hello all,
Assume, that we live in an anarcho-capitalist society and assume that I own a sufficiently large plot of land to build an atomic plant. Even if I am a responsible businessman and take all possible precautions, the risk of a meltdown cannot be eliminated completely. Should this unfortunate event happen, then indeed I would be held liable for all damages and loss of life caused. Does building of such a high-risk device constitute an agression against properties of my neighbors? Or more generally, is threat (or external risk condition) considered an agression? If yes, then how would hypotetical libertarian society deal with prevention or punishment of such actions?
I am grateful for any anwers/suggestions.
Michal
I don't see why it would be aggression. A person could easily kill someone else with a car as well. Should the ownership of or the manufacture of a car be outlawed? What about steak knives?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
michalko:Or more generally, is threat (or external risk condition) considered an agression?
No.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
i don't think cars are good analogy, when you enter a private highway, you express your consent with the rules of the road and as such accept the risk of being injured by other drivers. Nor manufacture of cars or knives for that matter. I did not question the right of owners to build a dangerous device, rather than their right to use it (within the boundaries of their property) in a way that constitutes risk to other people's property without their consent.
Spideynw: michalko:Or more generally, is threat (or external risk condition) considered an agression? No.
what about the act of pointing a gun at someone?
michalko: ... when you enter a private highway, you express your consent with the rules of the road and as such accept the risk of being injured by other drivers. Nor manufacture of cars or knives for that matter. I did not question the right of owners to build a dangerous device, rather than their right to use it (within the boundaries of their property) in a way that constitutes risk to other people's property without their consent.
Then your assumption is that nuclear plant is being run recklessly.
Daniel:Then your assumption is that nuclear plant is being run recklessly.
I thought libertarians generally agreed that threats of aggression were on the same level as aggression?
Daniel: Then your assumption is that nuclear plant is being run recklessly.
that is something one can never be sure about, the plant owner is not obliged to disclose operational details.
Is the plant not being built to offer consumers a cheaper form of energy? I can't imagine it even attracting investors or getting started without without first bringing in private safety organizations to establish the reliability of it.
Le Master: Is the plant not being built to offer consumers a cheaper form of energy? I can't imagine it even attracting investors or getting started without without first bringing in private safety organizations to establish the reliability of it.
the owner could be a wealthy Paris Hilton descendant with no shareholders and can export the energy to distant regions, where customer would not care about how the plants is run (as long as they get the product)
Snowflake:I thought libertarians generally agreed that threats of aggression were on the same level as aggression?
They are, but simply building a power plant is not a threat. A threat would be if the builder told everyone he was going to build it to cause a meltdown. Just doing something that could possibly cause an accident is not a threat.
BobT:They are, but simply building a power plant is not a threat. A threat would be if the builder told everyone he was going to build it to cause a meltdown. Just doing something that could possibly cause an accident is not a threat.
michalko: the owner could be a wealthy Paris Hilton descendant with no shareholders and can export the energy to distant regions, where customer would not care about how the plants is run (as long as they get the product)
And the workers and engineers at the plant won't care how safe it is either?
BobT: They are, but simply building a power plant is not a threat. A threat would be if the builder told everyone he was going to build it to cause a meltdown. Just doing something that could possibly cause an accident is not a threat.
would you not need an explicit consent of others for exposing their persons and properties to a systematic risk ?
Snowflake: Daniel:Then your assumption is that nuclear plant is being run recklessly. Even if it is being run as safely as possible there is still a chance that it would explode. I thought libertarians generally agreed that threats of aggression were on the same level as aggression?
And there is a chance that if I drive around in my golf cart, that I might crash it into my neighbor's garden.
michalko: Daniel: Then your assumption is that nuclear plant is being run recklessly. that is something one can never be sure about, the plant owner is not obliged to disclose operational details.
michalko: Le Master: Is the plant not being built to offer consumers a cheaper form of energy? I can't imagine it even attracting investors or getting started without without first bringing in private safety organizations to establish the reliability of it. the owner could be a wealthy Paris Hilton descendant with no shareholders and can export the energy to distant regions, where customer would not care about how the plants is run (as long as they get the product)
Le Master: And the workers and engineers at the plant won't care how safe it is either?
not that they could not be offered a premium for not being too nosy, but i think we should return to the original question. Can one consider an introduction of permanent threat (whatever small) against his property as an agression
michalko: Le Master: And the workers and engineers at the plant won't care how safe it is either? not that they could not be offered a premium for not being too nosy, but i think we should return to the original question. Can one consider an introduction of permanent threat (whatever small) against his property as an agression
Oh for crying out loud, not even Dr. No built his nuclear plant in some suburban neighborhood. He chose a safe place, an island off the coast.
