Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 02:02:43 am
I'll "show my hand" so to speak. All of these examples are related because they all involve government intervention to prevent. With *only* ZAP, they will occur given time.
#1 Brown water terrorist could just as easily be flourite in the water by government. Putting it in the water turned "hazardous waste" into a "valuable commodity" purchased by municipal governments. In other words, "poisoning the water supply" happens today, all across the US. I posed the question in a way to see if you would come up with either DNA testing, regulations, protection of the water supply or none. Your answer was none, and your city is likely going to die of water poisoning.
#2 Kudzu takes over large areas of land if not aggressively dealt with. Without some sort of "that invasive plant is not permitted" regulation, the invasive plant will take over. Another failure. Genetic engineering can accomplish the same thing, there is a grass without a root now lose in Oregon. How do we kill it? Nobody knows. How do we stop the spread? Nobody knows last I checked. These are the sorts of problems that need organization and cooperation to deal with. It is no ones *selfish* interest unless they are awarded some sort of external reward. It is in everyone's personal interest, but there is no direct reward or point. The Kudzu scenario is a better example than the Genetic Engineering flaws because it is real, practical and happening today. I also provided an exploit on how to manipulate land prices using the plant, but you still rely on ZAP. ZAP again fails.
#3 Aggression through Incompetence. ZAP fails here because it really doesn't apply, and agree with you. #3 is a counter example to #4 since the outcome is very similar, but the individual doesn't initiate force. A mistake can be just as or more deadly than an intentional attack, but again you made no provisions to deal with the issue. I do agree to certification by private business, but the requirement of certification is now a government regulation issue. So the licensing/certification proposal must be backed by force of government in order to be effective. Insurance could do similar - but that's a different kind of force and probably involves MORE overhead since they are operating for profit and will (as standard business practices) over charge and under deliver. Again, we aren't talking about a "single owner single person" scenario like a homestead (where ZAP is perfect), but instead an aggregate, a polis, a body of people who are not a single group with identical interests. This happens in any place of business which appears to be your assumption, but on Ceres it is the de facto standard. That air and protection from vacuum relies on infrastructure. A single (very rich) person may own it, but who protects the infrastructure from incompetence?
#4 I think you just missed the point here, but I'm unable to tell since the reply was a mixture of conjecture and unresolved allusion. I'll restate the situation for clarity, since I think this is a very pertinent argument to a society or culture that uses ZAP. An outside force attempts an attack. It is a "terrorist action" of which the US has committed over 200 since WW2 according to the list on http://www.krysstal.com/ The aggressor has a two stage tactic, destroy then reclaim. Yes they operate under auspices of humanitarian aid for the second stage, but they create a scenario in stage 1 to ensure that A) Aid is required B) No one else can provide the aid required C) The aid ensures ownership D) creating the scenario in stage 1 doesn't trace back to them (I provided historical examples, I can provide many more) E) Control is also achieved. Now E can be accomplished multiple ways, but I don't have the full technical info available or a list of requirements. http://forum.bigheadpress.com/index.php?topic=558.msg14645#msg14645 enumerates some of the conditions mentioned but the thread is different. After typing that out I decided to use the scenario here. I've planned the invasion and defense of the city I intend to create, but I can't see how to maintain ZAP. It is plausible to create an automated sniper that automatically shoots anyone who fires a gun using a neural network, sonic weapons tracking, infrared and color cameras. Is that enough? Not by any means. Hence, the bomb vs airlock scenario. We could do a similar scenario for an underwater city in the San Francisco Bay or on a Seasteading floating island that uses supports. Or how about the guy who already created his own floating island using trash that floats? Assume the same technique scaled up a bit and then someone decided to break up the sections. How does a libertarian society that embraces ZAP protect itself from very plausible attack scenarios that involve subterfuge?  If you simply assume that all conflict will only involve unprepared attackers with poor intelligence, you're wrong, dead and dead wrong.

