Sort:  

So it's not conceivable that force could ever be applied to a violator of a voluntary agreement against his will? How about violent crime, how should that be dealt with when everyone is a sovereign being?

So it's not conceivable that force could ever be applied to a violator of a voluntary agreement against his will?

The only results of a violation of an agreement, would be those that all parties agreed to when they wrote/made it. Thus, they could not be against his will unless he/she had been coerced into the original agreement, thus making it null & void.

How about violent crime, how should that be dealt with when everyone is a sovereign being?

That would depend on the agreements of the community in which the violent crime happened. In the community where I would be, violence would be seen as the symptom of trauma, something to be healed, not to be punished. Unitive Justice/Restorative Justice are better for the victim, the offender, and society as a whole.

It's also important to note that in a culture where force & coercion are not the standard way of dealing with each other, these incidences will naturally become more and more rare with each generation.

PS: I would highly recommend reading "Atlas Snubbed" by Ken Krawchuck. It is a sequel/parody/refining of what Ayn Rand put forth with Atlas Shrugged, and he does a great job of laying out possible ways different situations of crime/response could play out in a voluntary society.

If the sovereign being is subject to community standards then he's not sovereign; the community is and that's exactly where we are at today.

The difference being that I am referring to voluntary community standards. People agreeing to a set of rules together, as well as ways to deal with violations of the rules.

Before you say, "that's what we have now", what exists now is anything but voluntary. Whichever corporate state claims to own the piece of land you are born on, then claims that you are subject to its rules, and that you are its citizen (property). Nobody agrees to follow any of those rules, yet they are violently punished for disobeying them.

Again please refer to my post on Jurisdiction. Humoring your statement, what happens in the Anarchist world where I don't want to adhear to the Voluntary Community Standards of non aggression and form an Army to take everyone else's stuff?

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/jurisdiction-where-does-it-come-from

  1. In a world where armies & wars are not the norm, where only sociopaths would get involved in such a thing, rather than people brainwashed into the belief in a fictional "state", you would be hard-pressed to raise an army.
  2. Non-aggression does not mean you cannot defend yourself.

It's not difficult for charismatic men to raise an army and no brainwashing is necessary. Check out Vikings on the History Channel.

Charismatic men and their cronies tear up the defenseless or underdefended.

https://www.facebook.com/NTDTelevision/videos/2307376462637784/

Check out what I think about individual sovereignty.
https://steemit.com/freedom/@adconner/response-to-sovereign-citizens-so-called

Response to Sovereign Citizens. (So called).

Sovereign = free, self-owning
Citizen = subject, slave

To be a free sovereign you need an army to separate yourself from your current jurisdiction and maintain it otherwise the jealousy of the current paradigm will march though your castle and put you in actual slave irons, as opposed to the current ficticious ones.

And as State control is intensified, crimes decrease.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/21/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

That is absolutely not true, because the state, by its very existence and every deed, is commiting crimes against everyone it extorts, kidnaps, bombs, etc.

The decrease is just because more and more of the crimes being committed, are made "legal" by the state, as it obviously isn't going to punish itself.

Its legal by Standards of International Law.

I wrote this about Jurisdiction and Why we need it; if we're going to continue to claim title to our lands and homes in the Americas.

https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/jurisdiction-where-does-it-come-from

International = between nations/states... Just because multiple organized crime groups agree on something doesn't change what it is.

I don't believe that humans can own land, and certainly no human in the lands claimed to be owned by the United States actually owns their land or homes, as all they have to do is stop paying extortion fees and they will promptly lose that land/home.

It depends on what level of "Ownership" you are referring to.

Ownership is a fictional concept but we give it power though fealty to the ficticious law that creates the concept and regulations of any limits on it.

Sovereign Ownership exists only in the mind of the sovereign and his Army.

Fee Simple ownership only exists within the law created by the sovereign.

Jurisdiction is "owned" by the US Corporation based on the Right of Conquest recognized by international law and it's the basis for Title Insurance Companies to issue policies insuring fee simple title. (No one insures Sovereign Title. That's is what the military is for.)

ANd it doesn't matter what you believe unless you have an Army to impose it or can convince enough of the right and popular people to agree with you.

It also doesn't matter if you believe people can own property or not or if I believe that we can. It matters how the current paradigm is working and your ability to change it; if you so desire.