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.
I don't care about motives. That's Statist talk. I only care about actions.
Of course these are extreme examples. That's when you know you've got a bona fide true principle. That's why the NAP is true. It's morally and logically consistent.
So he takes all the water and stores it in his home. If the syndicate sees it and wants to use it can they take it from his home by force?
Motive was only one suggestion as to why it won't happen, not a definitive rule or anything.
The problem you face here in your example is that one individual doesn't have the capacity to store a lake sized amount of water in their house as a single person has limitations on the amount of land they control.
Say it takes however many acres of land to storage water somewhere, in such a case that individual almost certainly lacks the personal ability to operate on all that land by himself meaning much of it wouldn't be his to begin.
As for (lets say they're barrels of water) the containers, one man would have incredible difficulty emptying the lake by himself, more likely he'd die of exhaustion.
Given all that, in your hypothetical universe (where this still would be impossible) what a person takes, can not be forced out of hand if it is still under his influence (though most of the barrels, I'd imagine, would not be under his direct control). And they are free to practice anything that does not force others personal property out of hand or harm others directly.
Now, what about ancaps, if I were to labor using the water and claim the lake as my own (a lake necessary for the people nearby), could I just deny them access to a massive public resource, and shoot anyone who tries take it?
Motive was only one suggestion as to why it won't happen, not a definitive rule or anything.
The problem you face here in your example is that one individual doesn't have the capacity to store a lake sized amount of water in their house as a single person has limitations on the amount of land they control.
Say it takes however many acres of land to storage water somewhere, in such a case that individual almost certainly lacks the personal ability to operate on all that land by himself meaning much of it wouldn't be his to begin.
As for (lets say they're barrels of water) the containers, one man would have incredible difficulty emptying the lake by himself, more likely he'd die of exhaustion.
Given all that, in your hypothetical universe (where this still would be impossible) what a person takes, can not be forced out of hand if it is still under his influence (though most of the barrels, I'd imagine, would not be under his direct control). And they are free to practice anything that does not force others personal property out of hand or harm others directly.
Now, what about ancaps, if I were to labor using the water and claim the lake as my own (a lake necessary for the people nearby), could I just deny them access to a massive public resource, and shoot anyone who tries take it?
You've changed your tune here. Before you said the syndicate could take the barrels in a pinch. It doesn't matter how the lake was drained and stored on his property as long as it was done without violating the rights of others.
He can hire people to help him. That way it's possible. Do those people now own the water too? What if they form a contract agreeing to help for compensation or hell...even pro bono and that they renounce any claim to the water?
Under anarcho-capitalism you would have to remove the water to your private property to lay an exclusive claim to it. You can't shoot someone who simply goes to the lake to get some water.
You've changed your tune here. Before you said the syndicate could take the barrels in a pinch. It doesn't matter how the lake was drained and stored on his property as long as it was done without violating the rights of others.
He can hire people to help him. That way it's possible. Do those people now own the water too? What if they form a contract agreeing to help for compensation or hell...even pro bono and that they renounce any claim to the water?
Under anarcho-capitalism you would have to remove the water to your private property to lay an exclusive claim to it. You can't shoot someone who simply goes to the lake to get some water.
An individual, based off of human limitations, couldn't hold all that water on their property being as they wouldn't have the ability to maintain control over that much land.
And if I wasn't clear, I said a Union (not a syndicate) could request access to the water OR, if it was not on land said person controlled, take it, even if said person claimed it to be theirs.
And you didn't answer my question, I asked can an ancap claim an entire lake as theirs through homestead?
An individual, based off of human limitations, couldn't hold all that water on their property being as they wouldn't have the ability to maintain control over that much land.
And if I wasn't clear, I said a Union (not a syndicate) could request access to the water OR, if it was not on land said person controlled, take it, even if said person claimed it to be theirs.
And you didn't answer my question, I asked can an ancap claim an entire lake as theirs through homestead?
I'm not talking about Lake Superior here. It's very possible to drain a lake with the help of only a few men. Hired help.
What's the difference between a union and syndicate? It sounds like force to me regardless.
Claims in AnCapistan signify a contractual tenet. Someone would have to enter into an agreement with another person and they would have to recognize the claim. Otherwise, and I did answer it, you have to take the water back to your private property.
I'm not talking about Lake Superior here. It's very possible to drain a lake with the help of only a few men. Hired help.
What's the difference between a union and syndicate? It sounds like force to me regardless.
Claims in AnCapistan signify a contractual tenet. Someone would have to enter into an agreement with another person and they would have to recognize the claim. Otherwise, and I did answer it, you have to take the water back to your private property.
God, everything I wrote was deleted, oh well, I’ll keep it short;
There is no ownership of labor ideally, and people would work together equally. Yes, someone could obey the will of another, but there would be no contracts to confine their labor to someone else’s.
If enough people join together to take water from the lake, it’d probably make up the size of the town, each taking their share of water (or a bigger group of people). As ownership is confined to physical control, very few people will be able to store or handle more than a few barrels of water confining excess consumption/ownership.
My question was more so, if a person can own private land in ancapistan, then couldn’t they feasibly own a body of water (much needed for people in the area) through homestead only in water instead of land? In such a case wouldn’t that person have a right to shoot anyone that tries to take it?
Unions are a group of workers in one workplace (a union is confined to one workplace being as workers needed to physical work together to be democratically run, and growing a union would take away representation of each worker. Therefore there would be no conglomerates or big business as each company (union) would be each workplace).
Syndicates are a makeup of elected representatives from each union part of the same industry (say oil extraction) in the same relative area. They help connect supply chains, share information/innovation with other syndicates (that goes to other unions), and help form vocational schools the teach that trade of their industry.
They are voluntary of course, a union can choose not to send a representative and conversely not participate in the shared supply chain, etc. if so agreed upon).
Last edited by Winterfall8324; 08-28-2018 at 10:27 PM..
Originally Posted by BentBow
Want to know how to totally Trigger those that think of themselves as Socialist, Fascist, Communist, and Nazi's?
Tell the truth of Collectivism!!!
That being said, Capitalists are collectivist. They are collectivist in the sense they collect labor around only a few people who then control the entire input of the whole country.
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.