Before I embrace regulation and government in MY design, show me how I can avoid doing so.

sam on April 28, 2011, 03:00:13 am
#2 Kudzu takes over large areas of land if not aggressively dealt with. Without some sort of "that invasive plant is not permitted" regulation, the invasive plant will take over. Another failure.

My property is full of invasive plants, and from time to time I go after them with poison spray, chain saw, earth moving equipment, and so forth.   So all I have to do is ask the council to pass a regulation against them?  Oh, how easy.  But wait!  The council has already passed a regulation against them, and strange to report, the plants are not listening.

Invasive plants are notoriously apt to disregard regulations.  Prohibiting invasive plants is silly, and indeed promulgating such regulations an indication of delusion.

Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 03:54:40 am
I never suggested the plants would listen to regulation. I suggested that a cooperative effort might be required to remove them. I also suggested the idea of a selfish person manipulating real estate prices through kudzu, which you can't remove with poisons that allow the land to be fertile. I'm not sure about the effects of RoundUp on Kudzu, but RoundUp is poisonous to everything that has roots with the exception of specific GE crops.

My suggestion is this: answer the question. How can ZAP appropriately deal with these 4 scenarios?

dough560 on April 28, 2011, 04:02:05 am
First, the UW has no authority over Ceres.  None of their laws or regulations apply.  Any action by them would at a minimum be an act of piracy, if not invasion.  

Ask any military planner or counter terrorism  professional;  What is your worst nightmare?  Answer:  A motivated, educated, inventive person who has nothing to lose and not associated with any group.

You live at the bottom of several gravity wells and rocks are cheap.  How badly do you want to tick someone off by destroying their property and killing family and friends due to an unprovoked attack?  At a minimum, all of your space worthy assets are now subject to attack.  The personnel manning those assets are walking dead.  They just don't know it yet.  You can forget the argument.... they were just following orders, and therefore not responsible for the outcome.  Might as well put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.  With enough provocation; you, your assets, personnel and their families are now targets.  Near misses will take out bystanders.  By the way.  With plenty of power, it would be simple to make a kinetic weapon capable of remote guidance and  target your facilities on earth.  Such things as your headquarters, and home for starters.  The projectile could be scaled to destroy it's target with limited collateral damage.

As for your Kudzu.... You're welcome to grow it on your property.  It spreads onto my property and I'll kill it.  Followed by a bill for my materials and labor.  Refuse to pay the bill or arbitrate and you won't believe the number I'd do to you.  By the time I'm through, you'll be infamous for your stupidity.  With that infamy no one will do business with you.  

Contaminate or poison my water.  Arbitration.  Someone dies?  Expect to hear from my second.  In either event, your name is mud.

Implied-Self-Interest, and ZAP are alive and well in our everyday lives.

Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 04:42:38 am
dough, thanks for your contributions. You're the first person to suggest billing for labor I think. That is probably the best solution for dealing with the Kudzu threat since the stuff grows 1-2' per day.

Mutually Assured Destruction is probably the best way to deal with things on the international level while using ZAP. Neal Stephenson wrote in one of his books about creating a digital archive for resisting invasions, creaking a large collection of blueprints he called Ark. The main way to fight a large government force is to make prevalent a lot of information on how to make anti tank weapons from household chemicals  8) Of course, any place I'm involved with would respond with an insurgency force if attacked in a paramilitary manner. Enter manhole, plug power line into copper phone line. There are no fuseboxes on phone lines  ;D Bridges are easy targets of opportunity, and combined with PsychWar quite a bit can be done regarding food supplies. A lot of suggestions to "not panic" and "not hoard" after a few bridges are down and a city will rip itself apart. Due to improvements in delivery scheduling, the average urban stockpile of food went from 1 week+ to 2-3 days in the past decade.

The solutions I came up with for group living all involved independent testing and accurate labeling. If your labels don't match your food/runoff/emissions listings then financial penalties apply based on the severity.  Strip mining has been effectively banned in the US due to large deposit requirements, the strip mining runoff often contained arsenic and mercury contaminants. Simply making the deposit commensurate with potential damages encourages cost effective socially responsible behavior.

