SouthernShao

Why can't you bundle any number of things into a single contract? If my neighbor and I want to bundle 300 things into a single contract we both agree to, who are you, as a third party, to tell us we can't?

This is the problem. You have to let adults make their own choices. There's no such thing as the wiser of two people. To say there is implies that someone has answers about the universe that the other does not. Even human life holds no objective value. All value is relative to the subject.

If you don't like how a contract is written out, you just don't consent to it.

What do you mean, why? What is moral is fundamentally just what isn't immoral and what is immoral are just those actions we shouldn't take. The only way to know that and not have that be entirely arbitrary is to utilize logic. Logic would mandate that since you would not desire the violation of your will, you cannot choose to violate the will of another.

But all human conflict creates will violation, so this means you just need to decide which will is actually initiating the violation of the other will and then side with the individual who's will is being violated by the other's.

For example, let's say you own a car. It is your will to own that car (hold exclusive authority over it) and for me not to take it from you. If it is my will to also hold exclusive authority over that car I will need to take it from you. If I try to do this, my will is such that it desires the violation of your will which already existed prior to my desire to rob you.

This is actually what murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. all are. Rape for example is only rape when there's no consent. In order for the idea of rape to be made manifest, at least one "participant" must have not desired to be violated in such ways while another's will must have been made manifest after the fact to do the violating. If this does not occur than the output is simply a consensual sexual act.

The same goes here. If a landlord asks you to consent to an idea where they can enter the place you rent anytime they like and watch you under any circumstances, then he isn't violating your will because you consented to it. If the government (which is simply a third party utilizing violence) tells either party that they cannot engage in this consent then that is just the thuggery of the state telling people how they can or cannot consent.

What you've just said is entirely nonsensical. All you've said here is we can't have roads unless we're robbed.

There is nothing the current governments of the world provide that we cannot have sans those governments. Nothing.

Which makes the law immoral.

If your renters signed something like that they deserve no privacy.

The government should not be allowed to "own" property or enforce victimless laws. The problem is always the government.

No that wouldn't be possible. A slave is someone who is, for all intents and purposes, property of another against their will. If you consent to it, it wouldn't be slavery.

It's like theft. If you consent to give it to me I'm not stealing from you. In such an instance, you're selling it to me, trading it to me, gifting it to me, or maybe just giving it to me as a gift. What manifests theft as theft from a fundamental idea of the essence of the idea itself is that I would need to be violating your consent - your will, as it were.

Theft is only theft when you violate will. Rape is only sex if everyone partaking consents. Even murder no longer becomes murder if there's consent. In fact, you can kill someone who didn't consent to dying and it still wouldn't always be murder because the person may have consented to a risk that just so happened to end their life. Take for example if you consent to go skydiving and you fall to your death. The skydiving company didn't murder you because you agreed to the risks of the situation that lead to your death.

Now had someone pushed you out of the airplane before you put your parachute on - which wasn't something you agreed to have happen - then the person who pushed you out of the plane would have murdered you.

Slavery is the same thing. You're not a slave if you're OK with it. Now if you consented to be someone else's property and you also consented for you to never be able to change your mind about it, well you're an idiot. That'd be like agreeing to give your house away to someone and then being upset when you change your mind and ask for it back and they tell you no. You would never do that, so why would your own autonomy be any different?

Agreed that things like governments and corporations are made up ideas, but ideas need to be properly defined so we know what we're communicating.

You asked if a government in your society doesn't exist what is the agreed upon legal code?

You're asking the wrong question. When I say that I'm against government, what I mean is I am against the idea that I can be born into an agreement and made to suffer that system. I was born and continue to live in the US, but I did not agree to give the government tens of thousands of dollars annually, which they take without my consent. I argue that all government is, fundamentally, is a relative force monopoly. If say, the drug cartels in Mexico can simply do what they wish and the Mexican government can't stop them, then the actual government in Mexico are the drug cartels, not the Mexican government. Saying it's not is just not properly defining what government is.

