[Poelmo]

Please take this as constructive criticism only.

Does the following loophole in libertarianism (more specifically it's NAP foundation) exist? I think everyone here knows about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). It is often criticized for focusing entirely on physical violence and violations of private property while neglecting non-physical violence such as scamming but also, perhaps, more controversial, not providing emergency aid to someone who's in trouble, even if you are the cause of that trouble (like convincing a friend to go driving through the Sahara but refusing to share your water after you get stranded because of engine failure), and most troubling the "right" to let your kids starve on the streets if you don't feel like taking care of them anymore.

I have constructed a class of scenarios that would, if I'm right, enable you to end the lives of people you don't like and get you slaves without any step violating the NAP as it is usually stated (I know not all libertarians agree on the precise definition, but plenty do agree with the versions I need for my scenarios to work).

My scenarios work like this:

1) get people to enter on a piece of real estate you own

2) tell them that you've designated the perimeter of your property to be a toll zone with a toll fare of $1 billion, this leaves them essentially trapped on your property if they are not billionaires

3) let them starve or tell them they can have food, clothing and shelter if they work in a sweat shop located on your property (they're not officially slaves because they can leave if they pay the toll fare)

So what am I missing here, or am I not missing anything? I know standard replies would be "but people would shun you if you did such things": maybe some would, but what if the victim was not liked by the community or your slave-produced goods are so cheap many people can't resist, or people just don't give a f*ck about slavery as long as they're not slaves, which you can assure them by only taking slaves of a different ethnicity or social group (like in most of history), and in the end, the possibility of people shunning a slaver/murderer (well, technically, "property defender") is not particularly a potent deterrent that would make me feel safe in a libertarian world. Another reply could be "well maybe there should be a standard for people to announce toll hikes before hand", yes, that could be a standard effectively mandated by consumer organizations (by collectively boycotting owners of roads and buildings who do not comply), but how will that prevent people from using the trap trick in homes or other small private properties that are not of interest to a consumer organization and how would it prevent people from trapping children by announcing a toll fare years before the children are 18 (by the way, who gets to decide the age of maturity?)

In any case I just do not see a way to prevent these things without the NAP being changed.

[Red Barn]

This oughta be good.



Welcome to PoFo, New Comrade Poelmo. I like your style.

[lucky]

libertarianism (more specifically it's NAP foundation)

It's not its "foundation". Libertarianism is a political ideology of having a small state, few regulations, low taxes, stuff like that. It's not an ideology of NAP-worshippers. There is a very marginal fraction of those.

Most libertarians don't worry about such abstract issues because they don't care much about coming up with universal abstract unbreakable cult-like rules. They don't have a problem with sending a SWAT team to a private property to rescue hostages, and the ridiculous issue of worrying about the owner having declared a "billion dollar toll zone" around the perimeter doesn't even enter their minds, it's more of a laughing matter.

[Poelmo]

It's not its "foundation". Libertarianism is a political ideology of having a small state, few regulations, low taxes, stuff like that. It's not an ideology of NAP-worshippers. There is a very marginal fraction of those.

Most libertarians don't worry about such abstract issues because they don't care much about coming up with universal abstract unbreakable cult-like rules. They don't have a problem with sending a SWAT team to a private property to rescue hostages, and the ridiculous issue of worrying about the owner having declared a "billion dollar toll zone" around the perimeter doesn't even enter their minds, it's more of a laughing matter.

Right, if you are simply a minarchist or fiscal conservative then this whole thing doesn't apply to your ideology, my question really was about the "NAP-worshippers" like the anarcho capitalists...

[Kman]

There is such a thing as implied contracts and when you invite someone on your property you are also giving them the right to leave again, the same thing occurs in supermarkets, there are no placards telling people that they are not allowed to view the shop as a store full of free stuff because it is implied that when you enter you are expected to pay for items unless otherwise stated, the same thing is true of inviting someone on your property, it is implied in an invitation that you have the right to leave again.

Also even if we accept your absurd reasoning to do you honestly think a society full of people armed with assault rifles and other types of heavy weaponry would tolerate having their sister, little-brother or mother kidnapped in this sort of fashion? Do you honestly think this sort of behavior would occur on a regular basis and that it would be viewed as a legitimate way to acquire property? (In this case the property being a human being). I am 100% sure that if anyone did this the first thing that would happen would be that me and 99.999% of the other libertarians would get very very angry and simply invade said morons property and get our relative/relatives back. Worrying about these sorts of things is pretty ridicilous.