The biggest weakness I see with the libertarian philosophy is environmental controls, handling emissions, etc. The Cap and Trade system helps make it a free market system, but there are limitations and inefficiencies (cutting pollution is often more expensive than buying emissions credits).

I'm hoping to make a sustainable city, and I really want to make one as ZAP and libertarian friendly as possible. I'm hoping to build a few for different cultures, and then let each city decide how it wants to manage itself. The thought experiment in another thread asking about cultural rules and legal rules was part of my "Grand Plan". After several cities are built, the next phase is Train To Space! (mass driver)

J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 06:56:59 am
dough, thanks for your contributions. You're the first person to suggest billing for labor I think. That is probably the best solution for dealing with the Kudzu threat since the stuff grows 1-2' per day.

I was writing a detailed post which included that, when I saw his. I'll delete it.

But -- dandelions don't look like a kudzu-type threat to me, but I've had neighbors who objected to my letting them flower. If they set seed I can't keep them from infecting my neighbors' yard. Does my neighbor have the right to, say, $12/hour from me for the time he spends digging up dandelions? Or should he divide up the bill among everybody upwind who harbors dandelions?

The difference is that kudzu will grow pretty much anywhere in our biome, including shading out forests, and it makes deep roots that are hard to get rid of. Dandelions are good only at colonizing disturbed habitats where nothing stops them, and they get crowded out easily by anything at all robust. They are marginally edible, and they plain don't do much harm.

So I say that kudzu is worth controlling, and dandelions aren't, and if we look at the whole list of invasive plants we will find one which is balanced in the middle where reasonable people will disagree about the obligation for control.

Quote
Mutually Assured Destruction is probably the best way to deal with things on the international level while using ZAP.

MAD has worked every time so far with governments -- at least, whatever they have decided to resolve their issues, so far they have not chosen mutual destruction. But isn't it true that one of the big driving forces for the pseudo War On Terror is the possibility that hundreds or thousands of terrorist groups might get nukes and attempt MAD against the USA? And isn't that what you are proposing, that hundreds or thousands or even millions of AnCap terrorists each get WMDs to threaten governments with? (And threaten each other, if it comes to that.) It would take a lot of creativity for governments to handle that situation.

Quote
The main way to fight a large government force is to make prevalent a lot of information on how to make anti tank weapons from household chemicals  8)

I see. Munitions as a cottage industry. This is better than mass production because ... because ... because you don't have to deal with a great big munitions industry?

Quote
Of course, any place I'm involved with would respond with an insurgency force if attacked in a paramilitary manner. Enter manhole, plug power line into copper phone line. There are no fuseboxes on phone lines  ;D Bridges are easy targets of opportunity, and combined with PsychWar quite a bit can be done regarding food supplies. A lot of suggestions to "not panic" and "not hoard" after a few bridges are down and a city will rip itself apart. Due to improvements in delivery scheduling, the average urban stockpile of food went from 1 week+ to 2-3 days in the past decade.

I'm a little unclear about this. Are you talking about sabotaging your own cities, or infiltrating an enemy nation and sabotaging their cities?

Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 08:45:51 am
J Thomas, you see some issues. I agree dandelions are a weed. I've eaten them, but they are a little bitter. Control is simple, picking yellow flowers. Kudzu on the other hand can't be dug out unless you take all the topsoil off and a little more. It will literally consume entire houses in the span of 2 weeks if unchecked. There are 3 ways to kill it from what I read. #1 Throw away a ton of topsoil and/or pave over. #2 Poisons that prevent anything growing in the location for the next decade or two. #3 Goats that overgraze for weeks. On a side note, Japanese peasants ate Kudzu when they didn't have a barley crop.

Here is challenge #2: how does ZAP deal with Kudzu, which is extremely property damaging?