Daniel:And there is a chance that if I drive around in my golf cart, that I might crash it into my neighbor's garden.
Daniel: Oh for crying out loud, not even Dr. No built his nuclear plant in some suburban neighborhood. He chose a safe place, an island off the coast.
i wouldn't be able to sell this to my statist friends, as I am pretty sure I'd be asked on how the free market and private law would solve this real life situation. I can't reply that oh, come on, who would build that thing next to your house?
michalko:i wouldn't be able to sell this to my statist friends, as I am pretty sure I'd be asked on how the free market and private law would solve this real life situation. I can't reply that oh, come on, who would build that thing next to your house?
your friends willl only be convinced of the value of liberty if you can demonstrated that private businessmen will not put them in danger by building nuclear power plans near them , even though they can not demonstrate that government and state-sponsered businessmen will not put them in danger by building nuclear power plants under the state;
why not leave nuclear power plants out of the calculus and weigh up liberty against slavery along other dimensions, where they differ more obviously.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: your friends willl only be convinced of the value of liberty if you can demonstrated that private businessmen will not put them in danger by building nuclear power plans near them , even though they can not demonstrate that government and state-sponsered businessmen will not put them in danger by building nuclear power plants under the state; why not leave nuclear power plants out of the calculus and weigh up liberty against slavery along other dimensions, where they differ more obviously.
this is a valid point and i am inclined to agree, but having an extensive record of debating statists, i can tell that they always consider mistakes and dangers of governments being caused by wrong people in charge - never by the institution itself. And as a rule of thumb the debate always shifts to extreme situations (like what would happen if i homesteaded strait of gibraltar, or this nuclear situation) So as long as we claim that under market rule, businesses would refrain from dangerous projects like this, we will have to explain on what basis we make this assumption. Is it because private law dictates to obtain a consent to such risky business from affected property owners? Or is it because businesses would be constrained by market forces and how (would consumers stop doing business with reckless producers even if the product is desirable?)?
michalko:i don't think cars are good analogy, when you enter a private highway, you express your consent with the rules of the road and as such accept the risk of being injured by other drivers.
Well, when I walk out my door and someone runs me over, there was no consent. So yes, the analogy is valid.
michalko: Spideynw: michalko:Or more generally, is threat (or external risk condition) considered an agression? No. what about the act of pointing a gun at someone?
I was saying no to risk, not to a threat. Intentionally threatening another is aggression. Planting a tree that may someday in the future fall on someone if a storm hits it is not.
michalko: nirgrahamUK: your friends willl only be convinced of the value of liberty if you can demonstrated that private businessmen will not put them in danger by building nuclear power plans near them , even though they can not demonstrate that government and state-sponsered businessmen will not put them in danger by building nuclear power plants under the state; why not leave nuclear power plants out of the calculus and weigh up liberty against slavery along other dimensions, where they differ more obviously. this is a valid point and i am inclined to agree, but having an extensive record of debating statists, i can tell that they always consider mistakes and dangers of governments being caused by wrong people in charge - never by the institution itself. And as a rule of thumb the debate always shifts to extreme situations (like what would happen if i homesteaded strait of gibraltar, or this nuclear situation) So as long as we claim that under market rule, businesses would refrain from dangerous projects like this, we will have to explain on what basis we make this assumption. Is it because private law dictates to obtain a consent to such risky business from affected property owners? Or is it because businesses would be constrained by market forces and how (would consumers stop doing business with reckless producers even if the product is desirable?)?
I swear to you that driving a golf cart is pretty risky business. Ever driven one of those into a garden or a pond?