[mikema63]

The NAP is flexible enough for you to make something up to get around the uncomfortable bits while still justifying what you are using it to justify. It's main purpose is to look nice on the face of it.

[Kman]

It's main purpose is to look nice on the face of it.

No its purpose is to ensure a just society and the scenario OP proposed does in fact violate the NAP.

[Poelmo]

There is such a thing as implied contracts and when you invite someone on your property you are also giving them the right to leave again, the same thing occurs in supermarkets, there are no placards telling people that they are not allowed to view the shop as a store full of free stuff because it is implied that when you enter you are expected to pay for items unless otherwise stated, the same thing is true of inviting someone on your property, it is implied in an invitation that you have the right to leave again.

You do get to leave, you just have to pay a $1 billion toll fare (just like an impoverished orphan can get the appendectomy he needs, he just needs to raise $10k and a homeless man can get a home, he just needs to find a well-paid job by going to job interviews in his stinking homeless man clothes). Even so, I did include the bit about announcing toll fare hikes before hand so people have time to get out and how it would still not protect children from being born into slavery. Note that you can't legislate your way out of this without acknowledging some right to protection from certain non-physical violence because otherwise you would have to legislate against the creativity of the depraved mind: I can just come up with an infinite number of other way of making it really, really difficult for you to leave, I could box you in with stuff that you can't remove on your own or that you would have to damage to get out, putting me in a position to extort you for damages, or maybe I'm in league with my neighbor who owns the property around my property and I'll let him raise the toll fare while you are on my property or I could charge you $1 billion for the air you breath while walking through the perimeter of my property, etc...

Also even if we accept your absurd reasoning to do you honestly think a society full of people armed with assault rifles and other types of heavy weaponry would tolerate having their sister, little-brother or mother kidnapped in this sort of fashion? Do you honestly think this sort of behavior would occur on a regular basis and that it would be viewed as a legitimate way to acquire property? (In this case the property being a human being). I am 100% sure that if anyone did this the first thing that would happen would be that me and 99.999% of the other libertarians would get very very angry and simply invade said morons property and get our relative/relatives back. Worrying about these sorts of things is pretty ridicilous.

Damn right it's absurd, that's because it follows from a strict adherence to one simple rule (this generally means trouble for any ideology) that legalizes all non-physical except property related violence. I do not know why you assume violent rebellion in this case when it is generally assumed starving orphans and the poor in general would not rebel in a violent manner in a libertarian (in the an-cap, etc... sense of the word) world and I already anticipated this response when I said the slaver/murderer has the option of only going after victims who are not liked in the community or have no relatives (would you still go in guns blazing when it's an orphan you don't know, because that sounds a lot like policing?)

[Kman]

You do get to leave, you just have to pay a $1 billion toll fare

And where have said kidnapping victim agreed to this condition? If you accept a party invitation from me does it mean you also agreed to a lifetime of slavery? No you didnt, you agreed to show up, have some fun and leave again and I am sure any libertarian justice system can make the distinction between these two things.

(just like an impoverished orphan can get the appendectomy he needs, he just needs to raise $10k and a homeless man can het a home, he kust needs to find a well-paid job by going to job interviews in his stinking homeless man clothes)

These are different because their poverty does not mean that their rights have been violated, kidnapping someone who you invited into your house does violate their rights.

Even so, I did include the bit about announcing toll fare hikes before hand so people have time to get out and how it would still not protect children from being born into slavery.

I doubt the rest of society would view it like that, I think they would view it more like a crazy man who kidnapped a woman and then enslaved her offspring, violating all kinds of laws.

Note that you can't legislate your way out of this without acknowledging some right to protection from certain non-physical violence

I dont need to legislate anything, your example clearly violates the NAP, inviting someone over to your house does not give you the right to enslave them for life in a libertarian society.

otherwise you would have to legislate against the creativity of the depraved mind: I can just come up with an infinite number of other way of making it really, really difficult for you to leave, I could box you in with stuff that you can't remove on your own or that you would have to damage to get out, putting me in a position to extort you for damages, or maybe I'm in league with my neighbor who owns the property around my property and I'll let him raise the toll fare while you are on my property or I could charge you $1 billion for the air you breath while walking through the perimeter of my property, etc...