I'm against proliferation of nukes, but MAD can work on a non nuke level through urban guerrilla warfare. Against middle ranking countries, cruise missiles, snipers, etc are an effective "on the field of battle" low cost vs high value targets. The new drones can be built relatively cheaply and deliver payloads. In a very asymmetric situation, fighting China or the US for example, a small independent nation who lost their families would do better targeting big city infrastructure. If someone wanted to liberate Myanmar and reinstate the democratic leader, I'd suggest taking out the oil pipeline and ruby industries in order to cut down the ability to pay off the UN (like they have been doing). Guard the pipeline with snipers after dropping some big rocks in it. Prevent repairs, etc. Go for big targets. There isn't a simple single answer that satisfies your national defense of a small libertarian nation. If you had nukes, they would need a government to hold them OR 100+ years of proliferation without a nuclear war. MAD was a proposal to challenge #4, and I'm agreeing it would work in a libertarian society that isn't as tech advanced as Ceres. (MAD is usable on Earth, today if you scrap Geneva Convention.) Neal Stephenson's Ark concept makes it more viable to defend against invasions.

Big Munitions Industry isn't something I'm for or against. They specialize in something. Unfortunately if yours is destroyed, invaded, controlled, not built, etc - what then? Also it probably isn't possible to outspend the US military budget as a small nation, but from what I've seen of the Future Weapons show a lot of stuff is made in foreign countries. I just don't know what their purchasing restrictions are, and outsourcing all of your BMI is probably not wise. BMI also probably means taxes. On the other hand, knowing how to make explosives out of old batteries or rust and an aluminum can... That sort of info is useful without taxation required.

The challenge in #4 is summarized as "How does a small ZAP country defend itself from sponsored terrorism by Big Govt?"

mellyrn on April 28, 2011, 08:59:36 am
When is it OK to start trouble?  




J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 11:50:23 am
J Thomas, you see some issues. I agree dandelions are a weed. I've eaten them, but they are a little bitter. Control is simple, picking yellow flowers. Kudzu on the other hand can't be dug out unless you take all the topsoil off and a little more. It will literally consume entire houses in the span of 2 weeks if unchecked. There are 3 ways to kill it from what I read. #1 Throw away a ton of topsoil and/or pave over. #2 Poisons that prevent anything growing in the location for the next decade or two. #3 Goats that overgraze for weeks. On a side note, Japanese peasants ate Kudzu when they didn't have a barley crop.

Here's the first link I looked at about that:
http://kokudzu.com/ControlOutline.aspx

People are experimenting with workable methods. They have something that works without so much damage, but it's extremely labor-intensive. They claim the roots will rot away if the "crowns" are removed, and those are close to the surface, and in the USA hardly ever more than about 6 inches in diameter and a few feet long.

Notice their procedure for handling kudzu at a property boundary -- every week take the vines which have crossed over and bend them back to encourage them to grow back onto the property they came from. They say not to cut the vines because that's a signal for even more vines to grow where the cut ones were.

Here is challenge #2: how does ZAP deal with Kudzu, which is extremely property damaging?[/quote]

I thought that had been covered and you understood.

1. Find the owner.
2. Point out the problem and see if he cooperates.
3. If the owner won't cooperate, take it to arbitration.
4. Presumably the arbitrator will rule that the extremely damaging kudzu is a damge to you which must be fixed. We can never guarantee what an arbitrator will do unless the fix is in, but he'll probably rule in your favor. If he rules against you then suck it up and pay whatever he says to pay.
5. After the arbitrator rules in your favor, if the landowner fixes the damage and doesn't make more, you are done. If the landowner does not keep his agreement, then you and the other people he has harmed can do various things about it. You can tell everybody that he broke the rules, which may cause him difficulties. You can apply reasonable physical force, and he can hardly take you to arbitration about it. If he assaults you over your legitimate force you can kill him etc. You can take a reasonable amount of his property in payment for what he has cost you. If he is too well-armed and vicious for you to apply physical force, and he has demonstrated this by shooting at you and perhaps wounding or killing one of you, you can hire mercenaries to take him out and pay the mercenaries out of what he owes you.

