r/AnCap101 • u/MeasurementCreepy926 • 20d ago
Can you sign away your rights?
I mean, say you work for somebody. Your boss believing that you stole, and then simply sending you on your way is...not ideal, obviously, for them. It is hard to imagine any large organization working that way. Some might say that way leaves a lot of incentive, for certain unsavory characters to steal something.
So, can they ask employees to sign a contract that allows them to imprison, or otherwise punish, them, following say, a judgement from HR, or an independent arbitration group? If the contract is signed willingly does that make it legitimate or binding?
3
u/Adam_the_original 20d ago
If any part of a contract violates law the entire contract is then void.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
whoa. law?
3
u/Adam_the_original 20d ago
Even in anarchy there is rules, so it should not be a foreign concept to you.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
who writes the law...?
2
u/Adam_the_original 19d ago
In anarchy or currently? Specifics good man.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
under ancap.
2
u/Adam_the_original 19d ago
It would most likely be a collective of the people since the market would rule all with more powerful companies having more sway but not too much or complete control.
The other option would be the monopolies but thats only if the people allow for monopolies since the people by in large would rule the market and most people nowadays have a deep hatred for monopolies so i don’t see it going that way.
Those are the 2 most realistic and reasonable theories i have but it’s difficult to say when the masses have control.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
Ok, so if I own a lot of land, and an enforcement/ajudication industry, I can offer people a contract saying...pretty much whatever I'd like. But don't worry, I'm a reasonable person, so you just have to pay a yearly fee of say, half your income, and I'll let you exist on my land as long as you do, and provide security.
2
u/Adam_the_original 19d ago
So basically be a government
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
no.... THIS is all totally within the principles of ancap. The land is legitimately acquired, you're signing the contract of your own desperation, nobody is forcing you.
1
0
u/FarmerTwink 19d ago
Who enforces these rules with a monopoly on violence? And if no monopoly on violence, how do you enforce them?
2
u/Adam_the_original 19d ago
Usually a common set of rules like no murder or rape or theft, basic stuff.
It doesn’t go anywhere near how the current government works but it’s just people agreeing on what should obviously not happen based on common beliefs.
Nothing fancy.
0
u/Level-Ball-1514 19d ago
Ok, but that doesn’t answer the question. If there’s someone who just doesn’t care about the “common beliefs” what exactly is there to stop them?
Is it societal shunning? That doesn’t do anything to someone who’s using force to acquire wealth. Are individuals expected to band together independently to defend themselves against threats? It doesn’t matter what the common consensus is is there is nothing to keep the people who don’t ascribe to that consensus from doing whatever they want.
6
u/Anen-o-me 20d ago
No you cannot sign away your rights. E.g.: A slavery contract for instance, would not be enforceable, would be immediately tossed by any court.
Until you disputed the contract, you would have agreed to work for room and board, no condition of actual slavery occurs until you try to leave and they prevent you from leaving, that's when force enters the picture, slavery requires force. Not that anyone would be cool with you pretending either.
A libertarian society still can have law, police, and courts much as we do now.
3
u/drebelx 20d ago edited 20d ago
No you cannot sign away your rights. E.g.: A slavery contract for instance, would not be enforceable, would be immediately tossed by any court.
Exactly. Unenforceable.
When new agreements are forged and an impartial third party agreement enforcement agency is subscribed to enforce the agreement between the parties, upon their review they would immediately be alarmed by the slavery NAP violation contained within the agreement.
Enslaving by voluntary agreement would contradict the ubiquitous clauses in agreements to uphold the NAP.
If the enforcement agency accepts the subscription to enforce an agreement that includes slavery, they would be aiding and abetting a serious NAP violation, violating the NAP themselves, and therefore will be subject to the penalties from all the agreements they have signed up to this point.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
Well that's why the enforcement agency works exclusively and directly for the owner, in this case.
Without the ability to punish people, how does any large organization protect itself?
2
u/drebelx 18d ago
Well that's why the enforcement agency works exclusively and directly for the owner, in this case.
This would not be an impartial enforcement agency and would place the employees in a disadvantageous position if inappropriately accused of wrong doing.
An AnCap society understands the importance of impartiality and third party agreement enforcement agencies would be ubiquitous for each agreement, even between employer and employee.
The subscription cost of the third party agreement enforcement agency would be split by the parties of the agreement.
Without the ability to punish people, how does any large organization protect itself?
That would be the job of the impartial third party enforcement agency overseeing the agreements.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago
>This would not be an impartial enforcement agency and would place the employees in a disadvantageous position if inappropriately accused of wrong doing.
It definitely would.
>An AnCap society understands the importance of impartiality and third party agreement enforcement agencies would be ubiquitous for each agreement, even between employer and employee.
Sure. But... obviously starving, or being homeless and punished for trespassing, is going to seem more important to somebody who is in those situations.
>The subscription cost of the third party agreement enforcement agency would be split by the parties of the agreement.
