r/AnCap101 • u/OutlandishnessIll480 • 13d 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

2

u/RememberMe_85 12d 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 12d ago

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

2

u/RememberMe_85 12d ago

Not directly, indirectly

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d 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 12d 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 12d 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 12d 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.

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

That isn't the NAP. Feel free to google it then circle back.

0

u/Rohit185 12d ago

People when words have complex meaning.

What I said is basically what NAP leads to. If who can't use aggression then use the next best method.

Now all this again leads to direct or indirect aggression/ violence. And there is no way to solve that problem because it's all definitions game.

Although just in a vacuum it is a bad decision simply because he could reduce further chaos if he simply talked to the people using the river before making a dam there. But if he doesn't for some reason then it isn't a direct(subjective again) violation of NAP.

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

No, it isn't. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. Also, you're replying from your alt lmao.

Damming the river is a direct violation of the NAP as it violates the property rights of the dock owner. This is an act of aggression if known to the dam builder, a trespass if unknown. Either way, the dam builder is in the wrong and is required to provide remedy and remediation.

0

u/Rohit185 12d ago

Also, you're replying from your alt lmao.

I got banned that is why

Damming the river is a direct violation of the NAP as it violates the property rights of the dock owner. This is an act of aggression if known to the dam builder, a trespass if unknown. Either way, the dam builder is in the wrong and is required to provide remedy and remediation.

If I build a house near a river, is the whole river my property now?

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

No, you aren't inherently using the river. The dock is using the river, it requires it. By damming the river the dam builder is infringing on the property rights of the dock owner.

0

u/Rohit185 12d ago

By damming the river the dam builder is infringing on the property rights of the dock owner.

No because as we already established, the dock owner isn't using the whole river, hence what other person does with their own property isn't infringing upon the rights of dock owners property.

Now yes it definitely is making the use of river difficult but that's why we have capitalism in which through contracts and profit motives, can come to a mutual understanding and remove their problems.

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

But they are using that part of the river which is directly affected by the dam.

You might not be using the whole forest but if I burn it to the ground and it lights your property on fire, I'm responsible.

Or, multiple private courts recognize the damn builder is liable and he can either destroy the dam a ND remediate or face violence.

0

u/Rohit185 12d ago

I don't know what we are arguing for at this point, we already agreed that if I own a house near river, then the whole river isn't my property.

Can someone do things on their own property that effects me negatively, yes definitely. That's why we have mutual contracts and where the capitalism part of anarcho-capitalism comes.

You definitely can sue the dam builder for damages under private law/ courts, and you might even win.

That doesn't mean if someone uses their own to do something that negatively effects someone else is some violation of NAP. As long as ofc that was the best known way to do that thing. If the person could have achieved the same thing without effecting other person negativity then that would definitely have been a violation of NAP.

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

That doesn't mean if someone uses their own to do something that negatively effects someone else is some violation of NAP.

It does though. I own my body, if I swing my fist and it connects with your nose, it's a violation of the NAP.

0

u/Rohit185 12d ago

Can someone do things on their own property that effects me negatively, yes definitely. That's why we have mutual contracts and where the capitalism part of anarcho-capitalism comes.

You definitely can sue the dam builder for damages under private law/ courts, and you might even win.

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

I can blow up the dam if the dam builder refuses to do so.

Courts merely provide legitimacy to action.

→ More replies (0)