First, kudos on spending the time to reply to so many attacks from so many different directions with people at so many different levels of understanding.
Thanks. Once you filter out the real time-wasters, it becomes a lot easier.
I gave the link a read through and noted the key definitions. Lets clarify and see if I'm on the right track first before I argue further.
You asked "How are these laws applicable to me".
From reading the link you gave, I would define the laws applicable to you under "might-makes-right". This is a property right you do not want to acknowledge.
First, I don't believe in rights. Not as something God gave me (don't believe in God) or something that "comes from nature" which sounds like a lazy hack. I certainly don't believe rights come from 4 pieces of paper which are 200 years old and nobody signed.
What Kinsella is on about in that article is the efficacy and rationality of assigning property rights to things. The reason being, means are scarce. If no one owns anything, we will run into conflicts when you and I both try to eat the last donut. So it's important to figure out whose donut it is, and then that guy can eat it, he can trade/gift it to the other, or they can split it. But the second approach prevents us from getting in a fistfight and the donut falling on the dirty floor.
We'll presume then, that avoiding conflict, which can range from bad feelings to murder, is a "good".
Might makes right isn't a property right because it creates conflict. The purpose of property rights is to lower the cost of conflict.
I linked you to Kinsella's article to help you get an idea of what we mean by property rights and why they may be important to how we relate to one another.
As to why the law is not applicable to me, I haven't seen any proof it is. Sure, someone can wave a gun in my face, but then we've lowered the standard of law to that of rape or assault. This is fine with me, because it's probably realistic.
It is problematic though for people who practice and "maintain" law to present the perception of fairness and justice.
If we can get everyone to agree that the law is not just, that it is not moral, and that it basically works off consent solicited with threats of violence, then we're on the same page.
There are exceptions, like contract law. Contract law works by consent. It's also completely based in the idea of property rights. Some asshole with a badge shooting your dog because he thinks you have a joint has nothing to do with property rights, morals or authority. It's hooliganism.
The simple test is, if you took the uniform off the guy, and he was still doing what he does in uniform, would it be ok?
(although I would say the external rights seems a bit murky to me. As we trace back rights to find "first prior users" we would just be going through lists of people who originally got ownership of the land through "might-makes-right" and never have any "first prior users" to claim the rights).
This is actually an area I have written a lot about and had a lot of interest in.
How do you reset the system equitably?
There is quite a bit of thinking that has already been done on this. It's not possible to restore perfect property rights, so we have to aim for something which stops harm, and rewards the currently alive injured.
Trying to undo the negative effects perpetrated over time isn't doable imo.
Off topic: Cool mises quote from this article.
Mises was very, very cool. And he will always have street cred (will never blow up and be popular) because there is a minimal intellectual level of curiosity and reason you need to have to understand him, and most people simply don't have it.
