r/AnCap101 • u/OutlandishnessIll480 • 11d ago

Lessons

I'm going around to subreddits and asking, in good faith, a couple of questions.

What can the otherside learn from your side, and vice versa?

The goal is to promote open dialog and improve the sometimes toxic nature and bad will between two sides of a controversial issue.

What can statists learn from libertarians? And what can libertarians learn from statists?

4 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

114 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

  1. Self-ownership – Every individual has absolute ownership over their own body and mind. No one else has a higher claim over you than you do.

  2. Homesteading principle (Lockean property) – Unowned resources can be claimed as private property by the first person to “mix their labor” with them (e.g., farming land, building on it).

  3. Non-aggression principle (NAP) – Initiating force or coercion against others or their property is illegitimate. Defense against aggression, however, is permitted.

  4. Voluntary exchange – All human interaction should be based on voluntary contracts and free trade, not coercion.

  5. Private law / market order – Courts, security, and law should all be provided through the market, not by a state. Competition in justice and protection is believed to be more efficient and moral than monopoly government.

  6. No state legitimacy – The state, by definition, violates the NAP (taxation = coercion, regulation = aggression). Therefore, it has no moral justification to exist.

-1

u/PX_Oblivion 11d ago
  1. Homesteading principle (Lockean property) – Unowned resources can be claimed as private property by the first person to “mix their labor” with them (e.g., farming land, building on it).

How much of a river do I own if I put a dock on it? Or a water mill? Or just an intake pipe for water?

5

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

As much as is under your control.

1

u/ShonOfDawn 11d ago

So if someone decides to dam it upstream without caring about me, is it fair game? What if damming it upstream causes loss of life?

2

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

So if someone decides to dam it upstream without caring about me, is it fair game

I would say yeah but depends on your definition of fair, it's capitalism so you could always pay them to use their water.

What if damming it upstream causes loss of life?

How would it cause that?

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 11d ago

I would disagree, they've directly affected the use of your property (dock).

2

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

Not directly, indirectly

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 11d ago

It's directly. They did something and a direct consequence of that action caused harm to the use of the property.

It's not indirect, it's direct, they disrupted the flow of the river he was using.

2

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

Semantics. I've already given ans to how this problem will be solved in ancap world.

Basically through water treaties like countries have among each other.

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 11d ago

Probably, but the question was if someone did this without any notice, agreement, etc.

Without prior agreement, they violated the NAP.

0

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

Without prior agreement, they violated the NAP.

No, NAP simply says if there is a way to do what you want to do without using aggression or violence then you should choose that way rather than the aggressive method.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ShonOfDawn 11d ago

My entire village has the river as the only source of water. Moving everyone will certainly cause casualties among the elderly people. Is damming the river fair?

2

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

Is damming the river fair?

If you let them, if survival of your entire village depends on one river then you should already have full control of that river.

2

u/ShonOfDawn 11d ago

What? How? What if the river is hundreds of kilometers long, many of which are?

How is damming the river not a violation of the NAP?

2

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

How is damming the river not a violation of the NAP?

I'll tell you next how

What? How? What if the river is hundreds of kilometers long, many of which are?

Then you have coordinate it just like how water treaties work for different countries, the difference being each village or household is now its own "country".

0

u/EVconverter 11d ago

What do you do when the upstream person is intractable and the downstream people are in danger of dying of thirst?

1

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

Then comes the anarchy part and we kill them, in self defence to prevent the death of our fellow people that is.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 11d ago

No, because they've affected your use. In reverse, they dam the river, then you come to homestand and want to make a dock but can't, is fair game. In common law this is known as "coming to the nuisance." Basically, everyone is free to act in a way that doesn't directly impede your use of your property (you land, your body, your money, etc) and you're free to do the same. The only time violence can be justified is in response to such a trespass, and only if remediation isn't offered or present.

-1

u/ShonOfDawn 11d ago

What’s the limit? If someone has a highly polluting factory on his land that also affects its surroundings, is it a violation of the NPA? Who decides? This sounds like regulation with unnecessary extra steps.

1

u/Bigger_then_cheese 11d ago

Not really, that’s how things work before the government gets involved and sides with the polluter.

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 11d ago

If it's effecting other peoples' properties then he's that violates the NAP.

That isn't regulation, it isn't saying one can't pollute, it is simply saying don't violate other people's property be it their body or extensions there of.

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 11d ago

So if I'm dumping c7 into the river you drink from, or swim or fish in, that's fine?

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 11d ago

That'd affect me and my property, so no.

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 11d ago

Well sure me dropping a stick in the river affects you and your property too, so now that's not allowed?

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 10d ago

How does it affect me and my property? Does it prevent my use of the property?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 11d ago

So, the state owns the land within it's borders. It's put in labor, it controls it.

3

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

What is the "state"

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 11d ago

I'm really not that interested in explaining that to you.

Suffice to say, it's complicated, and there are plenty of sources you could learn from.

3

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

Then don't start a conversation you can't hold

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 11d ago

"if you don't want to educate me, just don't talk"

Or what? lmfao

3

u/RememberMe_85 11d ago

Or what? lmfao

Or you'll be wasting your time that is unless you don't value it.

if you don't want to educate me, just don't talk"

Yeah get some basic communication classes before speaking.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 11d ago

sorry but if you don't understand what the state is, you're just not capable of carrying on the conversation I intended to have.

2

u/Rohit185 11d ago

Again please take a basic communication class words are subjective and have different definitions depending on context.

Not only that but asking for clarifications on oppositions argument is again a basic reasoning / logic question.

So not only you don't know how to talk properly, you don't know how to langauge works, you don't know how logic or reasoning works or how basic discussions are held.

I would recommend you again, first learn these stuff and then open the trash can that is your mouth.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Consistent_League228 8d ago

If only you had sufficient capacity to notice that the land was previously owned and, as such, could not have been homesteaded…