atomic plant

K.C. Farmer:

Nuclear power plant, nuclear bomb, cyanide-filled glass balls...still apply the absurd in order to elicit an emotional response into a rational argument.

I think a guy trying to build a nuke in his basement or messing with dangerous chemicals is plausible enough. Juggling cyanide-filled glass balls is absurd, but so what? I can think of an example from real life if you prefer: the neighbors start a giant bonfire and leave it burning overnight with no one attending it. This happened in my neighborhood a few years ago. In fact the fire was still burning underground for several weeks, near a ton of brush and forest, in midsummer. No NAP violations as a result of the fire, but actions violating the owner's property may well be taken (and justified as legal) such as entering the property and dousing the fire with water even in anarchy or under a system with PDAs and private courts.

K.C. Farmer:

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.

Reading into my post a fair bit aren't you? I don't support minarchy. I support anarchy. I'm just making the point that if you want private courts to decide the law with no monopoly power keeping them in line with a certain set of rules (for example the NAP), they can be expected to adhere to that set of rules only to the extent that there is strong consumer demand to do so. In other words, if we want private courts to make the laws, we don't get to decide what laws they make, beyond our own tiny individual influence as a consumer of law on the market (and of course our ability to gradually influence and educate other consumers on such a market).

AJ:

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.

The argument to counter that would be, the red heads have natural rights - that stem from self ownership, just like all of us do. Those initiating violence against them are criminals, doesn't matter if they do it as individuals or as a group or organisation.

AJ:

Conza88:

Initiating violence isn't the answer.

Don't you mean initiating aggression?

What is the difference between aggression and violence? And no I did not.

AJ:

What if someone finds the act of building a nuclear power plant next to their home an aggressive act?

Define aggressive.

Then they can ostracize, boycott, protest, bargain, deal, whatever they want, without violating the NAP - and becoming criminal aggressors.

They may own the roads around the neighborhood... well then they could restrict access to the trucks that are carrying goods to build the plant. They could refuse to serve the builders who are working on the project food, when they come into the shops. There are lots of non violent methods available. 

If there is going to be radiation problems; then naturally this applies.

<general>

Chernobyl was state run.. what do you expect?

I mean really.. a multi billion dollar facility with private owners. And you don't think the owners / shareholders are going to have safety measures? Ya'll been watching too many Simpson's episodes. lol

</general>

AJ:

the neighbors start a giant bonfire and leave it burning overnight with no one attending it.

Of course, they don't have to pay for the fire service do they? Why should they care? ;)

That wouldn't be the case in a Libertarian society though.

AJ:

In fact the fire was still burning underground for several weeks, near a ton of brush and forest, in midsummer.

And if that fire spread and destroyed property they would be liable.

AJ:

No NAP violations as a result of the fire, but actions violating the owner's property may well be taken (and justified as legal) such as entering the property and dousing the fire with water even in anarchy or under a system with PDAs and private courts.

Nope. There is no justification for doing so. Unless there is a NAP violation; which is plausible with the soot from the fire, or heat damaging your property, or others.

AJ:

they can be expected to adhere to that set of rules only to the extent that there is strong consumer demand to do so

Why on earth would two people who have a property dispute, or their respective DRO's - choose to use a third party DRO that does not protect property rights?

And yet that is exactly what they are hiring them to resolve and uphold. That is completely absurd.

Conza88:

Nope. There is no justification for doing so. Unless there is a NAP violation; which is plausible with the soot from the fire, or heat damaging your property, or others.

AJ is saying that even if people don't have a libertarian justification for certain laws, under anarchy, they may choose other justifications.

Conza88:

Why on earth would two people who have a property dispute, or their respective DRO's - choose to use a third party DRO that does not protect property rights?

Because absolute protection of property rights can be expensive.

Good post btw AJ.

Snowflake:

Because absolute protection of property rights can be expensive.

the opposite seems true to me (in libertarian societies at least). since gaining a reputation for the trampling of rights, for 'mere' expediency when it is apparent that justice could have been done, would seem to me to encourage the libertarians around you to raise their cost of doing business with you. what you have described seems to me to be a case of what is loosely termed 'a false economy'

nirgrahamUK:

the opposite seems true to me (in libertarian societies at least). since gaining a reputation for the trampling of rights, for 'mere' expediency when it is apparent that justice could have been done, would seem to me to encourage the libertarians around you to raise their cost of doing business with you. what you have described seems to me to be a case of what is loosely termed 'a false economy'

Well, by absolute protection of property rights its not that they can't be asserted but that it is sometimes inconvenient to do so. I think we all violate eachother's libertarian rights in some small ways that we all ignore out of custom.

For example, I think people tolerate pollution to a certain extent, even though the polluters are clearly violating everyone's property rights.

But you're right. If someone did trample on the commonly acknowledged rights then the whole thing you just said would apply. I think property rights in a market would be a lot stricter than they are now, but I doubt we will see anarchy conform exactly to libertarianism, or even any one person for that matter. And I think that's alright.

Snowflake:

For example, I think people tolerate pollution to a certain extent, even though the polluters are clearly violating everyone's property rights.

They are not violating the rights of their neighbours if their neighbours allow/invite it. its a contingent question whether they would or do; to any particular extend.

