Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's say I put your plan in motion. Would you want to join my community?
Why would I join? I'm not even an anarchist. So far, neither you or any of the anarchists in this thread have shown any real commitment to your beliefs. If you actually were serious about forming an anarcho-capitalist society, then I would wish you the best of luck.
I always find it a bit hilarious that the critics of libertarianism, always create some scenario where large numbers of landless, poor people are starving in the streets because libertarianism has no welfare system.
To realize how absurd this is, you need to imagine that you were literally starving in the streets. And not just you, but I would assume thousands of others like you. What would you do?
You aren't just going to let yourself die. At the very least, you would steal food, or even rob people, before you just let yourself die. Thus, at the very least, the jails and prisons would suddenly be overrun by people in such a way that there wouldn't even be space, and the costs would bankrupt any government(let-alone the chaos that would ensue by locking-up so many people whose only crime was stealing food).
But is that even the end of it?
Now, imagine that you were rich, and there were actually people starving on the streets, would it even be safe for you to walk the streets? Imagine you were some Wall Street billionaire in New York City, could you even leave your apartment? Would you even be safe staying in that city?
The social-safety net, to a large extent, is to "hold back the pitchforks". They were necessary so that rich people and poor people in cities could live near each other without trying to kill each other. And since a capitalist economy inherently lacks job-security, then it intends to keep people, who may have lost their job, fed and housed until they can find work elsewhere.
Basically, these aren't triumphs of the rich over the poor. These programs exist to provide stability to the system itself. To keep the rich, rich.
Thus, in an ironic twist, these social programs are actually a triumph of the rich over the poor. To keep them dependent, and thus subservient. Give them just enough so they don't rebel, while making them fearful of starvation and poverty, through dependency and lack of security. And keep them showing up to those "jobs".
So you think that even libritarians are smart enough to know that a social welfare system is nessicary? So how do people get around and recreate if litterally everything (or most things) are private property.
The thing that is ironic is that as you go down this path pretty soon you are left with exactly what we have now, people would be pissed if all the sudden national parts/state parks etc were liquidated off private parties and fences put up. I mean people can buy private property now so I dont see what the issue is. I agree the feds own alot of land, but if all that land were liquidated off then what? There is only so much land and once we fill it all up thats when things get truely dire.
you want to be able to steal the ranchers land (or march across it) with your low brow armed posse (the fedguv) leading the way.
Telling the rancher what he can do with his land is no different than telling him who he can marry, who he sleep with, what he can eat, what drugs he can take, etc. as they are all the same issue of private property rights.
That the rancher owns his land is no different in that he owns himself, that is a tenant of libertarianism.
That is why I disagree with libratarianism, I dont want to live in a nation of no trespassing signs, liquidation of all national parks (or the parks access is so limited I need a helicopter to visit it). I simply would never vote for that form of government. If you buy a "ranch" knowing full well there are right of ways (official or not) for people to visit beautiful state/federal parks then to bad so sad, people are going to tromp across "your" land.
This scenario is not the same thing as someone buying a 1/4 acre lot in a neighborhood and this scenario is why I cant get on board with libratarianism. People should not have the right to craftily shut out access to massive tracks of public lands or buy out national parks. These "ranchers" knew what they were doing when they bought this land and they purposely fought the right of ways knowing full well that they backed up to a national tresure of a park.
Whether flora and fauna count as "individuals with natural rights" is a whole different topic better suited for the Philosophy section. For this discussion, we'll stick to people, m'kay?
If the person who owns the land is IN NO WAY HARMING any other PERSON, what does it matter what they do with their land? I realize you're hoping to use the "spill toxic waste into stream" argument, but that initiates force and does harm, and that would be somebody distinctly violating the NAP.
So back to the question - if the person who owns the land is following the NAP and not single other person is harmed by their use of their land, why do you care?
Another example is when a group of people or individual buys up all the land around a really nice lake so that they can kick all the riff raff out, well then the state comes along via eminite domain and puts in a little park and boat launch so that others can launch their jet skis and boats who dont have a quarter million dollars to buy a lot that the rich peope ran the costs up on. Access to key water ways (not just the water ways themselves as well as an easement is critical, as well as multiple access points to public lands, access to things like airports etc.
Land ownership is not absolute, to live in a civilized socity you have to have easements and access for things that dont bennifit you the land owner. Maybe someone needs to run a power line to their land and they need access, etc. If the easement did not exist before because of some surveying over sight the land owner should not be able to obstruct others rights to power because of some mistake made 40 years ago, BUT thats exactly what libratarians do and thats what they are doing in this case where "ranches" back up to parks.
