God is an Anarchist
The One Principle
Written by Darrell Anderson.
The cornerstones of all human relationships are free association and voluntary exchange. Through those cornerstones, all humans seek to pursue their individual definition of happiness.
Happiness: an interpreted state of personal existence derived from an individual’s perception of his or her survival and well-being.
Yet, to protect their happiness, every human realizes that there must be limits to that pursuit or there will be conflict. Therefore, humans attempt to establish limits to human action. They try to establish knowable boundaries. Those limits are contained in a simple legal principle.
Do not trespass.
Trespass is any violation of an individual’s body or resources. Trespass can be intentional or unintentional. By definition, trespass includes the threat of violation.
Trespass: any unsolicited human action against another individual that deprives the offended individual of personal interpreted happiness.
Some people might call this the non-aggression principle. However, aggression is a conscious and willful act to violate knowable boundaries. Trespass often is involuntary and does not necessarily include aggression.
The concept of trespass is based upon the concept of boundaries. To trespass there first must be knowable boundaries. Who decides what those boundaries might be depends upon several factors, but based upon custom and practice, there are many boundaries readily knowable in all human social groups. The primary reason that humans establish knowable boundaries is to reduce conflict. Reducing conflict improves perceived security and well-being, and improves the chances of survival.
Security: the emotional condition of an individual opportunity to pursue happiness without trespass.
To promote a sense of security, there are two basic types of human action that most people want to limit:
Vices: acts where no trespass occurs but other people nonetheless find those acts undesirable.
Trespasses: acts that violate the knowable boundaries of another individual — whether intentional or unintentional.
There are two types of trespasses:
Crimes: intentional trespasses.
Accidents: unintentional trespasses.
If knowable boundaries are traversed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, then the enjoined parties decide how to reconcile the trespass. Reconciliation might be as simple as forgiveness or as complicated as restitution. Third parties might be necessary if the enjoined parties cannot agree how to reconcile the trespass.
This legal principle does not mean trespass never will occur, only that if trespass does occur there is a common principle that can be examined to promote and reconcile personal and societal order. All humans are fallible and creatures of limited knowledge. Thus, trespass will occur regardless of what social and legal system is adopted. Trespass can occur even when there is no intent to aggress. The concept of trespass only provides a sensible starting point to resolve conflicts.
Use this simple principle before deciding upon any human action. First establish who the involved parties might be. Then determine whether the act involves trespass. If trespass occurs through the results of that act, then based upon free association and voluntary exchange and knowable boundaries, you risk trespassing if you commit that act. Avoiding such acts helps avoid conflict and promotes security.
Before presenting me with such a statute or ordinance, you also must articulate why you believe the statute or ordinance is credible despite not being derived from the fundamental principle of not trespassing.
I also would like to hear from you why you believe resolving any court petition, arbitration, or mediation requires any other principle.
If you cannot derive any such statute or ordinance, and cannot explain why adjudication needs anything more complicated than this one principle, then please explain why the current adjudication and legal systems are so idiotically complicated.
I appreciate your thoughts.
Next: What Is Liberty?