Daniel: I swear to you that driving a golf cart is pretty risky business. Ever driven one of those into a garden or a pond?
this one's still on my todo list, right between milking a whale and naked mud wrestling :-)
Spideynw: I was saying no to risk, not to a threat. Intentionally threatening another is aggression. Planting a tree that may someday in the future fall on someone if a storm hits it is not.
i respectfully disagree. Being struck by a tree in a storm is a natural disaster, on par with being struck by a lightning that caused it (the odds are roughly the same), the cause is not the tree but the storm - natural phenomenon outside human control. Atomic plant is a man made systematic risk. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely to be struck by your neighbor's tree if you stay at your property.
michalko: Spideynw: I was saying no to risk, not to a threat. Intentionally threatening another is aggression. Planting a tree that may someday in the future fall on someone if a storm hits it is not. i respectfully disagree. Being struck by a tree in a storm is a natural disaster, on par with being struck by a lightning that caused it (the odds are roughly the same), the cause is not the tree but the storm - natural phenomenon outside human control. Atomic plant is a man made systematic risk. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely to be struck by your neighbor's tree if you stay at your property.
Plating a tree is within human control, especially if you do it wrong. Btw, is it also extremely unlikely that you will die because of nuclear meltdown.
michalko:i can tell that they always consider mistakes and dangers of governments being caused by wrong people in charge - never by the institution itself
Daniel: michalko: Spideynw: I was saying no to risk, not to a threat. Intentionally threatening another is aggression. Planting a tree that may someday in the future fall on someone if a storm hits it is not. i respectfully disagree. Being struck by a tree in a storm is a natural disaster, on par with being struck by a lightning that caused it (the odds are roughly the same), the cause is not the tree but the storm - natural phenomenon outside human control. Atomic plant is a man made systematic risk. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely to be struck by your neighbor's tree if you stay at your property. Plating a tree is within human control, especially if you do it wrong. Btw, is it also extremely unlikely that you will die because of nuclear meltdown.
true, but you can avoid the risk of dying by a tree completely (you can avoid his trees), the risk of dying by your neighbor's nuclear plant going off is outside your control
michalko: Daniel: michalko: Spideynw: I was saying no to risk, not to a threat. Intentionally threatening another is aggression. Planting a tree that may someday in the future fall on someone if a storm hits it is not. i respectfully disagree. Being struck by a tree in a storm is a natural disaster, on par with being struck by a lightning that caused it (the odds are roughly the same), the cause is not the tree but the storm - natural phenomenon outside human control. Atomic plant is a man made systematic risk. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely to be struck by your neighbor's tree if you stay at your property. Plating a tree is within human control, especially if you do it wrong. Btw, is it also extremely unlikely that you will die because of nuclear meltdown. true, but you can avoid the risk of dying by a tree completely (you can avoid his trees), the risk of dying by your neighbor's nuclear plant going off is outside your control
You could avoid dying from a nuclear meltdown by moving out the neighborhood. (Me being devil's advocate here)
Daniel: You could avoid dying from a nuclear meltdown by moving out the neighborhood. (Me being devil's advocate here)
Anyone forcing you to accept a risk (stay or move out) is ipso facto agressing against you.
There's nothing magical about anarchy. If people didn't want a nuclear power plant to spring up in their neighborhood, there would be market demand for the forcible prevention of that sort of thing - even if that violated the plant owner's rights or the NAP.
Why anarchy fails
AJ: There's nothing magical about anarchy. If people didn't want a nuclear power plant to spring up in their neighborhood, there would be market demand for the forcible prevention of that sort of thing - even if that violated the plant owner's rights or the NAP.
AEN: What about the argument that 100% reserves requires government intervention?
MNR: I regard fractional-reserve banking as an intervention in the free market, just as any crime against person and property is intervention. In the case of banking, the government is allowing the crime to be committed.
But how do we address the needs of trade argument, those who say that business has a demand for credit? Well, there are many things demanded on the market that are also crimes. There may be a demand for killing redheads. And there is certainly a demand for government loot. What's so great about market demand? if it is not within a framework of non-aggression, there will always be a demand for fraud and theft.