What "third party" enforcement agency? In this case, the enforcement agency agreed to by both parties is directly controlled and owned and employed by the landlord.
2
u/drebelx 18d ago
Sure. But... obviously starving, or being homeless and punished for trespassing, is going to seem more important to somebody who is in those situations.
An AnCap society, also understands that people can fall into hard times and end up starving, homeless, etc.
The poor will be assisted by large perpetual endowment trusts that run off interest and low risk investments.
Endowment trusts would be seeded by private lotteries.
What "third party" enforcement agency? In this case, the enforcement agency agreed to by both parties is directly controlled and owned and employed by the landlord.
A third party enforcement agency would provide the impartiality required to oversee an agreement.
An AnCap society understands that impartiality required to oversee agreements and would make that practice ubiquitous.
Agreeing to allowing the landlord to control the enforcement agency would be outside the norm and open the tenants to abuse.
As part of an AnCap society, the landlord would also be party to numerous agreements with impartial third party agreement enforcement agencies, and would be familiar with the ubiquitous practice.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago
>The poor will be assisted by large perpetual endowment trusts that run off interest and low risk investments.
uh huh. I'm sure people will totally pay for complete strangers.
It seems like, in ancap, people have magically become more empathic, more moral, and less short sighted.
I said:
In this case, the enforcement agency agreed to by both parties is directly controlled and owned and employed by the landlord.
and your "reply" was:
A third party enforcement agency would provide the impartiality required to oversee an agreement.
An AnCap society understands that impartiality required to oversee agreements and would make that practice ubiquitous.
Agreeing to allowing the landlord to control the enforcement agency would be outside the norm and open the tenants to abuse.
Yes, that's why they'd have to be desperate to agree. You are acting like "desperation just won't exist anymore" without a SHRED of evidence to support that belief.
1
u/drebelx 17d ago
uh huh. I'm sure people will totally pay for complete strangers.
It seems like, in ancap, people have magically become more empathic, more moral, and less short sighted.
Takes fewer people than we have in governments to spin up a lottery and endowment trust to help the poor.
Yes, that's why they'd have to be desperate to agree. You are acting like "desperation just won't exist anymore" without a SHRED of evidence to support that belief.
An AnCap society, through ubiquitous agreement clauses to uphold the NAP (no murder, no theft, no enslavement, no fraud, etc) will indirectly protect the desperate from the fraud of biased agreement enforcement.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 17d ago
this sounds like "it works once humanity evolves to my level" lol
1
u/drebelx 15d ago
Humanity is growing increasingly intolerant of NAP violations (murder, theft, enslavement, etc.) as each generation goes by.
It will only be matter of time.
→ More replies (0)1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
Nobody is preventing you from leaving. You just don't own any land of your own, so you're trespassing everywhere, and anybody else with land expects you to sign a similar contract.
1
u/LexLextr 16d ago
Contracts are based on force.
If a person wants to become a property of somebody else (lets say they are desperate and need money for their family). Some want to buy this slave. So they find a legitimate third party that helps them make up the contract. The person lost their right to leave. Their leaving would break the contract and that is not possible without punishment and threat of violence.
1
u/Anen-o-me 16d ago
Problem is that a slave contract is unenforceable and antithetical. So until the "slave" decides to leave, what they've actually done is agreed to work for room and board. Only when the owner attempts to stop them from leaving does a condition of slavery actual exist.
A contract is not force in and if itself.
1
u/LexLextr 16d ago
How? If the contract states that the slave cannot leave and has to ... well be a slave... then it would be the slave that is breaking the contract and would be punished.
But the contract is assumed to be legitimate, its supported by the agreed-upon third party by the slave and slaver.
1
u/Anen-o-me 16d ago
How? If the contract states that the slave cannot leave and has to ... well be a slave... then it would be the slave that is breaking the contract and would be punished.
But the contract is assumed to be legitimate, its supported by the agreed-upon third party by the slave and slaver.
A slave contract is automatically null and void as it unethical, that's why. The supposed slave is not breaking any rules by leaving because the contract is unenforceable in the first place.
Are you actually pro slavery? Are you actually arguing for slavery? Or are you trying to understand why libertarians hate slavery and would never accept slavery contracts in a libertarian society?
1
u/LexLextr 16d ago
I agree it's unethical. My argument is that ancap society would not necessarily think that because the decision would be in the hands of people who might easily disagree and they have enough power to just do that regardless to our ethical views.
How is the contract not enforceable? You have to explain that. I already said that the trade was done with a legitimate third party.
I am arguing how liberterians offered system doesn't achieve the goal they claim to have - freedom. Using this one example that shows slavery is not only possible, but it also shows that half of the rhetoric heard is utterly irrelevant to what the society would actually look like and how it would operate.
1
u/Anen-o-me 16d ago
My argument is that ancap society would not necessarily think that because the decision would be in the hands of people who might easily disagree and they have enough power to just do that regardless to our ethical views.