I am aware that there are many many ways to kidnap someone, the point is however that this would be viewed as a crime by the rest of society, anyone doing this would be treated no different than a guy who murders women in dark alleys and rapes them.

Damn right it's absurd, that's because it follows from a strict adherence to one simple rule (this generally means trouble for any ideology)

So far I see no problems with the NAP based on your examples.

that legalizes all non-physical or property related violence.

It doesnt legalize kidnapping, which is what your example describes. It is flawless.

I do not know why you assume violent rebellion in this case when it is generally assumed starving orphans and the poor in general would not rebel in a violent manner in a libertarian (in the an-cap, etc... sense of the word) world

Your right that there is no guarentee that a kidnapping victim would be saved, this is true of any society, all societies have criminals, I am sure though that if a libertarian town of lets say 30.000 people finds out that someone is kidnapping people and enslaving them against their will then they will send in the private security forces as an act of charity, nobody wants a madman in their local community.

(would you still go in guns blazing when it's an orphan you don't know, because that sounds a lot like policing?)

The NAP doesnt forbid self-defense or policing, it forbids aggression. And yes I am confident an orphan snatcher would get arrested by the private police forces in a libertarian society, I am sure people would be willing to spring for the small expense that is associated with having these private police officers spend a day or so arresting this type of person.

[Red Barn]

And where have said kidnapping victim agreed to this condition? If you accept a party invitation from me does it mean you also agreed to a lifetime of slavery? No you didnt, you agreed to show up, have some fun and leave again and I am sure any libertarian justice system can make the distinction between these two things.

What if "Leaving my property requires the payment of a $1billion exit toll" was written on the back of the party invitation in teeny, tiny print so small and pale that the guest would be unlikely to see it, like this:

Leaving my property requires the payment of a $1billion exit toll.?

In that case, the party-goer has (technically) been informed of the toll, and has effectively agreed to its terms simply by showing up.

[Poelmo]

What if "Leaving my property requires the payment of a $1billion exit toll" was written on the back of the party invitation in teeny, tiny print so small and pale that the guest would be unlikely to see it, like this:

Leaving my property requires the payment of a $1billion exit toll.?

In that case, the party-goer has (technically) been informed of the toll, and has effectively agreed to its terms simply by showing up.

Or it could be on the 60th page of a 120 page "terms and conditions" file that no one would read through (or would they, knowing how many people are out to fuck people over in a libertarian world?) But my point was that if you just follow the an-cap NAP then there is no law that mandates anyone to help people who got in serious trouble (by not reading the terms and conditions for example). People like Kman can't just assert that every libertarian judge would see my slavery trick as "obviously wrong" (even though it's technically not banned by the NAP), after all they live in a society where scores of orphans and the disabled are starving on the streets, people sell their children to factory owners, getting 8-year-olds hooked to the heroin you sell is a perfectly legal career move and pneumonia and appendecitis (both easily treatable since the 20th century) are major causes of death among the poor who cannot afford health care (we might even see malaria epidemics and the return of the plague).

I doubt the rest of society would view it like that, I think they would view it more like a crazy man who kidnapped a woman and then enslaved her offspring, violating all kinds of laws.

Again, the rest of society is perfectly OK with child labor, the poor starving and dying of easily curable diseases, etc... Can you really guarantee they would care where their toys came from as long as they're cheap? Also, why would you need to kidnap the mother to produce slave children when you can legally buy children?

[Eran]

This is an absurd scenario.

To give an analogy from today's society, imagine an Executive Order stipulating that all red-heads must report to concentration camps and be kept there for the next 10 years.

Or your town mayor passing an eminent domain order confiscating the houses of half the town and turning them over to his brother.

The last two, of course, are just slight extrapolations of events that took place in the US...


Alternatively, consider a critic of the Bill of Rights arguing that the First Amendment shouldn't be passed, because under it, Congress couldn't prevent anybody from revealing state secrets to the enemy (as you recall, "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." with no exceptions to official secrets).