Not so very different from existing practices, right? The difference is that arbitration is to a large extent voluntary, and there is no government to enforce the rulings.

Quote
I'm against proliferation of nukes, but MAD can work on a non nuke level through urban guerrilla warfare.

If two different factions in one city disagree too much about anything, they can each destroy the city rather than give in? With a small number of factions this looks like victory for the least reasonable. With a large number, there will surely be two extremist groups that will not get along and will destroy the city.

If you have to send saboteurs into foreign cities to destroy them, you're encouraging everybody everywhere to give up their civil rights so they can easier catch foreign saboteurs. I foresee problems.

Quote
Big Munitions Industry isn't something I'm for or against. They specialize in something. Unfortunately if yours is destroyed, invaded, controlled, not built, etc - what then? Also it probably isn't possible to outspend the US military budget as a small nation, but from what I've seen of the Future Weapons show a lot of stuff is made in foreign countries. I just don't know what their purchasing restrictions are, and outsourcing all of your BMI is probably not wise. BMI also probably means taxes. On the other hand, knowing how to make explosives out of old batteries or rust and an aluminum can... That sort of info is useful without taxation required.

Yes, on all counts. There are tradeoffs. If you try to make your munitions as a cottage industry, it will take a lot more resources than if you actually use economy of scale. But if you have giant businesses they might dominate you. If you start building weapons when lots of individual people feel threatened then you won't get a whole lot built. But if you make a lot ahead of time, who pays for them and will people be tempted to use them because they're there?

It would be better to avoid making nations mad at you than building expensive defenses, but we can't depend on foreign nations to be reasonable.

I like the idea of doing a lot of trade so you're worth more to them as you are, than you would be defeated and destroyed. And also try not to look like a big threat by having lots of obvious weapons that you look like you'd use. Also have a lot of useful tools that could turn into weapons. Trucks can't really replace tanks, but they can be useful in a war and also useful for the economy before a war starts. The more you can fight using OTS stuff that you have lying around because it's useful all the time, the less it costs you for armaments and the quicker it's available.

Expect to suffer if your land gets invaded. The American idea that we should be so strong that we are no worse off during wartime than in peacetime, is just perverse. We can't be so prepare for war that we won't do any suffering if we have to fight one. It just does not work that way unless we suffer all the time.

Quote
The challenge in #4 is summarized as "How does a small ZAP country defend itself from sponsored terrorism by Big Govt?"

1. Don't look so important that they put significant funding into destroying you. This is unreliable because you never know what a Big Government will do.

2. If you start getting terrorism, be cautious around people who do not culturally fit in. It's very hard for strangers to slip through any sort of culture without drawing attention to themselves. On Ceres they will tend not to know how to walk. Anywhere, they won't know the right slang and will likely be grossed out by popular breakfasts etc. If there's sabotage going on then you can do a lot to stop foreign terrorists. But it's draining to do that all the time, so don't do it until the sabotage starts. This is not completely reliable but it could help a whole lot.

3. Try to recruit known or suspected terrorists to ZAP etc. Some of them will join you and will help you find others. You have to judge how much you can trust them.

4. Try to persuade whoever is sponsoring the terrorism to cut it out. Any Big Government will have factions, and their media will have factions, and there may be foreign media. If you look like quaint ZAPs you might get a lot of favorable publicity. Ideally you should look like happy cuddly teddy bears who only scratch and bite people who treat them really bad. Do not threaten the media that you might drop big rocks on them, or nukes, etc. Give them the impression that the guns everybody wears are actually ceremonial objects (which they in fact are). Look cute and cuddly and zero-aggression. It pays off better than trying to look tough and mean. Meanwhile look for ways that avoiding war can be useful to the factions who are least against you. Since there is no government to appoint people to do this stuff, it can and should be done by volunteers.

Nothing works 100%. But if you do better as a small ZAP country defending yourself from Big Government than you would as a small Big Gov't country defending likewise, then you come out ahead on average.

SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 02:15:51 pm
I'll "show my hand" so to speak. All of these examples are related because they all involve government intervention to prevent. With *only* ZAP, they will occur given time.