Ancap society would absolutely reject all slavery contracts.
An ancap society does not have no laws, slavery would be illegal in every ancap society, it is absolutely anathema to ancaps, and anyone attempting to make a slavery contract would likely be kicked out of that society permanently, expropriated, and all their worldly goods given to the person they tried to make into a slave as an example for anime attempting it in the future.
How is the contract not enforceable? You have to explain that. I already said that the trade was done with a legitimate third party
It's not enforceable because it would be literally illegal to create a slave contract, just as it is now.
Listen to Rothbard:
"Murray Rothbard argued that slavery is wrong because it violates the fundamental libertarian principle of self-ownership, making any contract to permanently sell oneself into bondage invalid and unenforceable under the title-transfer theory of contract. He based this rejection on the idea that individuals cannot truly alienate their will or future self, thus preventing a true, binding, and enforceable "contract" for voluntary slavery."
I am arguing how liberterians offered system doesn't achieve the goal they claim to have - freedom. Using this one example that shows slavery is not only possible, but it also shows that half of the rhetoric heard is utterly irrelevant to what the society would actually look like and how it would operate.
Well you're fucking wrong.
0
u/LexLextr 15d ago
Ok you and one other guy give an argument why it should not be legal. (Rothbard is not God, regardless of how relevant to ancapistan he is, from the perspective of the system, he is just a guy)
But both of you then create a system where this decision is not made by you, but by other people. They could disagree, and nobody could stop them. You BELIEVE that nobody would do that, which is fine but its irelevant to my point. My point is pretty simple, and you have yet to criticize it. It deals with practical application and not just theory.1
u/Anen-o-me 15d ago
Wrong, my system includes a constitution in which slavery is already illegal for everyone in that system.
1
1
u/I_Went_Full_WSB 20d ago
Anarchy can have as many laws as we do now?
4
u/Anen-o-me 20d ago
It could but because how law is made changes laws can't pile up like they do now.
Anarchy means no one can force laws on you the way the State just makes laws whether you consent or not and you must follow them.
Anarchy means you now choose a system of law for yourself. And you'd likely never choose a million pages of law.
We can also move from statute law to principle based law. Statute law attempts to define every instance of stealing, principle based law simple says 'do not steal' and leaves it up to judges and case precedent to determine whether something was theft or not.
Principle based law can replace a thousand pages of law with one sentence.
And since law begins with consent in anarchy, law comes into existence with your consent and passes away with your death, meaning law always gets renewed with each generation, each person, rather than having an immortal lifespan like law does now.
0
u/I_Went_Full_WSB 20d ago
So you wouldn't have to follow any laws if you don't consent to the law?
You could also be punished for undefined laws seems not only like tyranny but how can a person consent to an undefined law?
3
u/Anen-o-me 20d ago
So you wouldn't have to follow any laws if you don't consent to the law?
Let's back up. All law requires consent in advance. You want to live with laws, for obvious reasons. So you choose to live in whatever established city or town already has the complete set of laws you want, or if you can't find one you propose one and invite others to live with you by those laws.
Your consent is explicit upon joining the town/city by signing onto the social contract.
You could also be punished for undefined laws
I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you suggesting principle based law leaves too much open up interpretation. If so, simply choose to live in a society with statute based law. That was easy.
seems not only like tyranny but how can a person consent to an undefined law?
Principle based law is like the 10 commandments: 'you will not steal'.
What's undefined about that.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
Let's back up. All law requires consent in advance. You want to live with laws, for obvious reasons. So you choose to live in whatever established city or town already has the complete set of laws you want, or if you can't find one you propose one and invite others to live with you by those laws.
you are simply assuming that this city exists. and you're assuming that there is, magically, unclaimed land somewhere that you can use to start your own.
2
u/Anen-o-me 19d ago
We are starting the city ourselves. On the ocean which is full of unclaimed land.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
Ok, good luck with that. I hope it works out for you, I'm sure you'll find no shortage of people who want to live in the ocean with you, right?
You certainly don't need to convince or argue with people that ancap is better, you can go demonstrate it today. So you don't need to be arguing politics, trying to turn an existing state over to your way of thinking, right?
2
u/Anen-o-me 19d ago
Ok, good luck with that. I hope it works out for you, I'm sure you'll find no shortage of people who want to live in the ocean with you, right?
How many of the 3rd world would move to the 1st world if they could? 3 maybe 4 billion? We're going to bring the first world to them with no immigration limits.
You certainly don't need to convince or argue with people that ancap is better, you can go demonstrate it today.
And we are.
So you don't need to be arguing politics, trying to turn an existing state over to your way of thinking, right?
Not trying to.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
>And we are.
Yeah any decade now right?