A contemporary would answer, reasonably, that the First Amendment represents a principle that is going, in practice, to be interpreted by reasonable, wise and experienced people sitting on the US Supreme Court.


To all your points, the NAP serves as the equivalent of the Constitution in American jurisprudence. It isn't applied by robots, but interpreted by reasonable people, chosen for their wisdom and objectivity. It is to such people, in their capacity as arbitrators, that society turns to arbitrate in cases of conflict.

In all the cases above, any reasonable arbitrator would rule that the terms for leaving the property are unreasonable, and their enforcement amounts to aggression.

But my point was that if you just follow the an-cap NAP then there is no law that mandates anyone to help people who got in serious trouble (by not reading the terms and conditions for example).

You are confusing "law" and "legislation". While in an an-cap society there is no legislation, there is certainly law. The law (enforceable, broadly recognised and effectively enforced rules dictating people's interactions with each other) would exist.

Many an-caps believe in a Common Law-like system whereby precedence and case-by-case judgement build up, over time, a body of law that helps people plan their actions with reasonable confidence as to the rules that would apply to them.

People like Kman can't just assert that every libertarian judge would see my slavery trick as "obviously wrong" (even though it's technically not banned by the NAP), after all they live in a society where scores of orphans and the disabled are starving on the streets, people sell their children to factory owners, getting 8-year-olds hooked to the heroin you sell is a perfectly legal career move and pneumonia and appendecitis (both easily treatable since the 20th century) are major causes of death among the poor who cannot afford health care (we might even see malaria epidemics and the return of the plague).

What nonsense is that? There is absolutely no reason to expect any of the above. I could, with much more sense, argue that your life and property are unlikely to be afforded any protection by government judges. After all, we live in a society in which the President routinely sends drones and kills innocent people. In a society in which militarized police routinely breaks into people's homes without notice, killing their dogs and scaring their children. In a society in which people are routinely locked up in cages for years at end for harmless activities such as selling Marijuana. In a society in which one's house can be confiscated for the purpose of transferring it to another private party. I could go on.

I could add that orphans and widows nor the poor in general enjoy no Constitutional protection against starving in the streets. The only reason (by your logic which ignores private charity) they don't is that Congress and/or state governments chose to pass laws for the relief of poverty. Laws, mind you, that could be legally retracted at any point.

In an an-cap society, poor people won't enjoy any legal right to take other people's property, just as they don't enjoy that legal right today. However, decent people will want to help the poor amongst them (as they do now). The only difference is that they will use their own money to do so, rather than rob other people's money for the purpose.

Again, the rest of society is perfectly OK with child labor, the poor starving and dying of easily curable diseases, etc... Can you really guarantee they would care where their toys came from as long as they're cheap? Also, why would you need to kidnap the mother to produce slave children when you can legally buy children?

What makes you think that society is "perfectly OK" with the above? Can your mind not recognise any options other than (1) legally prohibit, and (2) be perfectly OK with something?

Is today's society "perfectly OK" with parents feeding their children nothing but junk food or prohibiting them from reading books? Is today's society "perfectly OK" with people being drunk all day, rolling in their own vomit?

Those are all examples of behaviours we aren't "OK" with, yet we didn't (yet) choose to legally prohibit.




In an an-cap society, people won't lose their social sentiments. They will still feel bad about poverty (especially local poverty) and the lot of suffering children. They will choose socially-acceptable and legal means for expressing those sentiments, namely, engaging in educational campaigns, contributing to charity, helping their neighbours.

Such efforts are going to be much more effective than those of entrenched and unaccountable government bureaucrats whose power tends to increase rather than decrease with repeated failure.

[Nunt]

Please take this as constructive criticism only.

How can we possibly see this as constructive? You are looking at the most extreme far-fetched scenarios and using that to try and prove that libertarianism cannot work. But as Eran has illustrated it is very easy to point out extreme (but not so far-fetched as they occur quite often) scenarios that really put governments in a bad daylight. What if, what if, what if... Its just so easy.

In that case, the party-goer has (technically) been informed of the toll, and has effectively agreed to its terms simply by showing up.

