[superkuh]

Stop depending entirely on corporate systems for your personal communication and recreation (I say on HN...).

And absolutely stop calling for the use of violence (regulations by government) in these situations. Just because Bob says you cannot come over to the weekly neighborhood BBQs in his backyard does not mean it is ethical for you to call up your police friend to threaten Bob and to make sure you can go. It doesn't matter if you're right and he's wrong. It doesn't matter if everyone in the neighborhood continues to chose to go to his BBQs and you can't. It's still Bob's backyard and he isn't inititing violence against you. Don't do it to him.

[helpfulclippy]

I hear you about saying no to depending on the rings of power.

Not sure about the regulatory part with Bob’s backyard. What about when Bob intentionally persuades everyone to route all their packages and mail through his house, which he routinely opens, reads and studies to determine their preferences and desires and compile psychological profiles of everyone in the neighborhood which he then discloses to various unidentified third parties including law enforcement, debt collectors, abusers and criminals? What about when Bob uses his control to deny people access to their own communications and stuff, on the grounds that they’re actually his now because it’s at his house and he decided for unspecified reasons that they broke one of his vague and unilaterally-defined rules? What if Bob does this at such a scale that he can now assist the government in undermining the constitutional protections against unwarranted searches, or uses his influence and knowledge to purposefully stoke and manipulate anger in ways that he KNOWS he can’t control and will get people killed or at least ruin their lives, but at least makes him more money?

Do Bob’s property rights need to be balanced against other societal needs then?

[superkuh]

I can only control my own actions. If Bob does that then I'd stop being friends with Bob and stop going to his BBQs. If other people want to keep using Bob's services thats entirely up to them. And their continued use is entirely voluntary. If they want they can stop.

It's already balanced. All anyone has to do is make a personal choice rather than invoking calls for coersion.

[Buttons840]

I have sympathy for the regulation is violence philosophy but it doesn't sit well with me. It seems very focused on individual ownership, putting individual ownership above the rights of everyone collectively. Is the argument that it is not violence for an individual to control his own property, but it is violence for the people the control their collective property (the nation and it's resources)? Did I understand that correctly? Again, it seems like a philosophy that places individual ownership very highly, which I definitely sympathise with, but we shouldn't be too surprised when those who are unlikely to ever have individual ownership form a different philosophy, which I also sympathise with. As with most politics, there needs to be a balance.

[namlem]

No, start calling much more loudly for the use of government force to resolve the situation. State power in a democratic system is the best vehicle to counterbalance concentrated private power. This anarcho-libertarian drivel never leads to postivie outcomes.