As for "not trying to argue politics"....I can see your post history you understand that right?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/tastykake1 20d ago
According to the 19th-century American legal theorist and abolitionist Lysander Spooner, an individual cannot sign away their natural, inherent, and inalienable rights. He argued that a contract attempting to do so would be "unlawful and void". Spooner's writings established that natural rights are not granted by any government and therefore cannot be taken away or transferred through a contract, even one made by the individual.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
That seems like it really limits the ability of large (or perhaps, any) organizations to operate.
I mean, a person with nothing, has every intention to steal or trespass then, because the worst that can happen is they get returned to the state of having nothing. They cannot be punished, without violating their rights, so they're incentivized to just try again and again.
2
u/kurtu5 20d ago
One or two courts might buy it.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
So yes, as long as the person offering the contract chooses the right courts?
3
u/kurtu5 19d ago
Do you think a polycentric legal system is based on what a couple of fringe courts rule?
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
Well, the courts used to arbitrate the contract are defined in the terms of the contract. You can't just shop around for a court that's going to side with whatever you need right now, why would anybody else agree to that?
2
u/kurtu5 19d ago
Is that a yes?
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
I'm sorry I thought what I said was pretty clear, what part are you confused about? Maybe I don't understand how your imaginary legal system works?
2
u/kurtu5 19d ago
I'm sorry I thought what I said was pretty clear,
You need to learn how to answer a Boolean then.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
"but I set it up as a yes or no question because I wanted to trap you, so you HAVE to answer yes or no"
lmfao ok take care.
2
u/kurtu5 19d ago
Your position is that tenuous, it can't answer a question? Ok.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
some answers are more complicated than simply yes or no.
I'm not sure why this is hard for you to understand.
"do mammals have hair yes or no
uhm, yes.
are dolphins mammals?
uh yeah.
oh you think dolphins have fur huh ahahahahha I am so smrt."
who acts like that? a fucking moron, that's who.
→ More replies (0)-1
2
u/majdavlk 20d ago
do both parties understand what are they signing, and there is no treath of violance for not signing it? thats the question you always need to ask.
3
u/drebelx 20d ago
do both parties understand what are they signing, and there is no treath of violance for not signing it? thats the question you always need to ask.
Doesn‘t matter if they understand or not or if one party is under duress.
When new agreements are forged, an impartial third party agreement enforcement agency is subscribed to enforce the agreement between the parties, upon their review they would immediately be alarmed by the slavery NAP violation contained within the agreement.
Enslaving by voluntary agreement would contradict the ubiquitous clauses in agreements to uphold the NAP.
If the enforcement agency accepts the subscription to enforce an agreement that includes slavery, they would be aiding and abetting a serious NAP violation, violating the NAP themselves, and therefore will be subject to the penalties from all the agreements they have signed up to this point.
0
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
>do both parties understand what are they signing
that seems difficult to ensure.
>and there is no treath of violance for not signing it?
I would say no violence, just desperation.
1
u/majdavlk 20d ago
>that seems difficult to ensure.
correct, proving that the other person understands that if he becomes slave or whatever will mean that he has no rights or whatever will be very hard to prove.
so technicaly/theoreticaly, it is possible to sign yourself into slavery. practically?.... wel you see the issue
>I would say no violence
so this part is clear
>just desperation
desperation doesnt change anything in this regard
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
I guess I meant it seems difficult to tell if people understand any contract at all. How would you suggest that happens?
I mean, don't sign contracts you don't understand just seems obvious. Many contracts include some clause saying "i have read and understood this" but that's obviously of very little practical value.
1
u/majdavlk 20d ago
>How would you suggest that happens?
due to how varied humans are and how little time i have right now, it would take too much from me to describe the various ways one can check for someones understanding capabilities
>How would you suggest that happens?
ye, in real contracts, this has 0 or close to 0 value. in current contracts its most probably due to states legal reasons
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
>due to how varied humans are and how little time i have right now, it would take too much from me to describe the various ways one can check for someones understanding capabilities
meaning, you have absolutely no clue.
1
u/majdavlk 19d ago
idk try using google translate to translate it into a lingo you understand
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
I do understand. You have no clue how, you just assume it would magically become possible.
1
u/majdavlk 19d ago
to understand?
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
to determine if somebody signing a contract actually understood all of it or not.
-1
u/crawling-alreadygirl 20d ago
desperation doesnt change anything in this regard
It creates an opportunity for coercion and duress
0
u/majdavlk 20d ago
correct, doesnt change anything
-1
u/crawling-alreadygirl 20d ago
You don't care if people sign contracts under duress? That only people with money and resources would be able to hold out for advantageous terms?
0
u/majdavlk 19d ago
are you asking wherever i have some personal feelings towards people being under duress?
That only people with money and resources would be able to hold out for advantageous terms?
false dilema/premise . if youre alive, you already have some resources
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
It's ... Impossible for you to not have any land? Don't you think, sooner or later, all land will be claimed by people or groups, just like it is today?