This is a tangent from the main thread but you may have an interest. Here is a forum thread from long ago where 'trivial' property violations were discussed

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7684.aspx?PageIndex=2

It would be reasonable to see the plant as a possible looming threat.  The plant would have to be open to inspection before and after completion.

nirgrahamUK:

This is a tangent from the main thread but you may have an interest. Here is a forum thread from long ago where 'trivial' property violations were discussed

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7684.aspx?PageIndex=2

It was good till John I stopped posting :P

Snowflake:

AJ is saying that even if people don't have a libertarian justification for certain laws, under anarchy, they may choose other justifications.

Who is "they" ? Oh you mean the DRO? Again, who is going to take a property dispute to the guy who doesn't aim to uphold property rights?

Snowflake:

Because absolute protection of property rights can be expensive.

I don't see how this answers the question.

To address your concern anyway; it would be far, far, far cheaper in a Libertarian society. [No monopoly]

There would be a reduction in the need for specialists too; 'lawyers'. Citizens would actually be able to understand the law

Conza88:

Who is "they" ? Oh you mean the DRO? Again, who is going to take a property dispute to the guy who doesn't aim to uphold property rights?

Maybe no one. I'm just pointing out that anarchy doesn't have to conform to libertarian rights, so when we discuss the pragmatism of free market law the NAP is non-topical.

Conza88:

To address your concern anyway; it would be far, far, far cheaper in a Libertarian society. [No monopoly]

There would be a reduction in the need for specialists too; 'lawyers'. Citizens would actually be able to understand the law

I have no concerns. I'm an anarchist.

 

Snowflake:

Maybe no one.

No-one. Yeah - primarily because it is completely nonsensical.

Snowflake:

I'm just pointing out that anarchy doesn't have to conform to libertarian rights, so when we discuss the pragmatism of free market law the NAP is non-topical.

You didn't point anything out. How are you defining anarchy?

A free market exists only where property rights are "respected, defended and kept secure." There is no free market in law, if you disregard the NAP.

Snowflake:

I have no concerns.

Well you did seem concerned enough about potential expenses, as per your previous post. So I addressed it. ;)

Snowflake:

I'm an anarchist.

Not an anarcho-capitalist? Are you one of those ones which Mises was talking about? lol

Conza88:

You didn't point anything out. How are you defining anarchy?

Anarchy --> no gummint. Anarchy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Libertarianism.

Conza88:

A free market exists only where property rights are "respected, defended and kept secure." There is no free market in law, if you disregard the NAP.

A market still exists without those things... say like black markets. I don't know if you would call this free but they still provide goods and services to their members.

While I think there would be a lot of free markets on anarchy, I don't believe we can guarantee this will happen. To me, this is not a problem because non-free markets in anarchy are still preferable to whatever markets prevail under the state.

Conza88:

Not an anarcho-capitalist? Are you one of those ones which Mises was talking about? lol

Which ones? :P I tend to approach dissolution of the state from a pragmatic standpoint. I am very much inspired by Roderick T Long's lectures on an Anarchist Legal Order and some other papers he's written. They don't really depend on libertarian ethics, so I guess that's why you don't see me referencing the NAP a lot.

Snowflake:

Anarchy --> no gummint. Anarchy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Libertarianism.

Actually I'd like to be a little more specific than this:

Two individuals are in a state of anarchy if there is not a third party to resolve their disputes. So the state of nature is anarchy... But so is the state, since there is no third party to resolve disputes between the individual and the state, among other things. So I would accuse statists of being anarchists, staking out the high ground as a polycentrist: the only solution to anarchy.

Oh definitions. I self identified as an anarchist and then turned around and said that everyone else is an anarchist except me. Fantastic.

if there exist only two people in the world, a master and his slave. they are not in anarchy with each other. it is dictatorship.

to achieve anarchy (in the political sense) both people must refrain from instituting coercive power over the other. (at least this is my position, so if I speak for no-one else but myself on this, you at least get to know me a little better)

nirgrahamUK:

if there exist only two people in the world, a master and his slave. they are not in anarchy with each other. it is dictatorship.

By my above definition, there is an anarchic relationship between the master and the slave because there is no third party to resolve their disputes.

It is a dictatorship; it is also anarchistic.

I think we need to refrain from using the statist's definition of anarchy as "without government" and switch to the one I'm advancing (I didnt come up with it), because it captures why the state of nature/government are so bad.

My 2cents is that the definition you have adopted that entails that anarchy is all pervasive, inescapable, and here and now, is entirely useless for the libertarian.  

nirgrahamUK:

My 2cents is that the definition you have adopted that entails that anarchy is all pervasive, inescapable, and here and now, is entirely useless for the libertarian.  

Well Roderick T Long's point is that you can have a polycentric legal system to bring you out of natural/state anarchy.

And yes, I do think that we currently have anarchy because states handle legal issues. Obviously private courts and security personnel bring us out of anarchy a little, but it still persists because the state is the supreme power.

Snowflake:

Oh definitions. I self identified as an anarchist and then turned around and said that everyone else is an anarchist except me. Fantastic.

Two definitions and different meanings for the same word don't work well, especially when they are being used in the same discussion / context.

Why point out your error and then not fix it?

Snowflake:

Anarchy --> no gummint. Anarchy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Libertarianism.

The rejoinder is to define it as 'no rulers'. And thus no government. When you violate the NAP and initiate violence, even at the local individual level - you are attempting to rule over someone else.

I think all people should have the right to own their own WMDs, but I'm afrait that would inevitably result in a catastrophy. But that's the way it is with other weapons too. We don't want to ban guns either.