Тег: NAPs

There is a rule in libertarianism that if there is no victim, there is no court. It turns out that it would be profitable for a bandit to destroy the entire family so that no victims remain. Something about this is wrong…

anonymous question

So, I live in my own house, and one of my neighbors killed another neighbor and his entire family. What happens to the price of my house because a dangerous psycho lives next door? It drops rapidly. Who am I after that? A victim.

In a situation where law is decentralized, your moral judgment can always become the basis for your actions. There is no one to forbid you from doing something, but the responsibility will be entirely yours.

If I have enough evidence of how my neighbor killed an entire family, and I kill him afterwards, then to whoever accuses me of this murder, I will show this evidence and explain that I had sufficient grounds to fear for my own life, as the deceased was far too unpredictable. And I’ll bring up the argument about the house price, just as a cherry on top.

And then we’ll see if I can make peace with the relatives and acquaintances of the deceased.

In the modern world, which is largely individualistic, moral evaluations of actions usually play a more significant role than kinship ties—after all, we no longer live in a clan society where the kin effectively acted as a single legal entity.

reconciliation of blood feud parties

Suppose there is a terminally ill person who cannot be saved in any way, and has a couple of weeks left. Would euthanasia be a violation of the NAP? Is his consent/the consent of his relatives needed for this?

anonymous question

Euthanasia is not a violation of the non-aggression principle; it is merely the execution of the owner’s instructions regarding the disposal of their own body. You commission one specialist to give you a haircut, another for a massage, a third for an abortion, a fourth to remove a kidney for transplant, and a fifth to kill you. These are all perfectly correct instructions. The only subtlety in the euthanasia procedure is to ensure that the instruction is indeed given voluntarily and with a full understanding of the consequences. Well, the sale of real estate requires the observance of exactly the same legal precautions, as does any other important and responsible transaction.

The situation becomes slightly more complex when a person lacks the technical ability to give instructions for their euthanasia, for instance, because they are in a coma. In this situation, the decision is made by the person paying for the life support. It is this person who has the full right at any moment to consider further expenses impractical—and to offer any willing party the chance to take over the further burden of costs. If no willing parties are found, then life will no longer be supported.

Finally, a situation is possible where a person is in a coma and an insurance company is paying for their life support. Here, the company does not have the right to refuse to fulfill its obligations at any moment. First, it must fully exhaust the insurance premium due to the person under the contract in attempts to restore the insured health, and only after failure can it stop spending the money. Any attempts by the heirs of the insured person to claim something like “unplug him from the machine, and we will receive the remainder of the insurance as an inheritance; our father, had he been conscious, would have commissioned you to do this himself,” are most logically regarded as incitement to murder for mercenary purposes.

For mercenary purposes, I incite you to make a voluntary donation to the development of this channel. Drop some money to the bitcoin wallet 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

You wrote that in the event that a child is subjected to domestic violence, a third party can only explain the child’s rights to them. But isn’t such treatment of children aggression? Why, in this case, are the actions of the parent/guardian not a violation of the NAP?

anonymous question

I wrote that an outsider can use the rich arsenal of peaceful resolution techniques with impunity, but applying violence or the threat of violence is at their own risk. If you see a fight, it would be appropriate to inquire whether it is a private fight before intervening. Similarly, upon seeing violence against a child, it is appropriate to ask the child if they need help. If there is no opportunity or desire to clarify this important point, the consequences may be unpredictable.

Yes, the guardian is using violence against the child and thereby violating the principle of non-aggression toward them. However, by manifesting aggression against the child’s guardian without the child’s sanction, you also violate the principle of non-aggression toward the child. And it is the child who will be the first one asked after this incident who exactly caused them harm. And you could very well turn out to be the one who caused that harm.

Your evidence regarding the extent of the violence against the child must be damn convincing for an arbitrator, whose jurisdiction both you and the child’s guardian recognize, to rule that guardianship rights should indeed transfer from the current guardian to another party wishing to obtain them, in a situation where the child does not demonstrate a desire to change guardians.

How, under ancap, will the protection of children from parental violence, and specifically from psychological violence, be implemented?

anonymous question

The principle of self-ownership means that every person belongs to themselves. A child, however, is a person who, due to the finite speed of development of the human organism, is not yet perceived by other people as fully legal-capable. Therefore, while they do own themselves, they do not actually exercise full disposal of themselves—the right to dispose of the child is partially usurped by one adult or another (a fully legal-capable person), with the consent of other adults.

And then a situation arises where the way this adult exercises this usurped right ceases to satisfy the child. It does not matter whether it is a case of direct physical violence, psychological violence (regardless of what adult behavior is called such), or simply a clash of tastes. What matters is that at any moment, the child can both declare their full legal capacity and delegate the right of partial disposal of themselves to any other adult—that is, offer them to assume the rights of a guardian—provided, of course, they can come to an agreement with the candidate for guardianship. In this case, it is simple. The adult who, in the child’s opinion, performed their guardianship duties in bad faith, is deprived of the corresponding rights, and now nothing protects them in the event of violence against the child.