And they will all occur even with government intervention, given time. So what's your point?

In a free world (i.e., market anarchy), there are no public goods. Water is owned by water companies who sell it to individuals. If shit is thrown into the water before it is transmitted to the customers, there is a violation of the ZAP with regard to its owner(s). Who has had force initiated against them, will largely be determined by where along the supply line it is dumped. These details are irrelevant, though, as to whether or not someone has violated the ZAP.

#2 Kudzu...

Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.

#3 Aggression through Incompetence...

No such thing. You have one or the other. As much as I appreciate the "shotgun" approach as a debating technique, it does not lead to reasoned thinking. I have a better idea.

1. Pick one subject, be it Kudzu or whatever.

2. Do not pretend to just be asking a question for your edification. (This is the tactic of the Ignoramuses (CG, Dolt, etc.) to allow them to get on their soapbox.

3. State a thesis that demonstrates a situation in which you believe the ZAP, "fails." (Understand, not applying to a given situation, is not a failure. It must fail in a situation where it is relevant.) Also, please, no bizarre situations, that while theoretically possible, are so unlikely in the real world as to constitute special pleading.

4. Allow others to clarify what you are saying, via posted questions.

5. Use the language of the ZAP as presented by Smith and the YouTube video. Let's all stay on the same page.

If this seems to lead us to some enlightenment, we can put that issue aside and turn our attentions to another scenario--maybe messing with someone else's water supply or whatever.

In re-reading the above, it occurs to me you are not really discussing the ZAP so much as posing the question, "How do you prevent bad shit from happening in a situation with no government." While that may or may not involve the ZAP directly, it is certainly relevant to a society such as the Belt, were the ZAP is  fundamental to all social interactions. So maybe a question would be okay, if it were in the form of, "How would a market anarchy deal with such-and-such a situation/danger/nuisance that government currently addresses with via the initiation of force or threat of force?" I think we can quickly boil these hypotheticals down to first principles in this manner. How about it?

quadibloc on April 28, 2011, 02:48:21 pm
Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.
If you don't understand, I'll helpfully spell it out for you.

Kudzu spreads. It doesn't just sit there and not move on to other people's property. And it spreads pretty fast, too.

Not only that, but the cost of removing it, once it does get on your property, may well exceed the amount of money an arbitrator can squeeze out of the owner of the property that does have the kudzu on it.

Or, in other words, people who are not believers in the ZAP hold on to this strange and outmoded evil statist concept known as "clear and present danger".

It's not good enough for an arbitrator to try to get something from the guy after the damage is done - nothing less than being stuck with exactly zero out-of-pocket expenses due to the other guy's negligence is acceptable.

J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 05:52:56 pm
Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.
If you don't understand, I'll helpfully spell it out for you.

Kudzu spreads. It doesn't just sit there and not move on to other people's property. And it spreads pretty fast, too.

Not only that, but the cost of removing it, once it does get on your property, may well exceed the amount of money an arbitrator can squeeze out of the owner of the property that does have the kudzu on it.

Or, in other words, people who are not believers in the ZAP hold on to this strange and outmoded evil statist concept known as "clear and present danger".

It's not good enough for an arbitrator to try to get something from the guy after the damage is done - nothing less than being stuck with exactly zero out-of-pocket expenses due to the other guy's negligence is acceptable.

OK, for the basics I don't think there's any disagreement here. If you put kudzu on your property and it spreads, you are liable to everybody you harm.

If it happens that way -- you do the harm before anybody can persuade you not to -- then you are liable even to the extent of losing most of your future earnings for the rest of your life to pay back your debts, if you have done that much harm.

Now, you are saying that people who predict you will harm them, have the right to prevent you from harming them -- before you have actually done anything wrong.

At first sight this violates the ZAP. You have not actually done anything to them yet, and they are pre-emptively telling you what you can and cannot do. If they are wrong about the consequences then they are aggressing against you for no good reason. But if they are right then they are saving you considerable expense.

