Hi there

Oh, sorry, I got the wrong impression. With regard to my first question on the "good arguments", I guess I'd be referring to the ones that convinced you political voting is not immoral (I think the philosophical issues dovetail nicely with borders where concerns NAP). I do sometimes arrive with a view I've hashed out from what I believe to be a valid thought experiment, but I like to see the arguments that have been made by skilled philosophers in that regard. I'm no skilled philosopher, but I have been gifted the ability to understand it, at least somewhat.

I like the end of both questions, "...to you". Because that's what's material. The recognition of the individual. Each individual. Not "most of" individuals.

I thought your suggestion was that a "slave" expressing some preference in the abuses of the master in the example of borders was acting in an immoral fashion. My suggestion was that if, as you say, the link between the slave's complaint and the master's action is illusory, then how is the initiation of force accomplished by any other than the agents of government? If their taxation of me is initiation of force, do I bear culpability for paying them, when they use it for nefarious purpose, such as border control?

Does anyone else see borders as applied in the NAP argument where the person in the train car pulls the lever to switch tracks and save five people tied to the tracks, but this is said to be initiation of force on her part if there is a single person tied to the track she's switching to? I guess I'm with the camp that says the aggression is in the setup, and an act of empiricism or consequentialism on the part of the victimized populace might be morally sound, or at least an action not defined as initiation of force. For those that have seen this argued, is there recognition for the fact the switch operator lifts aggression, in a positive sense, from the five when she chooses the fate of the one? I mean, if we're pretending she is the moral actor and she's been "given" choice, rather than having had it taken from her in a circumstance imposed on her. She had everything in the venn diagram outside of two discrete realities stripped from her potential, and seeing the two, she chose the one with four more people in it. She has no absolute guarantee the switch will work, just as I have no guarantee that supporting a candidate who supports screening differently than they currently screen will make any difference at the border. If one were to keep to the principle of owning what you create through your labor, then I would argue that an act of patrolling the border of your property to impede other's passage would be an act of statism, but patrolling, for example, one's corn crop to ensure no one trampled or stole it would be an act in keeping with non-aggression and free market principles. Just as a mental exercise (and this is me musing, feel free to disregard), let's say a farmer has a corn crop on some land, and an oil company surveyor suspects a great wealth of oil is to be found in the ground beneath the crop. Does the farmer own the oil? No. But his corn crop just became a very valuable road to where the oil is, and he chooses to develop this and sell/lease it to the oil company. I think that works...seems like a place where non-aggression can remain.

How do they enforce tax collection? The Swiss conquered Switzerland at least once when they established a state and collected taxes, right? Besides, I said "is used", not "is used always and everywhere".

Then how does it initiate force if it does not...well, initiate any force?

What if the prisoner whittled a toilet out of Popsicle sticks that were paid for with taxes?

If it's in accordance with prior agreement/contractual, let's call it a "deliverable".

Where can I read arguments to this effect? Reason being I proposed in another thread that anarchism simply cannot be where there isn't a moral code embraced that respects voluntarism, as not having voluntarism allows for the initiation of force within and around transactions, leading always and everywhere to the establishment of a state concept or relationship exclusive of anarchy. I mean, anarchy can exist in relationships that embrace voluntarism, it cannot exist where one is slave to the other, that's a statist relationship....or maybe not, I'd like to read about it. So what if the anarchist does not desire a form for anarchy, only desires that it exists? Desired form or lack thereof doesn't make it oppose its identity. It still can't exist without voluntarism, right? You can't define something "sedan" and then say "no desired form" or "desired form is bicycle". It still has to fit its own definition...

Does the fact that one has been placed into one of those arbitrary categories by an active government absolve the victim of moral wrongdoing when the victim attempts to provide feedback as to the least objectionable means said government applies the fallacy in practice?

I think the developers are wrong to negotiate to deny others freedom to participate in the market. While it may be to their economic gain, and within their power, and they may even put forth empirical evidence to support claims that drugs are bad for you, their choice to exert influence in this direction is still not supported in an objective moral framework that respects voluntarism, is it? The existence of a "free market" (people behaving in accordance with free market principles), I would argue, implies that individual people are operating under some sort of moral framework that respects voluntarism. It cannot be a "free" market if the actors are not free. The act of performing or directing labor to ends that violate the principle of voluntarism, like cutting off populations from economic choice, does not adhere, then, to free market principles and is an act of statism. When a group maneuvers resources with the intent to deny a population choice defined by some imaginary line around them or others, that's a state, right? Do they have to put on badges? I guess the short argument is, when people don't adhere to a moral system that respects voluntarism, there you will find a state, and there is no anarchy in the example given, at least not in the aspect in question. I could be wrong...can a group that negotiates for a third party without consulting them, claims land/road ownership over another group's access to the market, and pays other entities to enforce arbitrary restrictions, extract resources, etc., claim any material difference to a government? I guess the defining feature would be the lack of negotiated consent with the third party, the ones that lived within the new border imposed by the land of the developers interested in the imaginary barriers. Perhaps the key to immorality of the act is they negotiate to destroy, or with value set against value that has been established (in this case, in the road). To put it bluntly, they used their economic power to destroy value in the road for that set of people, just as if they had mined it or directed a waterway against it. They made war. Would the above imply, then, that anarchy cannot exist where there is no moral framework that respects voluntarism, in that as soon as two people interact, economic incentive will be for one to exert dominance over the other and form a state relationship (master/slave, serf/vassal, majority/minority voter)? The free market certainly cannot exist where status in negotiation for prices is subject to initiation of force. Is the question, "How would this be adjudicated?" I would think that residences would have negotiated ahead of time with the road owner for guaranteed unrestricted access, with penalties and agreement that disputes be judged in...and so on. Don't most of these "how's the utopia going to work if...?" questions boil down to moral decisions on right action by the involved parties? The "free market" is just a set of behaviors that, by definition, can only occur where parties are operating under a moral framework that respects voluntarism. Negotiating to deny free exercise in the economy to another party isn't respecting voluntarism, it's people being shitty, it's statism, and therefore not anarchy.

The concept of a state is used to motivate people to violent conquest, and society hasn't figured out a way to stop it, or doesn't care enough to. Could be due to ignorance. Could be people in groups go for empiricism over objective morality. Greed. Dozens of reasons. Is the state itself an indictment of the free market, in that the free market has not come up with a way to defend against the intrusion of people with statist motivation and access to weapons? I'd guess since "free market" and "state" describe behavior and roles for people who might draw lines on maps and defend territory or be subject to others with guns (or choose not to), then yes, it is an indictment of the people that allowed or enacted the state intrusion from what was is in its absence the behavior of free people? I think I have that right.

What are the good arguments based around borders in this regard, or whether one is justified to call for border screening in one's political action, given the welfare state, impedance to free association, and the power of the state being a factor compelling immigrants to seek residence in the first place? I'm thinking mostly the same arguments as a political vote, or maybe a subset of...It depends on initiation of force and where it falls, right? Why not the state?