Freedom Friends Tuath

[Russell Kanning]

She has left a big gap ..... which I believe is filled with ......non-violent civil disobedience.

She seems stuck. Maybe she can get going sometime soon.

[David]

How is tuath pronounced? 
I think its actually a great idea.  Security, esspecially from force is a fundamental need right below only food water and shelter.  Thats why mankind is so quick to give up liberty in place of security.  The only way to downsize gov't, or be totally anarchic, is to replace essential gov't supplied services with private ones.  Justice and defense from aggresors is tops on the list.  Voluntary justice patterned after the strong Law Merchant system will likely developed.  Law Merchant was developed side by side with common law courts.  Common Law was usurped by the varius european gov'ts, but law mercant resisted gov't control longer.  It essentually developed from contracts.  When there was a dispute, esspeacially international trade disputes, the arbitrators were used.  From the cases developed case law aka merchant law or common law. 
To address a concern someone had earlier: 
If someone commits force or fraud against me, then my response is limited to revenge, retaliation, government courts , or restutution. 
I would encourage you to keep it as simple as possible.  The reason is most would agree to very basic concepts, or principles.  But when you get into specifics, thats when disputes occur.  Of course simplicity also encourages cooperation, even among those whom have been on the losing side of arbitration. 
The most respected legal system possible is judged by most to be fair, open to anyone(though not neccesarily free).

[David]

Opps, I goofed, didn't mean to post trice.

[Lex]

You can delete your own posts 

[AlanM]

Have you visited the website yet?

[David]

Just did.  Actually did once before but It may have been changed since then.  I liked the page.  I may suggest adding fraud to the zap.
Free market justice is something i am very interested in because it is so important.  I congratulate you guys(and gals) for jump starting the process.

[AlanM]

Why not join?

[David]

'cause I'm working on my own :)Have been for several months. 

[AlanM]

Cool. A little competition. 

We pronounce it Two-ath

[KBCraig]

We pronounce it Two-ath

I have to fight the urge to pronounce it in a most impolite way. 

[KBCraig]

I may suggest adding fraud to the zap.

Fraud is theft; theft violates ZAP.

But yeah, some people do need to have it spelled out explicitly.

Kevin

[zackbass]

I may suggest adding fraud to the zap.

Fraud is theft; theft violates ZAP.

No, Fraud is other than Force and is not always Theft - sometimes Fraud is Rape, for example.

I'd like to see Property Rights spelled out, though.
Suppose you go to a place where you find someone occupying a house.  May you, without violating NAP, kick him out?  It all depends, of course, on who owns that house.  Otherwise it's just two guys with a dispute, and the one who Initiates the Use of Force is the bad guy.

Something else I've wondered about... these guys who are against ALL Force, even in response to other Force (usually Gandhi fans).  I can't see how they can have any sense of Property, since they cannot possibly call the cops or sue me when I walk off with their stuff.

[Michael Fisher]

It is common knowledge among libertarians that fraud and theft violate ZAP because property is an extension of the individual.

[KBCraig]

No, Fraud is other than Force and is not always Theft - sometimes Fraud is Rape, for example.

Would that be when you pay the hooker with counterfeit bills?

[zackbass]

It is common knowledge among libertarians that fraud and theft violate ZAP because property is an extension of the individual.

But it is not knowledge at all, common or otherwise, among us Contractarians, who fell it is silly to say that I own my Self, i.e. A owns A.  The relationship between me and my Self is Identity, not Ownership.  So there are no "Natural" Rights, only Contracts.  You don't want to Contract with me, you don't get the benefit I was willing to grant in exchange, that's all.
NAP is a pretty good thing to agree to, since anyone who doesn't want to agree and be bound by it is about to do you some serious mischief.
Thus NAP need not flow from any "Natural Right".
The use of the term "Right" as a noun is dangerous, since the discussion quickly involves some guy claiming a Positive Right such as "The Right To Eat" or "The Right To Live", and it's all downhill from there... his Right implies someone else's Duty to provide him Food, or the ultimate illogicality, he may claim that your "Right To Live" implies that you do NOT have a Right to Suicide.  DON'T LAUGH, I HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON DO THAT!!!  TRUE STORY!  TRUE STORY!

What is your wording of ZAP?  The Initiation of Fraud violates NAP because NAP explicitly forbids its Initiation (although it allows Fraud as Retaliation).
Probably you are referring to L.Neil Smith's ZAP, since as far as I know he invented the term, which I think is faulty for its omission of Fraud but with that proviso would be a great definition of a libertarian:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html

Who is a libertarian?
Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")
    "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
    - L. Neil Smith

The other problem with Neil's wording is that it doesn't address whether Incompetents are to be Slaves, Equals, or Wards.
I've had this wording, and my minor objections to it, in the Description are of my LibertarianHomeland Group for ages:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarianhomeland/


And, anyhow, Fraud need not involve Property at all; and yet we ought to forbid its Initiation.