Anarcho Ad AbsurdumSubmitted by Menschken on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 07:42
Some fun with NAP and it's favored theory of property.
The absurdity lies in the property theory and not in the idea of non aggression. The idea of non aggression is common to pretty much all legal-ethical systems, it is simply a question of which system of property rights defined whether aggression occurs.
In this system, property is:
1) obtained only by title transfer, or
2) homesteading - with no limits on how much you can grab that aren't arbitrary
3) absolute, inalienable
4) defensible with any force
5) one's domain where one can commit any acts whatsoever
6) one's legal domain where no law holds unless agreed to by contract
7) a place where trespassers can be captured, tortured, etc. since they are criminal trespassers and guilty parties
We can call this the sovereign or feudal property theory, and if this is the property theory you believe in, it will lead to all manner of fun absurdities, of which the following are some.
-In such a system, aggression would be trespassing on someone's square 500 mile homesteaded kingdom to pick an apple, in which mercenary robocop armies from private agencies could descent from skynet to machine gun the hungry person.
-All enforcement of these property claims must be privately obtained by purchase, donation or maybe volunteer serfs...
-On the other hand, of 100 to the 850th power of people agree to X rules and force 1 person to adhere to those same rules, grave injustice has been committed.
-If people bought up the 4 spaces of land around my holding and built a tower of Babel around my property and cut my water off, I would be the aggressive party to climb over the wall.
-If I walked by a drowning person in a river and he grabbed onto my leg and pulled himself onto the bank, I could shoot him down as an aggressive trespasser.
-A person making gigantic bonfires in their yard sending flaming debris and ash through the sky can't be stopped - that would be aggression. But if the entire town caught fire, he would be sued in a private arbitration... or something.
-If ten adjacent properties that formed a square shared an outer perimeter, and a mob of violent freemasons was descending on the town, and nine property owners told the tenth not to permit access into the defensible square, and tried to stop him, then the nine are aggressors and the one is the victim.
-If one man homesteaded the entire earth except for the city of Fargo, North Dakota, and all the rest of humanity existed inside of Fargo, it would be aggression for them to force a redistribution.
-If a man was on his property torturing exotic ring tailed lemurs from Damascus for personal amusement every day, it would be aggression to enter his property to stop him and he would be entitled to shoot you down unless he had signed a contract with PETA/Blackwater corp.