want on their own property. This has nothing to do with setting borad-based rules or thinking there are borad-based conventions. It is just agreements. Some may not agree, in a region, but if they stay off our property, we (the propertaians) leave them alone.
That said, the agreement is more a rule than a convention (for those in agreement), especially since no one has yet adopted the PPS. Though I would prefer to think of PPS at the top level as just agreements between people in a region to respect each other's property and leave people alone to do what they want on their property, rather than a rule.
To call this a rule, you are introducing ever slightly the idea that rules should be set for areas and the PPS is against setting rules for people. It is anarchy in the purist sense of the term, civilised anarchy.
On the other hand, under the PPS umbrella, there certainly can be rules on given properties based on whatever, the NAP, religion, custom, convention, Donald Trump's vision, sunspots, astrology, Ground Hog day, etc.-Robert Wenzel