1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

It depends on what kind of place you live in. A controlled community with deed restrictions, apartment building, or truly "free" land, most likely in a rural area. Obviously if you're renting then the property owner can kick you out for being a nuisance so I assume you're not asking about that. Most people would live in some hybrid zone where you technically own your land, or are part owner, but you have deed restrictions or the dreaded HOA setting community rules, so things wouldn't be that much different than today. Disputes would go to an arbiter. Communities of nudists could make their own rules.

Otherwise generally anything goes on your own property, but if you are being a nuisance to neighbors (which could include anything audible or visible to them) they might take you to court. A judge would decide if either party can do something to mitigate the problem, like put up a higher privacy fence. Depending on the court if an agreement isn't reached they might rule it a NAP violation.

Even now plenty of rural areas have no laws on public nudity, so again it wouldn't be all that different.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

So I see you have distinguished between what you consider to be MAGA and libertarian positions, but where is the part about how libertarians can win?

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

Libertarianism not only allows for public naming and shaming of immoral acts, but pretty much requires it to prevent libertine behaviors that may be harmful. IMO the only way Ancapistan works is if there are strong social structures like the church, family, or neighborhood that enforce good behavior through public expectations and freedom of association.

People can certainly smoke weed or do whatever they want, but without any social support making up for their recklessness, they will soon end up on the outskirts of civilization. If casual recreational use doesn't cause a problem then they'll be fine.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Somehow the notion became prevalent that libertarians/Anarchists are for wide open borders and no immigration control simply because we don't believe in the state. Apparently many American "Libertarians" hold that view.

While there is freedom of movement, individuals and security firms can certainly enforce border security. Removing the state only decentralizes the means of control and shrinks the borders. Privatizing the function may allow for better immigration control in some situations.

You control who enters your own property obviously, and it's likely that communities will make rules (voluntary agreements) among property owners about who they want to let into the town or neighborhood.

If I have a bunch of farmland and fly in 300 third-world immigrants to work the land, people in the area will hold me responsible for keeping them from endangering the safety of others. If they start causing trouble, my neighbors will wall off and put up extra security at my border. They may also discourage people from buying my produce.

As a rational business owner, I would work with the other nearby residents so it never gets to that point in the first place.

This is a hypothetical - certain situations may call for more or less systemic control - but implementation of systems doesn't require the state.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

the fetus aggressor, albeit not purposefully, is the initiator of violence

He lost me there. This has "silence is violence" vibes.

the woman’s right to her property – that is, her womb – must be held above the valuable life of the fetus

I don't understand how he made that determination. In a libertarian framework, life and property are one in the same and held at equal value.

Some things are worth planting a flag on and nobody cares about the compromise party.

Amen. I hope the Mises Caucus taking over means we finally grew a pair.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

I do have to say as a pro-life libertarian the current controversy does kind of chip at my convictions, or at least make me think harder about why I believe what I believe. It is an interesting, though needlessly lengthy read. Ultimately I do agree in part with the evictionism argument. Where he writes:

but not to kill it, if technology permits her not to do so.

I would not provide an exception for technology. There is a gray zone between conception and viability where you still don't get to kill it, because viability <> personhood. But once technology reaches a point where you can evict, you may do so. If a person connected to a giant dialysis or life support machine was trespassing on your property, you can NOT evict them without also safely moving the machine they are connected to. You can't just kill someone because they're on your property.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes it is thought to mainly revolve around liability for (not) following explicit and implied contracts or for endangering others. Pretty much like tort law today but with parallel court systems, where the contract decides where cases will be heard, like in an arbitration clause.

And I totally forgot to directly answer the meme's "before people notice". Organizations like the USDA or accredited organic certifiers like NSF would basically be insurance companies and their investigation services. Respectable suppliers wouldn't operate without certification. So they would have regular inspections like they do today.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

There are multiple layers of response to such "problems". (if society actually considers them problems) In this example, the high numbered items are less likely to happen than the lower numbered items.

  1. Most people like food labeling requirements. Truth in advertising. That's what we're used to, so that wouldn't change. The only thing that changes is the specific requirements and enforcement mechanism. The grocery store would mostly likely have contracts with their distributors that enforce specific requirements, and they would advertise those publicly to get more business - creating an implicit contract with the customer. In some ways food regulation might be worse under Ancap, but it would be exponentially better in other ways. With such requirements in place, customers can bring a claim if they're found to be violating it. First you'd complain to the store which would complain to the distributor. Failing that you'd bring a suit against the store AND the distributor to a court specializing in food safety or consumer protection. Ideally most of this would be handled between your and the store's insurance companies.

  2. There would most likely also be private law in the city or neighborhood in which the store resides (most businesses/grocery stores lease their property) that takes effect in the absence of another contract between the store and customer. In this case you'd follow whatever the local law says, which might not be that much different than city health ordinances today but with added sanctions against the business and/or personal restitution.