Alot of libritraisns want more legal rights to obstruct others and make life complicated for everyone else by having a nation FULL of private property signs and if an easement was not put in to bad so sad. I simply would never vote for that, the filthy rich land owners already have tremendous leverage in our current system why give them more. I personally dont want to live in a feudal system and thats what it would be.
So yes restricting access in certian cases can cause harm to others. Depending where that land is and what kind of access issues there are.
Libertarians are against the idea of a big corporation coming in, forcibly taking your land and running a pipeline through it
You?
Taking lands for other private interests (pipelines, gravel pit, etc) is aborant, taking land for public interests (access to lakes, national/state parks, rivers, utility easements, public use airports, aquaducts, dams, etc) are appropriate. The problem is libritarians will fight against both. When you lock down the ability to take land or force easements for critical public use thats when you denigrate as an entire society into fuedalism where only certian land owners have access to lakes, river, parks or can get utilities, etc. Everyone else just has to live in their little ghettos (if those will even exist since they will now be private property subject to market rates) so you will just have thousands of homeless wondering around.
This of course would not happen right away, it would take decades for families and individuals to scheme and scam and buy up lake front properties and VERY slowly over generations choke out anything public use.
Is the decibel level causing injury? Have you discussed the noise with your neighbor and figured out any possible ways to reduce the sound level? Maybe worked out agreeable hours for their gun range usage?
Noise pollution statutes are a very grey area where the state almost always defers to taking away rights (hide the XBox because the kids cannot stop arguing about which game to play, just the government version) and neighbors are almost always more willing to compromise under the rules of voluntary cooperation.
PS - a proper outdoor range has berms and baffles for noise reduction, putting levels at ~70-80db at only 200m from the firing source. At 2 miles, you'd be in the db range of a whispered conversation. Perhaps you should speak to your neighbor about berms (not just for noise, but for safety as well), baffles and barriers. Safety first and all. If they are remotely receptive, they'll cooperate no problem, and if they are not, then you make the case that their noise levels cause you harm, because in a proper libertarian society there is still a court system that adjudicates such things.
Or every body uses suppressors like in germany since the ATF wont exist anymore.
Well first off, "looking after the land" is a subjective. If I want to do something with my land and it doesnt harm yours, you'll just have to butt out. Thats the part that grinds you isn't it? You want to have say over someone elses property, just like you want to tell people what they can eat, drink, who they can have sex with, how much of their pay they can keep...
If you buy 100 acres of land and start hydraulic mining and I have an adjacent property your completely destruction of your land could drasticly effect the values of my land if we are living in a pristine enviornment (hydraulic mining is one of the reasons the national parks were created). Even if the water drainage does not touch my property you creating a completely trashed piece of land will effect the natural beauty of the land scape, and when I fly over I will have to look at all that crap.
There is a value to trees and natural spaces and people that tear it up should be limited unless they do it in a responsible way as to not take away from the astetics of the land scape. I have seen CC&R's that go into detail about this stuff becuase natual beauty is a big deal and if your the d bag out there hydraulic mining your darn right I want to have the "bring feds with MP5's to compel you to cease activities" card to play. I dont want to know what your opinions are or why you think that way, I just want guns pointed at you and you stop or you go to jail and then I dont have to deal with you anymore. I think that card needs to be in play so that these texas menatilty "ranchers" know that if they **** off their neighbors too much they will have body armored guys kicking in their doors with MP5's because for some people thats all they understand is force, they will behave as crap bags until someone kicks in their teeth, thats just the sad unfortunate reality.
Why would I join? I'm not even an anarchist. So far, neither you or any of the anarchists in this thread have shown any real commitment to your beliefs. If you actually were serious about forming an anarcho-capitalist society, then I would wish you the best of luck.
Let's say the community that you described forms. I took your advice. And it works. We have a carved out geographic area and live there peacefully.
Is the decibel level causing injury? Have you discussed the noise with your neighbor and figured out any possible ways to reduce the sound level? Maybe worked out agreeable hours for their gun range usage?.
I'm sure they abide by the basic laws and codes. But neither I nor 90% of the people within earshot WANT to hear it. My other neighbor might put in a fart machine or a scream machine or recordings of people dying.....I don't want to hear that either.
They way I look at it, I don't make any noise like that so the "acceptable" level is what the rest of the neighbors do - which is maybe 1-2 hours of machines (lawnmowers, etc.) per week.
My nephew was just shot and killed. Do you think I enjoy listening to the tools that did it?
I'm not looking for answers - just posing a small amount of the questions which arise when there is no Big Gubment sticking a gun in your ribs....
What would you do in this situation you've described?
In the situation I have described I would reject Libertarianism as the solution and leave things just as they are - understanding that such matters are complex and many people involved.
But in a Libertarian world I'd have to make sure my rights were protected because, before you know it, they will have Howitzers down there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