But what if the child does not insist on stripping the adult of their guardianship rights (being too young, too intimidated, or, most likely, generally satisfied with the situation), yet from the point of view of an outside adult, the guardianship duties are being performed unsatisfactorily? All that an outsider can do without penalty is to express their judgment on the matter, share this judgment with other adults, try to explain the child’s rights to them—in short, apply all the rich tools accumulated by humanity for the peaceful resolution of misunderstandings.

If for some reason they consider such measures insufficient, they may, of course, decide to use violence, thereby turning the conflict into a war, but as a fully legal-capable person, they must realize that they are fully responsible for the consequences of this decision, and that these consequences may not be what they expected.

Only already active actions involving physical violence are considered aggression, but what to do with a person who interferes with you every day, and there is no possibility of getting rid of them/moving to another place. And when is the NAP considered violated? When a gun is pointed at you, or when the bullet has entered the head?

Anonymous question

A bullet to the head can be accidental. A gun pointed at you might turn out to be a prop…

Every day, people perform (and will continue to perform under ancap conditions) many actions that someone might interpret as a violation of the non-aggression principle, or as an immediate threat of such a violation. Whether a certain action was a violation of the NAP is decided, firstly, ex post facto, and secondly, by far more people than just those involved in the incident. This is precisely why it is impossible to establish a clear criterion that defines in advance, once and for all, what constitutes a NAP violation. One can only point out that, in general, the person whose property is damaged has more grounds to oppose it than others, and it would be no surprise if they claimed compensation for the damage.

As for the case of a person you cannot get rid of and who constantly interferes, they are usually tolerated, but seeking ways to alleviate the situation would be quite appropriate. After all, people have even learned how to separate Siamese twins, and this seems like a relatively straightforward case by comparison.

This one on the left is clearly not thrilled with the one on the right

Petya killed Vanya

Petya killed Vanya. Petya is on trial. During the trial, it is revealed that Vanya was a serial killer. By killing him, Petya eliminated a violator of the NAP and saved many lives. The problem is that Petya had no idea about his victim’s sins—Petya is simply a scumbag and a murderer.

Should we condemn Petya for murder or acquit him because Vanya violated the NAP?

In other words, at what point does a violator of the NAP exit the NAP—at the moment the crime is committed, or when a third party finds out about it?

In this problem, we are operating within the zone of libertarian law.

Evgeny Kvasov

Elevating the NAP to the rank of the primary principle of libertarianism leads to many disagreements and linguistic monstrosities, such as “violation of the moral NAP,” “I didn’t enter into a NAP with you,” or “exiting the NAP.” People perceive the non-aggression principle as something like a contract that can be entered into, terminated, and supplemented with additional conditions.

It is far more convenient to derive everything directly from the basic axiom of libertarianism—the axiom of self-ownership. Petya killed Vanya, thereby infringing upon Vanya’s private property—Vanya’s body. It does not matter whether Petya was a bounty hunter for the “Sonechko” insurance company hunting Vanya, a former contractor for the Moscow Kingdom, or a drunkard who killed a stranger for a sideways glance, or even if Petya was defending himself from Vanya’s attack. In any case, Petya damaged someone else’s property, and he must now be prepared to bear responsibility for it.

If someone is found who wants to, or is contractually obligated to, deal with Vanya’s killer, then Petya will have to either fight back or try to reach an agreement—either amicably or in court.

According to the conditions of the problem, Petya agreed to a trial. In the trial, in our case, it is revealed that Vanya in no way encroached upon Petya, and Petya was not acting on behalf of those to whom Vanya had previously caused harm. This means that there was a violation of the NAP on Petya’s part, and the plaintiff—for example, Vanya’s insurance company—can demand compensation. It also emerges in court that Vanya is a long-time violator of the NAP, and a reward has been placed on his head by another insurance company.

The most likely outcome of the case: Petya receives a reward for killing Vanya from one insurance company and pays compensation for killing Vanya to another insurance company. And that company, in turn, had already paid an insurance premium to Vanya’s heirs before any trial took place.

Obviously, the outcome of the case could be different: there might have been no reward for Vanya, and then Petya would find himself in more difficult financial circumstances.

By the way, speaking of difficult financial circumstances. I very much hope that everything is fine with your money, and you might even decide to thank this channel in monetary form. My wallet: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

What to do if an ancap society that has successfully formed in some territory begins to be squeezed by neighbors? For example, if they are a religious state, and its citizens, possessing some kind of superiority (or the support of their state), buy land, move in, but do not want to observe the NAP?

anonymous question

The topic of direct military conflict was best explored by Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly, in the series of articles “Insurance Company ‘Sonechko’ versus the Tsardom of Muscovy”.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Most likely, this volume of material will be sufficient for you to address both the question you asked and several related ones.