The free bankers accept a kind of David Friedmanite anarchism, where there is no law, only people engaging in exchange and buying people out. If you have a group that wants to kill redheads, the redheads will have to buy them off if they value their hair. I think this is monstrous, the kind of anarchism would indeed be chaos. Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean it should be fulfilled.
Initiating violence isn't the answer.
A good analogy is commericial aircraft. There is always a risk of a commercial aircraft crashing into other people's property - more likely to occur than a nuclear meltdown. Should the use of aircraft be considered an aggression? Would passengers also be liable?
Selecting the nuclear power plant is another attempt to insert emotion into a rational argument.
You are holding people to standards that even a state dares not go - accountability to every potential risk imaginable. Would imposing such standards also be a form of aggression?
MNR:Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean it should be fulfilled.
Whether or not they should, desires that many people have will tend to be fulfilled especially in a free market. The argument to counter this would be that more people desire strict adherence to property rights, so the net demand will override this. Whether that is true depends on the population in question.
Conza88:Initiating violence isn't the answer.
Don't you mean initiating aggression? What if someone finds the act of building a nuclear power plant next to their home an aggressive act?
K.C. Farmer:Selecting the nuclear power plant is another attempt to insert emotion into a rational argument.
The OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point was to select something that has a credible chance of killing the surrounding population. Perhaps a nuclear power plant does not. However, say your neighbor is trying to build a nuke in their basement. He also likes to juggle cyanide-filled glass balls in his front yard. He has a reputation as kind of a loose cannon. No property rights are being violated, but you understandably fear for your life. Again, anarchy is not something magical. Reckless endangerment will probably still be a crime. If there are private courts, they will likely rule for some kind of intervention that Rothbard or Hoppe will say violates the NAP.
AJ: The OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point was to select something that has a credible chance of killing the surrounding population. Perhaps a nuclear power plant does not. However, say your neighbor is trying to build a nuke in their basement. He also likes to juggle cyanide-filled glass balls in his front yard. He has a reputation as kind of a loose cannon. No property rights are being violated, but you understandably fear for your life. Again, anarchy is not something magical. Reckless endangerment will probably still be a crime. If there are private courts, they will likely rule for some kind of intervention that Rothbard or Hoppe will say violates the NAP.
That was indeed the point. Though if we agree that reckless endangerment is an aggresion, then intervention does not violate NAP. But I agree, that this specific part of natural law would have to "discovered" by private courts (not legislated).
michalko: Daniel: You could avoid dying from a nuclear meltdown by moving out the neighborhood. (Me being devil's advocate here) Anyone forcing you to accept a risk (stay or move out) is ipso facto agressing against you.
Then so is driving (pedestrians get hit all the time), flying an airplane (planes crash into buildings), holding a gun in the same room as another person (accidental shootings do happen), etc., etc.
Danger is not the same as a threat.
AJ: K.C. Farmer:Selecting the nuclear power plant is another attempt to insert emotion into a rational argument. The OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point was to select something that has a credible chance of killing the surrounding population. Perhaps a nuclear power plant does not. However, say your neighbor is trying to build a nuke in their basement. He also likes to juggle cyanide-filled glass balls in his front yard. He has a reputation as kind of a loose cannon. No property rights are being violated, but you understandably fear for your life. Again, anarchy is not something magical. Reckless endangerment will probably still be a crime. If there are private courts, they will likely rule for some kind of intervention that Rothbard or Hoppe will say violates the NAP.
Nuclear power plant, nuclear bomb, cyanide-filled glass balls...still apply the absurd in order to elicit an emotional response into a rational argument.
You also seem to ignore the cost of irresponsible behavior under ancap. Other people aren't required to sell him the materials to construct his power plant/bomb/insane glass juggling balls of cyanide or to let him access to their property.
But I get what you are after. Pick an extreme example to challenge the justification/morality of ancap in an attempt to get support for a minarchist position. That would be fine if minarchism wasn't filled with as many holes as it has, not to mention the uncontrollable tendancy to evolve into expansive statism. I'll live with hypothetical lunatics of ancap over the real madness of statism under even the most restrained minarchy any day.