In a government where there's freedom for all there would be two systems in place to define what is legal. One would be logic. It's simply immoral to murder (not kill, murder), steal, rape, defraud, or assault. You cannot do those things and free people understand that even if a relative force monopoly makes a "law" saying you can, that doesn't legitimize it, and you are well within your right, as given by nobody at all, to seek out and use violence against those who would commit those acts, regardless of what the "law" said.

If it were legal in the US to rape, would you rape? Would you allow another to rape if you had the power to stop them? Would you stop someone who tried to rape your child? Who cares what the law says?

We already realize that law does not correlate to right and wrong.

The second aspect of law would be that in which is consented to, but that depends entirely on who owns what, and I don't mean arbitrarily owns what, but objectively (logically) owns what.

You can logically work out what is owned and what is stolen. It isn't difficult.

And to own a thing means you hold exclusive authority over it. If I hold exclusive authority over my house for instance, then it doesn't matter what other people agree to, or turn into "law", you never hold authority over my house. If you do, then you are stealing my authority over my house from me, which is theft. If you use theft, I am authorized to use violence against you to stop your theft.

So it doesn't matter how many people you have who agree to something if it pertains to violating my consent over my property. A million people can all vote and agree to kick me out of my house, and you'll succeed if you use violence against me, but both logically and philosophically, I would be well within my right to use even deadly force to stop any thugs you send to me to do so.

A "just" law is only one where you are protecting the will of others within a logical order of operations.

Now that being said! You CAN hold agreements between owners of property. Maybe 50 people in a region all agree to buy all of the neighboring roads, and they each agree to put fourth 5% of their income per year to do so. Maybe they all agree this will be a "law", and they agree upon a punishment that can be enacted if someone doesn't do this. NOW what you have is a situation where you CAN use violence against someone who goes against the agreement because we're not talking about the group violating the consent of the individual, we're talking about the individual engaging in an action of which violated a preexisting will of the group.

Another question you had:

"Can you guarantee everyone in your society, which you’ve argued can be over 250 people, will agree on a singular legal code without some kind of government with a legislative branch?"

You don't need to. If everyone in my "society" want to make a rule saying you can remove Joe from his home, all you're doing is banding together to do a sinister deed. That is a corrupt society to begin with, and an authoritarian one.

You don't and can't agree to do something with someone else's property, because it isn't yours. This is like saying that your neighbor, Tony, has some kind of right to your car because he lives next door. That's absurd. You and only you can decide what happens to your car unless what you want to do directly violates Tony's rights over his will. For example, I can't drive it into his house and set it on fire because I would need to have initiated an action of which violated Tony's will, so I can't do that.

Now if Tony and I both got together and CONSENTED to go 50/50 on a new car, it's up to us and us alone to set the "law" on who can make utility of that car, or who can destroy it, sell it, who gets what if we agree to sell it, who maintains it, puts gas in it, etc.

You don't get to come along and make demands of Tony and I regarding our car. It's ours, nor yours. Leave us alone and stop trying to dictate the choices of others.

The problem with your line of questioning - and I mean with with respect, truly - is that you're thinking about all of this in this scope of the concept of "public property". There is no such thing. There is property, full stop. The idea of "public property" is a blatant misnomer. Think of it like this:

Menards owns a lawn mower and they agree to sell it to me. It's my lawn mower. It's mine because Menards did not steal anything from anyone else to make it, my will was aligned to own it and the will of those who consented to the system that is Menards hold a will to accept selling it to me, and because what I traded for it was mine as I did not steal the money I traded for it.

But if Tony next door again comes to my home with a baseball bat and tells me I am now going to give him $500 towards a lawn mower, and it will be in the best interest of the neighborhood because 9 other people all got together and agreed it was, and thus, it isn't theft what Tony is doing, Tony is just lying - it's just theft.