But I will still make a small clarification regarding one of the models of creeping expansion you mentioned. Buying up all the land is very unrealistic, because the less unsold land remains, the more expensive it becomes, and the happy sellers of land receive more and more resources, which they can invest in assets that seem more profitable to them than the land they have just sold.

At the same time, the fact that a certain NAP violator is a landowner does not protect them in any way. They violated it — a conflict arose, now they either pay a penalty or they are fought against. In a state, the law may protect a NAP violator, but for ancaps, dealing with such problems is much simpler.

Sonechko

Deception – a violation of NAP?

anonymous question

Deception is merely a violation of expectations. A person is expected to act in one way, but the deceiver acts in another.
Can deception cause harm? Of course, yes. A subject plans their actions based on premises that, as a result of deception, are not justified, and this increases their costs.

Is deception violence? Of course not. One can betray trust (for example, violate the Budapest Memorandum) and apply violence when peaceful behavior is expected from you, but still, deception is one thing, and violence is another.

Is deception aggression? Again, no. Deception can be a justification for aggression (Right Sector sent a train of Nazis to Crimea), but again, deception is separate, aggression is separate.

Where do the assumptions come from that deception in itself can be a violation of the NAP, that is, aggressive violence? Of course, from the concept of positive rights. There is a right to education, to social security, to respect, to the truth… Thus, the right to the truth is violated, and now my violence toward the deceiver will be self-defense. It should be noted that such an approach is most common not even among SJWs, but rather among classic gopniks. (Got anything? What if I find some?) The state is a special case of a gopnik, and also seeks to punish for deception (for example, for forging tax documents).

Will there be more deception under libertarianism than there is now? It cannot be said for certain, but I assume that there will be less, because a libertarian society does not hinder the action of feedback loops. But that is a separate large topic.

Will the NAP apply in the event that some madman follows me every time I go beyond the boundaries of my property, verbally insults, humiliates, etc., and I one day cannot take it anymore and shoot him for reasons of self-defense?

anonymous question

NAP is not a contract. It is a principle. If people in a certain community are guided by this principle in their actions—that is, they predominantly observe it and, in case of a violation, are ready to bear responsibility to those to whom they caused harm—then we can confidently call such a society libertarian.

In a libertarian society, there are ways of causing harm without violating the non-aggression principle, and you are speaking of one of them. Your manifestation of aggression toward someone who pursued you non-violently may be precisely the goal of that non-violent pursuit. With a high degree of probability, the person toward whom you displayed provoked violence was insured for a significant sum and also ensured wide broadcasting of all the circumstances of your interaction with them—otherwise, they were poorly prepared for the conflict, or perhaps they really are crazy. Consequently, after you resorted to violence, you likely end up paying a lot of money and suffering reputational damage, because a bunch of people will see how you, for example, in a rage, shoot a guy with a sign saying “so-and-so is a dick,” who was shouting that same phrase at you. “He really is a dick,” your potential counterparts decide.

In general, if you are prepared for such problems, you can give vent to your irritation. Maybe you’ll be lucky, and no one will even stand up for the deceased. But it is far safer to provide your hater with counter-shaming, or even, why not, try to reach an agreement.

What criminal and civil courts would look like under libertarianism (taking into account that the state is assigned only the role of enforcing court decisions)?

Anonymous question

Everything is simple with civil courts: commercial arbitration already looks the way civil courts should look under libertarianism. The parties agree on whom to invite to adjudicate, that person adjudicates, and then the parties execute the decision. Whoever refuses bears reputational costs, and in a minarchist state, it wouldn’t end there; the state would send bailiffs to enforce the arbitration decision.

With criminal law, it is slightly more complicated.

When the person who used violence does not hide, the task is reduced to the previous one: they and the representatives of the victimized party agree on who will judge, then the court’s decision is executed—voluntarily or forcibly.
If the person who used violence is unknown, first the party interested in the investigation either investigates the matter independently or hires detectives, and only after the NAP violator is found, there may follow either a trial or retribution.

A court cannot be imposed on anyone, because a court decision whose jurisdiction is not recognized by all litigating parties is legally null and void. But if instead of a court, retribution simply took place, then the party that carried out the retribution will now have to prove itself that this was not a violation of the NAP. They will litigate with those who are ready to condemn them for the retribution, present the collected evidence of the NAP violation by the victim of the retribution in court, and will be acquitted. Or not, if the evidence proved insufficient.

Thus, if a criminal hiding from justice realizes that they are already breathing down their neck, they are extremely interested in reaching the nearest prison in time and buying refuge from retribution there while negotiations regarding a trial are underway.

And if you are in prison voluntarily, you would prefer to rent a comfortable room