Technically yes. But the law should not be applied by robots. I would argue that in such cases, consent to the toll was never given. In such a case, simply showing up would never be sufficient to agree to the terms. If the terms of the contract are what people can expect under normal circumstances (for example: if you pee on the floor, you will be asked to leave) then this could be put in fine print and still be binding. If the terms of the contract are unusual, then this needs to be spelled out more explicitly before it can be binding.

Furthermore, people can always renege on contracts. They only have to pay some compensation when they renege on a contract. In such a case, the party goer should compensate the value of what he has received. So he needs to pay for his drinks, and maybe an entrance ticket. He would not have to pay a million $.

the rest of society is perfectly OK with child labor

So lets assume the rest of society is perfectly OK with child labor. How do you expect a democratically elected government (which should reflect the preferences of the population) to forbid child labor?

getting 8-year-olds hooked to the heroin you sell is a perfectly legal career move

Selling heroin to children does not comply with the NAP.

Children are people who are too young to make decisions for themselves. Children are, by definition, too young to give consent. If you give heroin to an adult and he consumes it, then it is the adults choice to poison his body. If you give herion to a child and he consumes it, then it is not the child's choice. The child is too young to make such a choice. Rather than an act between two consenting adults, it is you poisoning the child without consent. You would engage in a criminal act. If you give a bottle of arsenic to a baby rather than a bottle of milk and the baby drinks it, then it is not the baby's decision to poison himself. It is your decision. The same applies to every child.

The NAP basically allows everything between two consenting adults. This does not apply to children. To think so is ridiculous. To think so is not being constructive at all.

[Rothbardian]

Please take this as constructive criticism only.

Does the following loophole in libertarianism (more specifically it's NAP foundation) exist? I think everyone here knows about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). It is often criticized for focusing entirely on physical violence and violations of private property while neglecting non-physical violence such as scamming but also, perhaps, more controversial, not providing emergency aid to someone who's in trouble, even if you are the cause of that trouble (like convincing a friend to go driving through the Sahara but refusing to share your water after you get stranded because of engine failure), and most troubling the "right" to let your kids starve on the streets if you don't feel like taking care of them anymore.

I have constructed a class of scenarios that would, if I'm right, enable you to end the lives of people you don't like and get you slaves without any step violating the NAP as it is usually stated (I know not all libertarians agree on the precise definition, but plenty do agree with the versions I need for my scenarios to work).

My scenarios work like this:

1) get people to enter on a piece of real estate you own

2) tell them that you've designated the perimeter of your property to be a toll zone with a toll fare of $1 billion, this leaves them essentially trapped on your property if they are not billionaires

3) let them starve or tell them they can have food, clothing and shelter if they work in a sweat shop located on your property (they're not officially slaves because they can leave if they pay the toll fare)

So what am I missing here, or am I not missing anything? I know standard replies would be "but people would shun you if you did such things": maybe some would, but what if the victim was not liked by the community or your slave-produced goods are so cheap many people can't resist, or people just don't give a f*ck about slavery as long as they're not slaves, which you can assure them by only taking slaves of a different ethnicity or social group (like in most of history), and in the end, the possibility of people shunning a slaver/murderer (well, technically, "property defender") is not particularly a potent deterrent that would make me feel safe in a libertarian world. Another reply could be "well maybe there should be a standard for people to announce toll hikes before hand", yes, that could be a standard effectively mandated by consumer organizations (by collectively boycotting owners of roads and buildings who do not comply), but how will that prevent people from using the trap trick in homes or other small private properties that are not of interest to a consumer organization and how would it prevent people from trapping children by announcing a toll fare years before the children are 18 (by the way, who gets to decide the age of maturity?)

In any case I just do not see a way to prevent these things without the NAP being changed.

All the non aggression principle means is that using violence in a situation other than self defense or the defense of your property is wrong. Unless these people agreed to these terms BEFORE coming onto your land I don't see what this has to do with the NAP except perhaps as an illustration of how confused you are? In a first world anarcho capitalist system this would be a dispute (because no one is going to sit there and let you do this to them whether they can afford your idiotic bill/fine or not) that would go to third party arbitration that would be resolved by compromise, and you'd likely end up black listed by all but the most seedy and ill-reputed agencies, effectively removing yourself from society. Enjoy your life as a hermit dreaming of the old days when you could simply get elected to government to carry out your schemes.