So for a concrete example. John is a professional knife-thrower. He has a beautiful assistant who wears a skimpy costume, and people pay to watch him throw knives that almost hit her but do not quite hit her.

John comes up with a stupid idea to drum up business -- he and his assistant go out into the mall. She carries a small target, and when some random person walks between them he throws a knife very close to them which sticks in the target. But people are not impressed with his skill, they are outraged that he might have hit them. He points out that he is indeed an expert knife thrower who will never hit them, that is the point of the demonstration after all. They say that he is aggressing on them and he'd better quit fast.

Is John aggressing on people by almost hitting them with knives? If he does actually hit somebody then yes, definitely he is. But is it aggression when they simply don't trust him, even though in reality his skill is great enough to always miss?

SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 09:23:50 pm
Okay, simple enough. First, unless you are an adjacent or nearby land owner, what the guy grows is none of your damned business. So it is not a community issue, it's just a neighbor issue. If I am the neighbor and I like kudzu, I'm cool with it. If I see it as a "clear and present danger," however, what are my options?

1. I could talk to the neighbor and ask him to stop growing the stuff, because it spreads and I don't see any actions on his part to confine it to his property.

2. If he blows me off, I might see if there is a covenant running with the land that forbids the growing of kudzu. Since you believe it is such a "clear and present danger," there is probably a covenant that prohibits, so I simple take him to court to stop him. Possibly the owners association will do the honors.

3. If there is not covenant running with the land, nor an owners association, I might just poison my land along its border with the Kudzu Kid.

4. I might take him to arbitration and the arbiter all about the "clear and present danger" and see if the arbiter will rule in my favor.

5. I might just take my chances and poison the kudzu on the guy's property, not mine. If he doesn't take me to arbitration, I win. If he does, well, there is still that old, "clear and present danger" standby. Maybe the arbiter will see that as the "threat of physical force" and rule in my favor. And maybe not.

The point I am making here, is that there are any number of possible options and just like in every other human action, ya pays your money and ya takes your chances. There are no guarantees just odds. And hey, guess what? That is true under a government too. The difference being that government will use force to side with one group over another, and non-punitive solutions are rarely its first choice.

If you would like to compare how voluntarism trumps heavy-handed, meat-cleaver justice, look into "Community Boards" in San Francisco and elsewhere. As likely as not, they handle kudzu-like disputes on a regular bases without any threat of force. Moral suasion and social pressure are their methods of "enforcement."


Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.
If you don't understand, I'll helpfully spell it out for you.

Kudzu spreads. It doesn't just sit there and not move on to other people's property. And it spreads pretty fast, too.

Not only that, but the cost of removing it, once it does get on your property, may well exceed the amount of money an arbitrator can squeeze out of the owner of the property that does have the kudzu on it.

Or, in other words, people who are not believers in the ZAP hold on to this strange and outmoded evil statist concept known as "clear and present danger".

It's not good enough for an arbitrator to try to get something from the guy after the damage is done - nothing less than being stuck with exactly zero out-of-pocket expenses due to the other guy's negligence is acceptable.

SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 09:46:23 pm
OK, for the basics I don't think there's any disagreement here. If you put kudzu on your property and it spreads, you are liable to everybody you harm.

If it happens that way -- you do the harm before anybody can persuade you not to -- then you are liable even to the extent of losing most of your future earnings for the rest of your life to pay back your debts, if you have done that much harm.

Now, you are saying that people who predict you will harm them, have the right to prevent you from harming them -- before you have actually done anything wrong.

At first sight this violates the ZAP....

Your analysis was good up to that point. Remember, the ZAP allows you to respond to the actual threat of force, not just the initiation of force. So in a more realistic example than kudzu, if you are in a situation where a drunk guy across the rooms says "I am going to go over there and kick your ass!" Does that violate the ZAP or not? Well, that depends. If the guy is in an iron lung, the threat is not credible and so it does not violate the ZAP. In the other extreme, if it's Mike Tyson and he gets up and starts for you, he has violated the ZAP. Shooting him at this point might be prudent and would be permitted by the ZAP.