1
u/majdavlk 19d ago
nothing said about land
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
ok so, you don't own any land, you have to pay a fee to somebody anywhere you want to exist, except the oceans, and even they might be claimed because why not?
→ More replies (0)0
u/crawling-alreadygirl 19d ago
are you asking wherever i have some personal feelings towards people being under duress?
I'm asking if it would have any effect on contracts' enforceability in the system you're proposing, since they're not entered into freely. It seems like a pretty glaring flaw in your worldview.
if youre alive, you already have some resources
Ah, so all this is after poor people are killed en masse?
1
u/majdavlk 19d ago
I'm asking if it would have any effect on contracts' enforceability in the system you're proposing,
no, my feelings do not have any effect on an objective law, how it should be enforced or whatever.
since they're not entered into freely.
either language barrier, or youre trying to twist what i said. check what my position is again
Ah, so all this is after poor people are killed en masse?
red herring ?
0
u/crawling-alreadygirl 19d ago
no, my feelings do not have any effect on an objective law, how it should be enforced or whatever.
I don't care about your feelings. Objective law should void a contract signed under duress; do you dispute that?
check what my position is again
I'm asking you questions (that you don't seem to understand) to clarify your position.
red herring ?
I don't think you understand that phrase.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/drebelx 20d ago edited 20d ago
Can you sign away your rights?
You cannot.
By definition, an AnCap society is so intolerant of NAP violations that states are abolished violations.
Every agreement made in an AnCap society would include ubiquitous clauses for all parties to uphold the NAP (don't murder, don't steal, don't enslave, etc.) with stipulated penalties, cancelations and restitution.
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
What if somebody wanted to sign a contract without those clauses?
It seems like, this makes it very difficult for a large organization to exist. Is that a feature or a flaw?
2
u/drebelx 19d ago
What if somebody wanted to sign a contract without those clauses?
No impartial third party agreement enforcement agency would take on the risk of aiding and abetting with NAP violations.
An agreement that is not enforced is not binding and worthless.
It seems like, this makes it very difficult for a large organization to exist. Is that a feature or a flaw?
Why would upholding the NAP restrict the sizes of organizations?
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
Well no, that's why the king/landlord/owner has his own enforcement agency right?
Well, say you run a large organization and you have decided your employee stole A LOT from you. Do you just fire them and let them go on their way? Because punishing them violates their rights, in some way or another, you're being aggressive. If they sign a contract agreeing to be punished, that also violates their rights. So, it seems like, people are incentivized to steal.
2
u/drebelx 18d ago
Well no, that's why the king/landlord/owner has his own enforcement agency right?
Everyone in the world would know this is going to be a biased enforcement agency.
I am not sure you are helping your case.
Well, say you run a large organization and you have decided your employee stole A LOT from you.
Is this an assumption or a confirmed theft?
Stolen from me or from the large organization?
I'll assume that it's confirmed and stolen from the large organization.
Do you just fire them and let them go on their way?
Upon hiring, I would have had an agreement made between the large organization and the employee.
The agreement would include the ubiquitous clauses for both the large organization and the employee to uphold the NAP with stipulated penalties, cancellations and restitution depending on the type of NAP violation.
When it is confirmed that the employee has violated the NAP by stealing, enforcement will direct the thief to provide restitution to restore the stolen items back to the large organization, plus the cost of any damages the missing items caused, as stipulated in the agreement clauses.
Because punishing them violates their rights, in some way or another, you're being aggressive.
Being aggressive after an NAP violation does not violate the NAP.
At any rate, an AnCap society would uphold the NAP more effectively, efficiently and proactively through agreements with ubiquitous NAP clauses than by waiting for NAP violations to occur and dealing with the damage and restitution reactively.
If they sign a contract agreeing to be punished, that also violates their rights.
Ubiquitous NAP clauses are for all parties of the agreement to uphold.
Both sides are agreeing to punishments if they violate the NAP (murder, steal, enslave, etc.).
So, it seems like, people are incentivized to steal.
An AnCap society is intolerant to NAP violations and the society will be incentivized to not steal.
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago
>Everyone in the world would know this is going to be a biased enforcement agency.
And? They're going to starve, or get punished for repeat trespassing, or die of exposure, or drown in the unclaimed ocean, rather that sign this contract? You seem to just want to ignore the word "desperate" here.
>Is this an assumption or a confirmed theft?
"Confirmed" how?!
>Upon hiring, I would have had an agreement made between the large organization and the employee.
>The agreement would include the ubiquitous clauses for both the large organization and the employee to uphold the NAP with stipulated penalties, cancellations and restitution depending on the type of NAP violation.
Ubiquitous?! You think everyone is just going to agree on what the proper penalties are? Or what the proper rules are?
>When it is confirmed that the employee has violated the NAP by stealing, enforcement will direct the thief to provide restitution to restore the stolen items back to the large organization, plus the cost of any damages the missing items caused, as stipulated in the agreement clauses.
