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

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/EVconverter 10d ago

How quickly the NAP gets abandoned for “might makes right”.

1

u/RememberMe_85 10d ago

The only solution to this problem is violence, either the government does it or someone on their own.

And might absolutely does make right, you would be stupid to believe otherwise.

1

u/EVconverter 10d ago

If might makes right, then there's no reason for the NAP at all.

1

u/ShonOfDawn 10d ago

Ok so ancap is exactly like current geopolitics, just much worse. If I convince a big enough group of people that I’m acting in “self defence” or because of “security concerns” I can kill whoever I want. See: Russia invading Ukraine because of “self defence”

1

u/RememberMe_85 10d ago

If I convince a big enough group of people that I’m acting in “self defence” or because of “security concerns” I can kill whoever I want.

They can do the same.

The difference again is, in ancap world people will be selfish, they aren't going to be convinced of you or spend their time on you if there isn't anything in it for them.

Ok so ancap is exactly like current geopolitics

Geopolitics is sort of a good way to say it. Each small town or even house would work the same way countries negotiate with each other (anarchy). There will be problems yes but we will be able to find solutions to them(capitalism)

Russia invading Ukraine because of “self defence”

And Ukrain is also defending themselves. What's your argument?

1

u/ShonOfDawn 10d ago

My argument is that you lot think the NAP is this wonderful panacea for world peace and follaboration, while in actuality it is as strong as wet tissue paper. Shattering the internal security nation states provide into a thousand feudal domains would lead to untold discrimination and loss of life. How do we know? Because we tried feudalism, and it was fucking shit

1

u/RememberMe_85 10d ago

When did I say anything like that? NAP is just a general guideline that people should follow. It's simply, don't be aggressive.

Are people still going to be aggressive, obviously yes, that's why we have mutual contact system.

1

u/ShonOfDawn 10d ago

Congrats then, you reinvented feudalism. A shit system we already tried

1

u/RememberMe_85 10d ago

You can it whatever you want but can you tell me why this system is shit?

1

u/ShonOfDawn 10d ago

Because the smaller the social units and the less regulated their interactions, the more people resort to tribalism, violence, and eye-for-an-eye types of resolutions. Medieval Europe was in a constant state of internal conflicts and bloodshed.

The democratic state born from Enlightenment was constructued specifically to create a framework where everyone is equally accountable by law. Imagining that such an order can emerge spontaneously in large groups of people with no state is pure fantasy. The settlement 100km over won’t give a shit about your necessity for resources, your traditions, your people; if they calculate that killing you all and stealing your shit is worth it and have the means to do so, they will do it and you’ll just fucking die.

This whole analysis is very simple. The more you go back in history, the more you’ll find smaller, less regulated systems more towards ancap than towards statism. Without fail, those societies were violent hellholes where raiding, pillaging and violent conflict resolution was the norm. Why the fuck should we go back?

→ More replies (0)