  3. Sometimes you'd find that cheap stores would openly put filler in cheap food for poor people who have to shop there because they don't have a choice. Instead of paying taxes, people would give money to charities and activist groups that engage in media pressure campaigns to force companies to regulate their products. This isn't much different than now, but those groups would be stronger and have more funding. There are many levers of power beyond legislation.

  4. In any of the above instances, lacking an explicit or implied contract with a seller, you could file a complaint in a general arbitration court by arguing that putting harmful ingredients is violation of the NAP. Especially if you haven't disclosed those ingredients. The above groups would help poor people do this. The only thing preventing it would be if the company was strong enough to "own" all the courts who might be powerful enough to enforce rulings against them, and threaten private investigators/the media to stop investigating. In that case you have a defacto State again, so we're not talking about Ancap any longer.

  5. If all else fails and Señor Greedy Moneybags ends up killing the wrong person with his fake food schemes, somebody would take care of it. Maybe he'd have a boating accident or extreme guilt would drive him to jump off a building. Ancap is about non-aggression but you're not going to change human nature. If people know he was a bad guy poisoning people, nobody would bother hunting down and prosecuting whoever arranged his mysterious disappearance. The only reason it doesn't happen now is because of "The Law". "The Law" doesn't just protect the innocent but it often protects the guilty from getting the justice they deserve. (but again I want to stress that there are a lot of stopgaps before it would ever get to this point)

I probably missed a ton of options. With the State, there may be faster or stronger responses against improper behavior, but there is still a limited set of possible responses. Without a State, the sky is the limit.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

The nice thing about Anarcho-Capitalism is you can live within the system as a Communist, Libertarian, or Voluntaryist just fine. But in Communism you can't live as an Ancap.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

War is acceptable to stop someone else from violating the NAP. A court can decide later if it was a crime or not.

But when I say war I mean limited action against the threat actors, not attacking a whole population.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

Even the baby is guilt tripping him.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

Seems like something that would work equally here as well. Not saying you can't do it but everyone moving to new communities thins out the user-base. And this place is basically a wasteland already.

Actually that gives me an idea for a feature I'll post on c/Meta.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Try clicking the Watch on Youtube link to open it externally. I didn't watch but the description says:

"Is humanity truly free? Are there Universal Laws in effect that apply to human behavior? Does our knowledge or ignorance of these laws impact our collective freedom as a species? In this one-of-a-kind feature documentary film, Mark Passio will explore these questions, and our current understanding of Universal forces that affect the daily lives of each and every one of us."

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

Never heard of this channel. Thanks for sharing.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well I certainly believe that (to a degree) and consider myself closer to Ancap than mutualist. Land just has to be appropriated and exploited. You don't have to physically occupy it all times.

There are many slippery-slopes in Ancapistan. What about the other side of the argument? Can I gaze at the mountains far off in the west, and the sea down to the east, and declare this entire land to be mine? I think that should be allowed if nobody else is living there, but staking a claim isn't enough, you have to acquire and use the land. That generally includes surveyors at a minimum, and security to defend it. If I do none of those things, and just say "this land is mine", can I then sell the land to someone? None of it matters until someone disputes my claim, and then the question is how valid is their claim to the land?

Like other things we would rely on courts to decide who rightfully owns what in a dispute. Courts would have some kind of register of land ownership (not required but it makes things easier), which could be disputed under agreed upon terms. Sure you could have a corrupt Commie court that sides with squatters and revolutionaries, but a court that lets people take someone else's land just because they want it would not be very well respected in Ancapistan. A court that makes reasonable judgements against giant banks with no intentions of exploiting land vs. homesteaders who are actively using it might be more respected.

Once it's clear that someone is going to illegitimately take your land - we fall back to enforcing the NAP. It's meaningless without teeth. Perhaps recruit the aid of other free landowners who realize that if they don't support you they'll be next. In any event if you don't have a majority of people in a community believing in the principles of non-aggression, everything falls apart.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

I suggest not getting rid of the civil system

It would be fantasy for anyone to suggest that would even be possible. Freely associating groups are always going to have some system of arbitration regardless of the existence or lack of common law. Though I cringe at the mention of a Somali tradition when anti-anarchists love using Somalia as a prime example of anarchy in reality.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wouldn't say it's for sure possible as much as an ideal to strive for. If we can decentralize we'll be much more likely to find like minded people to associate with and create new societies based on principles of non-aggression. It will never be perfect. Trying to create utopia is what leftists do.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

I might join. Is there a reason you went with discord over an entirely private chat system like Element (Matrix) where they can't shut you down? Remember even Libertarians are domestic terrorists these days.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

the highest bidder

Bill Gates - wants to lower human population and does all kinds of weird experiments with pharmaceuticals and food science

Jeff Bezos - wants humans to live in space and most of the earth to be a wildlife preserve

What a wonderful future.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well the Libertarian party is controlled oppo so that didn't surprise me. I would not be surprised if they are run by the CIA. The Mises caucus has some great ideas, but a third party just can't work in the USA. Since Bull Moose the uniparty has deeply embedded itself into the machine of government.

view more: Next ›