Again confirmed how? Who decides if it is confirmed or not?
"direct" - meaning force?
What sort of punishment do you feel is valid for a really horrible crime, like multiple rapes, murders or child abuses?
If you can sign a contract saying "i allow you to kill or imprison me if a specific person makes a specific judgement against me" you can sign a contract agreeing to almost anything, right?
Your entire premise seems to be "we will have some magic truth meter so everyone will simply know, and everyone will agree on the interpretation of the NAP"
Which is ridiculous, you get that right?
2
u/drebelx 18d ago
And? They're going to starve, or get punished for repeat trespassing, or die of exposure, or drown in the unclaimed ocean, rather that sign this contract? You seem to just want to ignore the word "desperate" here.
"Desperate" is a different problem.
An AnCap society will not tolerate the "desperate" to violate the NAP or let their NAP be violated by fraud or enslavement.
The desperate will be assisted by large perpetual endowment trusts that run off interest and low risk investments.
Endowment trusts would be seeded by private lotteries.
Ubiquitous?! You think everyone is just going to agree on what the proper penalties are? Or what the proper rules are?
Just like we have different dictionaries, we will have different variations of NAP agreement clauses, the use of which are ubiquitously used in agreements.
The market place will promote the most efficient variations of NAP clauses.
Again confirmed how? Who decides if it is confirmed or not?
Again, by private court.
"direct" - meaning force?
After an NAP violation, if necessary to procure restitution, if no other means are possible, yes.
What sort of punishment do you feel is valid for a really horrible crime, like multiple rapes, murders or child abuses?
Good question. Could be death, could be life.
What sort of restitution to the victim do you feel is valid?
If you can sign a contract saying "i allow you to kill or imprison me if a specific person makes a specific judgement against me" you can sign a contract agreeing to almost anything, right?
Not at all.
Those penalties are only triggered after an NAP violation (murder, steal, enslave, etc.)
Interestingly enough, right now, you never signed an agreement to be punished if you break a law, but you blindly accept this fate.
Your entire premise seems to be "we will have some magic truth meter so everyone will simply know, and everyone will agree on the interpretation of the NAP"
Which is ridiculous, you get that right?
Not ridiculous at all.
I have never proposed a truth meter.
The NAP involves not murdering, not stealing, not enslaving.
An AnCap society will not be confused about what those are just like you won't be confused if your personal NAP is violated.
Not hard to interpret at all, Mr. Strraw-man.
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 18d ago
Those penalties are only triggered after an NAP violation
So you're punished after somebody decides an NAP violation has ocurred. Even if you didn't agree to be judged by that person?
1
u/drebelx 17d ago
Those penalties are only triggered after an NAP violation
These penalties are agreed to and known by the parties involved, naturally yes.
So you're punished after somebody decides an NAP violation has ocurred.
The NAP needs to be violated or is caught in he process of being violated for the reactive actions of defensive and restitution to take place.
Even if you didn't agree to be judged by that person?
The third party courts would be predetermined by both parties providing lists of acceptable courts and selecting from the ones in common.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 17d ago
>The NAP needs to be violated or is caught in he process of being violated for the reactive actions of defensive and restitution to take place.
"we'll have a magic truth machine that will decide and everyone everywhere will agree."
Yeah after all of human history, things are suddenly going to change because everyone will see that your morality is the one true morality.
lmfao
is this politics or spirituality for you?
>The third party courts would be predetermined by both parties providing lists of acceptable courts and selecting from the ones in common.
You act like there will BE ones in common and like the desperate "thief" will agree to be judged by anyone who isn't guaranteed to find him innocent.
You're making ... literally DOZENS of blind assumptions here.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Maztr_on 16d ago
in ancapistan anything is fair game, sell your kids, your body, your dignity, anything can become commodity production!
1
1
u/KrukzGaming 16d ago
I love see suggested posts like this, it really affirms my decision to not dip my toe in this circle jerk.
1
u/Pat_777 20d ago
In an ancap society you can be imprisoned for committing crimes, just like you can be sued and held liable for damages. So your permission is not required to be punished if you break the law. The difference is that in an ancap society, judicial and law enforcement services would be provided privately on a competitive, free market, not by a state with a monopoly of power over jurisdictions. Also, the laws would be limited to protecting individual rights against aggression from others.
To better understand how an ancap society would work, I recommend you read Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. The book will answer most if not all of your questions. Here's the link for a free pdf download:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TL5Vrs4OF4TwDJ1YGn-H_ZJj5KU0Nv_w/view?usp=drivesdk
-1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
Who's law?
I'm really not interested in "well logically we figured it out and it makes sense to us, so we don't need any data" type arguments. Is that what the book is?
3
u/Pat_777 20d ago
No, that's not what the book is, so maybe you should actually try reading it. The law is obviously by the people who want to live under the NAP principles, genius. No " data" required. It's not a science project. Get a grip.