In between these extremes is a continuum with no clear delineations. At the end of the day, what happens may be second guessed by an arbiter, who will have to apply the ZAP as he sees it based on forensic evidence and the testimony of the participants and witnesses. Hey, it is entirely possible that the arbiter will get it wrong. Welcome to the human race. We do the best we can with what we have. There is nothing wrong with the ZAP as a principle. After that, though, how it is applied is a judgment call. You never get perfection under any system of dispute resolution, but you do get a guiding principle and a forum in which to decide how it should be applied. Works for me.

Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 11:53:45 pm
Your analysis was good up to that point. Remember, the ZAP allows you to respond to the actual threat of force, not just the initiation of force. So in a more realistic example than kudzu, if you are in a situation where a drunk guy across the rooms says "I am going to go over there and kick your ass!" Does that violate the ZAP or not? Well, that depends. If the guy is in an iron lung, the threat is not credible and so it does not violate the ZAP. In the other extreme, if it's Mike Tyson and he gets up and starts for you, he has violated the ZAP. Shooting him at this point might be prudent and would be permitted by the ZAP.
According to the ZAP documents I read and the video, words are not violence and are not an excuse to initiate violence. Even if they hint at violence, they are not violence. Your example of ZAP just used preemptive force.

I did boil my objection down to core principles. I provided 4 clear examples. As I said #1 was a clear 'gimme' regarding ZAP. On the other hand, collecting the information necessary to catch the brown terrorist is probably going to involve DNA samples.

I thought of methods of catching and preventing all 4 examples before I proposed them. Since the world tends to use Orwellian tactics including unreasonable search and seizure. (I had a sealed water bottle seized because it was more than 4oz.) In the EFT example, the kid was able to stop the mugger by use of investigation that didn't violate anyone's privacy. I could kill everyone on Ceres (or a few city blocks on Earth with Ceres technology) using a hotel room and unsearched luggage. Pay a few days extra on the hotel room, leave and debark my flight before the timer goes off. (poison gas, water supply, biological weapons like virus/bacteria, nuclear weapons, explosives if my room borders outer wall, etc)
A) So far the proposal to prevent these attacks are:
#1 ?
#2 threat of suing, threat of ostracizing
#3 certification (mine)
#4 Big Munitions Industry as threat, guerrilla warfare as threat (mine), gravity well

B) The proposals to resolve these attacks are:
#1 suing
#2 suing, arbitration
#3 ?
#4 gravity well, creative and intelligent terrorist with nothing to lose.

C) In contrast, PREVENTION of these situations as handled by governments involve:
#1 DNA sampling, tracking systems, moderately sealed access, employees
#2 Homeowners associations, zoning restrictions, outside contractors billed to owner, Force
#3 Certification, Insurance, Regulations, oversight and inspections
#4 Restrictions on travel goods, licensing/certification/bonding in order to buy explosives, prohibited sales of certain items, tracer chemicals in chemicals that can be used to create explosives, dedicated employees. Background checks on travel, Restrictions on travel

The fundamental flaw I see in ZAP at the city level is that someone must be permitted the chance to destroy everyone before they can be inhibited in any way. While this is fine for homesteads, it is not fine for an entire city. Should I estimate how many are dead for each scenario before you accept that this is "not fine"?

I wanted something very specific from my questions, I wanted to know how my libertarian philosophy could still ensure the safety of the population at large. So far, ZAP fails and regulation and certification at least offer the ability to save some lives and prevent some damage.  The threat of counterattack may prevent some governments, but it has not in any way deterred the US from regime change after regime change, from killing entire villages, hiring their own guerrilla fighters, training torture camps, etc. The US and UK manufacture enemies every day, and yet they continue. No, I don't think the gravity well or mini-nukes system would be adequate deterrent to prevent UW from killing everyone in Ceres with 1-6 bombs.

Do you have any ZAP methods of prevention aside from threat of lawsuit?