The concept of violence and trespass are closely related to each other. However, because many definitions exist for these terms, I thought I would provide to you how I use these terms. Previously I explained how language is arbitrary. Because of this ambiguity, any sort of in-depth discussion is hard without defining terms. So I will describe them in a clear sense for the context of our conversations to avoid confusion.
Please understand that my definition of any term is my own. When you read any term, you should endeavor to understand the context, so you can understand the correct concept that I am discussing. Unfortunately, I do not understand things well enough to articulate an idea clearly and concisely. So instead, I will try to share the aspects I see in the hopes you can grasp the meaning of the underlying concept.
Violence is something I define as the initiation of force without consent. Now let’s break these different parts down. Initiation is the act of beginning something; it is essential. Force is the application of pressure to make something conform in the manner desired. Consent is the granting of permission.
As you can tell, this is a very loose definition and does not speak about damages. The reason for this is I define trespass as violence that results in damages.
Well, there are an endless number of scenarios when you discuss the physical reality. If you keep the discussion to the theoretical concepts of existence, then you can create a rational understanding. However, we haven’t had that talk yet. When we do, you will start to get the feeling that humanity as a whole is missing something with its views. Our notion of us and what is ours seems to be missing something. Property is a core fundamental concept in this physical reality, yet I don’t think it is correctly understood. But this concept of trespass is simply that of causing damages to others property. We haven’t talked about property yet. For now, think of ‘you and what you own,’ as your property. Of course, what does ownership mean? We will cover these in future letters, of course.
I should speak momentarily of intent. Intention is when you are doing something with a purpose. For example, if you move your arm, you intended to make your arm move. You may have further intent that the arm moved in such a way will bring about a desired result. The point I am getting at is most actions have some intention behind them, and the higher the understanding of potential consequences would create a greater intent.
Let’s give a few examples to illustrate the definitions better.
A person who threatens harm to acquire some resource from another has committed a trespass. The threat is the pressure. The initiation is the issuing of the threat. The lack of consent is from the victim not wanting the act to occur. The damages is the loss of the resource. This example covers many real-life scenarios, such as a mugging where the victim complies instead of struggles.
In the above example, if the mugging was a failure in a way that the individual is not damaged. Then it would have been an act that ended up as an attempted trespass. Regardless it was still an act of violence. Trespass is the likely outcome of violence, and the goal of violence is usually to acquire something which generally results in the loss of something from someone else, which is a trespass.
In this scenario had the victim fought back. It would be a defensive act and not violence since the mugger did the initiation of the use of force.
The act of the mugger attempting a trespass is an intrinsic claim that the use of violence against another in that manner is acceptable. This means they have explicitly given consent for violence to be used against them. In other words, if you start playing a game of chess on your own volition, then you have agreed to play a game of chess. So if you pick a fight, you have consented to fight. These points mean the act of defense against violence is only an act of force since the aggressor has done the initiation and allowed force.
If the mugger suffered damages, it would not be a trespass. And since the victim did not consent to the act, there is no agreement that others must abstain. If a third party in response to seeing a mugging brought force to bear against the mugger, they would not be initiating (aka the cause), and therefore, not responsible for the damages. The third-party would just be using defensive force.
Now take the case of a thief who stole from someone making them a victim. If the victim then later found this thief and used force to get their property back, then that is just them trying to get their property back. In that case, the initiation was already done by the thief. The victim of theft is not the initiator force. However, if the victim is escalating the force used, then this escalation is a form of initiation, as in it is an initiation of additional force by bringing more violence to bear. It is this escalation that the victim of theft is responsible for and must have justification. If it was the only recourse the victim of robbery had, then they were doing the minimal force necessary to recoup the damages caused by the thief. The victim of theft is not responsible as the thief is the real instigator of the escalation by leaving no other reasonable option. In other words, if the victim caught the thief and demanded their goods back and the thief fled. The victim of the thief can tackle and restrain the thief. In that struggle, if the thief fought back, the victim of the thief can morally continue to escalate until the thief is captured and property returned. Now, if the victim had another option available to them, which would have resulted in less violence, then they would morally be required to take that route. Furthermore, the thief as they continue to resist may cause additional real damages to the initial victim, and the thief is responsible for those other damages. After all, the victim is to be made whole, and the thief is responsible for making the victim whole.
The reason I define things like this is that it makes these terms more explicit and, therefore, more understandable of what I mean when I use the terms violence and trespass.
Now in that explanation above, there are a lot of other concepts I mentioned, such as morality, justification, making whole, and real damages. I will cover them in a future letter.