You can't "legitimize" theft by wearing a badge or saying you come from some official sounding group name. Other people agreeing to rape you doesn't legitimize rape any more than other people agreeing to rob you legitimizes theft. Is this making sense?

But again, if Tony and I both consent to buy a lawn mower together, then we are both consensual property owners of that lawn mower and nobody else can tell us what to do with it.

So your other two questions here aren't the right questions to ask either:

"How do they even go about figuring out the legal code without some organization?" - and - "If they do agree on a legal code, who are the people spending time on maintaining and updating the code and how are they paid?"

Nobody ever said there wouldn't be organization, or even violence. There could still be police, firefighters, teachers, engineers, and everything else that governments tend to monopolize or "provide".

Who sets the laws for the roads? Well, which roads? Who owns the roads? Do I own the road leading to my home? Do Tony and I own it? Did all 50 of us who live in that area get together and consent to all go in and buy the roads? Then the owners of those roads set the laws for those roads.

Maybe Tony and I own a little piece of road and the only law is we don't want you to go more than 40MPH while driving on it. Well there you go! And if you don't like our ruling about our property, key words there, OUR PROPERTY, then you don't need to use it.

I make the laws in my own home. If you don't like it, you're free to leave. In fact, if I asked you to leave and you flat out refused, I would just be warranted to use violence against you. If I couldn't get you to leave with violence even, then deadly force would be warranted. And yes, that would be warranted if it got to that serious of a situation.

But that's already how governments generally work today. If you come into my home and I ask you to leave and you refuse, I call the police and the police will use violence against you. What on earth do you think they do if you resist that violence? Play nice?

Your next question:

"How do you adjudicate this issue in your society? There’s no judicial branch of government."

However the property owners who have been faulted want. Maybe in my area we've set up a system for this. What is most likely is as a "formal", current government waned, this would open up avenues in the free market for people to offer these kinds of services. In fact, many judicial systems are already handled by courts not run by the government. Many kinds of issues even in the US are resolved by these kinds of courts because it's better than utilizing the government to do so, as governments tend to be more corrupt, very slow, and very poor quality in basically everything they do.

Maybe you have Amazon Justice, Microsoft Courts, and Elon Musk's Justice-X to choose from, and maybe the people in your area all consent to use a specific one so they agree to all go in and pay for those services. Maybe those small groups of people also get together with other small groups of people and form larger organizations who also agree on certain things. You can still have society without authoritarianism. The notion of, "whatever would we do if we don't let other people rob us and our neighbors to do things" is so absurd it makes my head spin.

I'm not saying no organization. I'm not saying no schools, no security, no military, no roads, etc. I'm saying NO MORE AUTHORITARIANISM. No more theft on a grand scale. No more telling me when I turned 18 that I had to sign up for a draft where if some old man decided I had to die oversees then I either did so or I'd be locked away. No more forcing me to days of being a juror without my consent, where the state would pay me pennies a day and I lost precious time with my family, my job, and my entire life.

There is no such thing as a social contract - not within the constrains of what it's depicted at as of current. That's all just authoritarian propaganda.

The point here would be freedom, and what freedom logically means is that I cannot initiate actions - initiate is the key word here - that violate your will, and neither can you to me.

If you and 50 people got together and all consented to a village of debauchery, drugs, prostitution, and drunk driving, so long as you all consented, I would allow you to live that lifestyle without interruption.

I might try to convince you that there are better ways to live your life, but I wouldn't use force against you to get you to stop.

But don't forget that this only applies because there's consent. If some of you enter our town where we do not agree to you doing drugs on my land or in my store, or driving drunk on the roads that our community all agreed to share ownership over, then we are justified if we not only ask you to stop or ask you to leave, but if we use violence against you to get to you if you refuse.

So to specifically answer your question, if you want to live the way you've described, you would absolutely be allowed to - by us, anyway.

In fact, we could even become allies whereas we agree to defend one another if another group were to come and try to use violence to force us into their ways.