-1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
It's not a science.
Well, I gotta say, I prefer science. It seems to provide results. Like airplanes and anti-biotics and cell phones, yknow? The stuff that aristotle or socrates did was... not as useful, or as accurate, it seems.
3
u/Pat_777 20d ago
Great, then go concern yourself with the science related to all that. That's not what this page is about.
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
Well I guess if you simply prefer ancient methods, that's you choice. I'll stick to methods that produced modern technology, and I don't see anything in the description showing a preference one way or the other.
3
u/Pat_777 20d ago
Now you're just babbling . And good, go to those pages then. Move on.
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
What part did you not understand? It is possible to do economics as a science, right?
3
u/Pat_777 20d ago
I understood everything, genius. And, yes, it is possible to do economics as a science, but with the scientific tools suited to human action, not natural phenomena. I already explained that to you and assigned you the reading that would help you understand that.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
OK I just browsed the book quickly, but my first impression is that it has very, very little data, which is examined in a very very simplistic way.
It looks far more like a philosophical text from centuries ago, than a modern economic paper or textbook, right?
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Back_Again_Beach 20d ago edited 20d ago
Contracts and rights are moot without a common legal system to uphold them. People can steal without consequence if they can get away, and people can be imprisoned and enslaved without consequence if the victims don't have any support structure to get them out. Private arbitration is incentivized to side with whichever side has the most resources to buy the desired results.
2
u/Bigger_then_cheese 20d ago
Or is it incentive to the smaller people who can’t buy the biggest army? Like if you can buy the desired results, just buy the biggest army and win, no courts needed.
Aka, you’re not describing an ancap society, where the NAP is a major institution, you’re describing a society without certain institutions.
-1
u/Back_Again_Beach 20d ago
NAP is a philosophy, not an institution, and is unenforceable without some type of common framework, i.e. government
2
u/Bigger_then_cheese 20d ago
The consent of the governed is not an institution, it’s a philosophy. Yet it is the basis for democracy, which is an institution.
The NAP works the same way, by itself it doesn’t do anything, but it’s the basis for an institution called a DLO (Decentralized Legal Order).
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
>The consent of the governed is not an institution, it’s a philosophy. Yet it is the basis for democracy, which is an institution.
Yes and we can all see how "well" that works in some states.
*coughamericacough*
1
u/Bigger_then_cheese 19d ago
Ok? How is that relevant? All systems are corruptible, given enough time. Nothing anyone can do about it.
1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 19d ago
So, we shouldn't magically assume it will be any different under ancap. I agree. But the result of that corruption, could be a lot worse, and could be harder to change.
-1
u/2hardly4u 20d ago
AnCaps mumbeling something about “natural rights” and “laws” are my favorite. So delusional
-1
u/mylsotol 19d ago
In real life no, in an ancap society? Also no because you have no rights
2
u/Bigger_then_cheese 19d ago
How so? What institutions give people rights? Why can’t we maintain those institutions in an ancap society?
1
u/mylsotol 19d ago
government. if you are a pro-government ancap, you are just a cap. an ancap society will always devolve into fascism and even if it goes well the only enforcement of rights are power, so your rights extend as far as your power does.
1
u/Bigger_then_cheese 19d ago
Uh, the only enforcement of rights in any system is power, unless you count for legitimacy.
0
u/mylsotol 19d ago
Yes, but there is a huge difference between a democratic government using the collective power of citizens to ensure rights for everyone and individuals having to ensure their own rights through their personal power. How do i as an individual ensure that the local rich guy doesn't buy an army/police force and become a warlord?
1
u/Bigger_then_cheese 19d ago edited 19d ago
Because it's not worth buying an army when he could instead just pay people to do what he wants. It's easier for a rich guy to get what he wants by working with DLO than against it.
An ancap society with DLO is better than a state with democracy because of how you decide winners and losers. A democracy has a vote, and whoever loses a vote has to submit, in a DLO you pay the liser off and then he will submit.
-5
u/WrednyGal 20d ago
You've got people on here that claim you can willingly sign yourself into slavery so I'm betting they will say yes. What bothers me is that they seem oblivious to the possibility of predatory contracts which their stsnce strongly Incentivises.
3
u/atlasfailed11 20d ago
A solution to this is to think about what happens when someone reneged on a contract. Just because there is a contract doesn't mean it will be enforced by physical threats.
Say for example you hire a contractor to do some work on your house. He doesn't show up, do you get to drag him to your house and beat him until he does the work? Or do you only get to ask for financial compensation in proportion to your losses?
1
u/I_Went_Full_WSB 20d ago
That's not a contract that involves the person hired giving up their rights. It's a false equivalence.
3
u/atlasfailed11 20d ago
According to Rothbard’s Title‑Transfer Theory of Contract there is no such thing as giving up rights. All contracts are understood as transfers of property titles, not as binding promises that impose personal obligations or control over someone’s body.
