Tuesday, May 9, 2017

PPS Uncovers the Statists; What Are We Battling For?

By Robert Wenzel

While many prance around in the anarcho-capitalist world proclaiming no government is needed, they quickly reach for rules that apply to EVERYONE, that is they demand government, to enforce their particular view on how everyone on the entire planet should live.

Some tell us that there must be a specific type of culture.

Others chime in:
"Taking photos of someone that is naked without their knowledge/consent to me is aggression."

But others say: "I think we have to accept that the non-aggression principle combined with no physical aggression implies that the girl has no right of privacy and no right of action against the boy for secretly photographing her, and he is under no obligation or duty to tell her he’s going to do that."

But these are, in fact, all statist views. Why can't we just respect private property and the rules set by the owners of the properties?

I have been in more than one athletic club where there are signs posted "No cell phone use allowed." This would presumably include use of cell phones to take photos. Do we really have libertarian dictators who would disallow this rule? It certainly means no photographs secret or otherwise.

On the other hand, suppose there is an athletic club at a nudist camp, where no such cell phone restriction exists, Are there really libertarian dictators who would disallow this?

Do we really want to set rules, by some committee, by the majority, by a religious leader, by a cultural leader, by a libertarian guru, by whomever, that apply to everyone on the planet?

Do libertarian dictators seriously think all the rules are going to come out in their favor? Do they really think this is preferable to being able to set the rules for one's own property?

As for the idea that individual property rules are "too complex." Whether one likes it or not, there are rules for every area now, but generally, because of government police, you may have no idea what is enforced where or win---that is complex!

Who hasn't been in a hotel in a large and unfamiliar city and asked a concierge "Where is a safe place to go to eat? Is that area safe at night?"

Private security would 1. actually provide security and let you know what is safe in a new city but 2. they would try to make it as simple as possible to understand what they protect and what they don't and what the rules and parameters are in different regions.

It is very difficult to think outside of the government box---that is a major edge the government has.

People almost instinctively think in terms of the present government situation and think how they would centrally plan it differently. But that is not how the free market works. Entrepreneurs swoop down from all kinds of angles in the free market. One individual couldn't possibly imagine all the angles. But what is beautiful about the PPS is no one has to participate on their own property in any new idea, rule, fad, cultural demand or religious demand---just the good ideas (from their view).

To be sure, most people in a civil society would congregate in an area, well. where civil rules apply. Wouldn't you? But because there is no ruler, or libertarian dictator, one can always on one's own property refuse to participate if rules change elsewhere in some unlikable fashion.

A person who demands central planning over all property, that is who demands some form of government, is a person who fails to\appreciate that in a PPS problems could be solved without a central ruler, or rules dictated in some fashion, The person who wants a central planner would have to constantly battle against other central planners who want different rules for everyone.

This, in fact, is what we have now, Central rules that in general aren't liked in full by anyone. It is constant battle. If you want constant battle, you really shouldn't be complaining about the current government. It is the result of all sorts of battles. You should just dive in and battle yourself, but realize you will have to battle for the rest of your life because when you are attempting to control all people on all property there are others that are not going to agree with your rules and they will battle back. And there will be others, the Deep State, who will see the advantage of ruling all and will be devious in their attempts to gain control. Isn't this what we have now?

In a PPS, you get to immediately set the rules for your property without any battles. You win. This is freedom. This is peace.

The idea that must be battled is that we need a central power. Once that battle is won. There are no more battles. But if you try to gain the battle for central power to rule over all land, the battle never ends.



  1. Do you agree that PPS is incompatible with NIFS or NAPS (Non-Initiation of Force Society / Non-Aggression Principle Society)?

  2. Both the PPS and the NAP are natural consequences of Self-Ownership. All this mental gymnastics to try to justify a state for 'just this one really important thing' is childish and asinine. Asking for a little bit of a state is like asking for a little bit of cancer. Its going to grow.

    1. How can that be true if one may violate NAP on PP in a PPS without cause or consequence?

    2. Quite interesting question. If the property owner sets the rules he could state that he who drinks the last beer must buy the next 24 pack under threat of an ass whooping. But does the property owner even have to disclose this rule before inviting guests over? How far can they go? Or is there some sort of rules that come along with it. This is an interesting subject. If the rules are not communicated prior to entry, I do not think they can be reasonably enforced.

  3. How do you communicate your rules? How do you adjudicate something not communicated? Do you post a sign with your rules? Do you establish some area where any and all comers can enter to read your comprehensive set of rules?

    1. From one of the posts Wenzel made, it sounded like we should just know the rules somehow, magically. Since he did say that someone on their own property has the right to photograph someone else on their property while in the bathroom without their knowledge or consent. Seems like we have to figure out the rules after we have broken them.
      If the rules and privacy invasions are written into a contract that the person entering the property must sign prior to entry, that would make the most sense. Before going to Bobs for Superbowl Sunday, be sure to read his rules. Don't want to eat the last hot link and get murdered or have your children have their pictures taken while changing for the pool.
      I'm just being a pest. I do agree with a PPS for the most part. American's today are becoming pretty petty people. There was a story about a new property owner building a cinder block wall onto the driveway of his 90 year old neighbor. How would such disputes be taken care of in a PPS? A 3rd party arbitrator? Isn't that like a smaller version of a state? What if one side refuses to arbitrate? Things can get sticky very quickly unless all of the outliers are considered.

  4. "The nature and intention of government, as adduced by Parkman, Schoolcraft and Spencer, are social. Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention is purely antisocial. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him." Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State