The disconnect so many others face is only about freedom and nothing more. There is no such thing as a man so wise that he can make choices for other adults without their consent. Nobody knows better for me than I do and nobody knows better for my children than I do as their father (except an equal share, their mother.)

Even if you think you do, you don't. Opinions aren't facts, they're opinions. Even if you THINK you have a better way of living, you don't. The only time when you're objectively wrong is when you're utilizing violence for a victimless crime. Violence - legitimate, moral violence - is only for defense against things like murder, rape, theft, assault, and fraud.

When other people don't get this it's because psychologically they're thinking at low levels. Low level thinking tends to be very isolated to the "me". The higher up you go the more you begin thinking that others have wants and needs just like you do, and that your wants and needs may conflict with theirs. Many people today still think in terms of, "I want this and therefore so must you, so if you are protesting, you must be wrong, or sinister". They cannot understand that someone else might have a want that differs from theirs, and that they aren't wrong for having it.

I would argue that there are two forms of morals - subjective and objective. Objective morals are surrounded by the NAP while subjective morals are things like, "I don't think you should smoke cigarettes because they could reduce your lifespan and that would cause pain to others around you, plus place additional burden on those providing healthcare and insurance."

There's no such thing as objective value, not even for human life, so to say your life holds value and thus, you shouldn't smoke is just an opinion.

But you don't need government in its current form in order to protect people from groups who mean to poison. I don't need a cop to protect me from a home invader, for example. In fact, the cop isn't going to get there until the invader has done whatever they sought out to do, so maybe just to try to find them after myself and my entire family are murdered.

OR I can protect my family myself.

The act of poisoning someone is in itself objectively immoral. No good people who accept responsibility for the innocent in this world should be made to suffer the will of those who seek to do that kind of harm. In fact I would argue that the government likely was deficient in what they SHOULD have done to combat the poisoning done at that time.

In my view, if 5 people are producing food (simplifying things here) and they choose to poison that food and I and some of my goodly companions find out about it, we are completely within our right to use immediate and, if necessary, deadly force against those individuals. The idea should be simple: If you want to attempt to kill people, we will find and kill you.

The good must not suffer the evil to exist, and I say that as both an staunch atheist and someone not even in favor of the death penalty (but only because I do not want even a single person killed who wasn't guilty.)

And you talk of businesses as if they are real people, and they're not. A business is just this made-up human idea, and an extremely broad one at that, where we're explaining swaths of people all working together to produce some kind of goods/services under the idea of generating wealth for everyone. The idea that a company can own property for example is nonsensical. A company can own property like my car can own property, or like a sidewalk can owe me money.

When a business I work for does something nefarious, I guarantee you that I didn't lift a finger to see that come to fruition. I was duped by others who made those choices who defrauded me by not detailing what was going on. THOSE people who did those things are criminals and should be dealt with. The notion that a company for example can do something that say, results in the murder of 10 kids isn't an "oopsies" where the state fines that business. The mere fact that this is how we deal with these things "collectively" is seriously messed up. The people responsible for making choices they knew were risky for people's health that then resulted in the death of those kids should be tried and convicted of murder and locked away forever, and I don't need a huge, overarching government that I didn't consent to in order to make that happen.

And I agree with you - governments like what we have here in the US are a hell of a lot better than they've been in the past. I'm not saying I want to live in Stalin's Russia, or under the iron fist of Genghis Khan here. What I'm saying is both logically and philosophically, the next direction we as human beings should be guiding the world to is a place where there is no such thing as victimless crimes; where everyone can live their lives the way they choose and where the only time a relative force monopoly flexes its power is to prevent things like murder, rape, theft, and fraud.

You build a coalition who needs some money from me and will protect me better than police and I'll gladly pay for that, but do you know what that would be? A business, not a government. You could argue that it'd be a government if it were a force monopoly, but so what? So long as it's consensual and works, I'm all for it.

When I say I'm anti-government what I'm talking about is being against people using violence against us against our will and not in defense of the innocent.