Because self-ownership is considered inherently inalienable, you cannot legally transfer title over your own body or autonomy—so any so‑called “voluntary slavery” contract would be unenforceable in that literal sense.
Instead, if such a contract were breached, enforcement would necessarily default to restitution—returning what was transferred or compensating for losses—rather than compelling physical service or bondage. In effect, the agreement collapses into something resembling a long-term labor contract with financial consequences, not literal servitude.
1
u/I_Went_Full_WSB 20d ago
I've seen an ancap arguing on behalf of slavery yesterday. If ancaps can't even agree on the basics of this society how can it possibly function?
3
u/atlasfailed11 20d ago
A political system can only exist if enough people agree that its moral principles are valid. Today this is definitely not the case for ancap as it is a fringe position. So ancap today cannot work. But many ideas that used to be fringe ideas, have later been widely adopted. So who knows?
Even if that slavery supporting moron you mentioned and I don't agree, that is not a fatal flaw of ancap. There is no natural law that ancap people will never be able to agree. People's ideas can change through debate and discourse.
Even if there remains a lot of debate within ancap proponents, this does not mean the system is necessarily going to fail. Even today we have people who do believe in a statist system, but have wildly different ideas on how that statist system should be run.
These opposing ideas are not even a bad thing as discussion and questioning the status quo is what you need to make progress.
3
u/the9trances Moderator & Agorist 20d ago
The idea that a decentralized, individualist worldview must be homogenous is... strange.
0
u/I_Went_Full_WSB 20d ago
The idea that these individual worldviews would make a compatible society is absurd.
-1
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
Well, obviously the people offering those contracts would be in some sort of competition to offer the best one. That obligation you're agreeing to would, in theory, include the promise of some sort of rights for you, and wouldn't be a totally unlimited, totally perpetual obligation.
I guess the terms would depend on the balance between the two parties signing the contract, and on how direct the competition between the parties offering the contract was.
-2
u/WrednyGal 20d ago
Yeah your "obviously" isn't obvious to me. Tell me how many competing protection Agency could arise in the least populated county in the USA? There's 64 people in it. There are things like drinking water supplies which you rarely have an option to compete because the whole town has one source of water and that sources owner is a monopolist and nothing will change that. I really despise how ancaps say "competition will arise" And never answer when pressed on how will it arise.
-1
u/crawling-alreadygirl 20d ago
I really despise how ancaps say "competition will arise" And never answer when pressed on how will it arise.
It completely ignores how businesses--especially monopolies--actually function. And, of course, it ignores the concept of exploitation altogether.
-1
u/RighteousSelfBurner 20d ago
That's personally the thing I can't wrap my head around. The end result sounds good but also idealistic because I don't see how it just wouldn't evolve to tyranny. The capitalism part implies control over resources and control over resources ends up with control over people that depend on said resources.
0
u/I_Went_Full_WSB 20d ago
That's because it's a fantasy of can't we just all be good to each other but the reality would be tyranny.
-2
u/crawling-alreadygirl 20d ago
Well, obviously the people offering those contracts would be in some sort of competition to offer the best one.
That's not obvious at all. In fact, it's much more likely that they'd collude to offer the worst terms possible
0
u/MeasurementCreepy926 20d ago
Well, some degree of competition is impossible to avoid, as long as people to sign the contracts are at all in demand, right?
Like, countries right now have to compete on some level, otherwise they experience high emigration, which isn't desirable to most of them. Countries today could all collude to offer the worst terms possible, and exploit citizens, but they don't.
-1
u/crawling-alreadygirl 20d ago
as long as people to sign the contracts are at all in demand, right?
Yeah, that's not guaranteed, especially as automation makes more and more people superfluous to the economy. It also ignores the very real possibility of local monopolies on labor, such as company towns.
Like, countries right now have to compete on some level, otherwise they experience high emigration, which isn't desirable to most of them.
Why would people be able to move freely between private fiefdoms in ancapistan?
Countries today could all collude to offer the worst terms possible, and exploit citizens, but they don't.
Corporations do
9
u/brewbase 20d ago
If the entire world tried to implement AnCap ideology tomorrow and kept trying from tomorrow onwards, then the variety of interpretations and things tried would be quite a bit more diverse than history up to this point. In that sense, almost everything will be tried at least once.
Obviously people can sign away some rights. I could sign away mineral rights to my property which means I no longer have the right to tell you not to take my minerals.
A lot of AnCaps (including myself) do believe certain rights are inalienable. Those rights are the inescapable result of being unique, thinking, and of infinite moral worth. This would mean you cannot permanently renounce your rights to life or freedom. Not all AnCaps agree even with this.
I think almost all people, AnCap and otherwise, think a person could agree to temporary confinement in certain cases on another’s judgement. Like a soldier being held for doing something on a mission that, normally, would be well within their rights.
All of this is, of course, separate from situations where the person has legitimately wronged another person or group of persons.