How does NAP deal with a situation where two individuals disagree about who owns the property?

Calling my lawyers right now. You screwed, lad.

Assuming it's a big deal, just use the records from the land and title company so we can get it cleared up.

How would the NAP be "enforced" in a libertarian/ancap society? It sounds great on paper, but what happens if a bunch of individuals get together, buy guns, and decide to go around taking other people's property by force?

Their stock will fall, and people will avoid making transactions with them. So as you see the market will punish them for their transgressions.

>How would the NAP be "enforced" in a libertarian/ancap society?
By individual human beings instead of by the state. This isn't complicated. I don't know why so many of you imagine the state is some perfect magical problem solving fairy, it's really not that good at solving these kinds of problems.
>what happens if a bunch of individuals get together, buy guns, and decide to go around taking other people's property by force?
I don't know, maybe, and this is crazy but hear me out, you have your own firearms and take responsibility for defending what's yours instead of demanding that a nanny state provide you with armed bodyguards?
Which by the way isn't at all what police officers are in reality:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
>Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Cops enforce laws, they aren't there to protect you. You're supposed to protect yourself.

>By individual human beings instead of by the state.
What if the vast majority of human beings decided that aggression against a certain group is acceptable? That basically ends up being tyranny of the majority, how is that any better than a state controlled by direct democracy? It's not that states are "magical", but rather that in the absence of a state, any sort of group intending to exert power (even if only to enforce the NAP) effectively BECOMES a state.

>I don't know, maybe, and this is crazy but hear me out, you have your own firearms and take responsibility for defending what's yours instead of demanding that a nanny state provide you with armed bodyguards?
That's very inefficient though, everyone has only so much energy, if the individuals have to expend energy watching their back and personally protecting all their possessions, they won't be able to produce nearly as much. In practice it will lead to the creation of private police/security forces, who devote their time to protecting others in exchange for payment. And then those who can afford to hire the largest private security forces will be able to use them to take stuff from others by force.

Thunderdome

On a small scale, the same shit that happened in Texas, Oklahoma, and other western states in the 1800s. The majority of property owners get tired of their shit, decide civil interaction has failed, and raise a much bigger armed group.

Which super sucks, since the initial ass holes will likely end up dead and you and your neighbors are out the time or cash for no real productivity. Would have been better for everyone if people had just kept productive.

So basically when people form into gangs/tribes/groups smaller groups will get pushed over easily without anyone doing a shit?
Sounds like an african shithole.

>What if the vast majority of human beings decided that aggression against a certain group is acceptable?
That's called the birth of a nation.
>And then those who can afford to hire the largest private security forces will be able to use them to take stuff from others by force.
That's called the birth of the state.

See? All anarchich utopias prove self defeating in that they create the conditions to restart the state all over again in its more openly predatory and frank version, not without causing much bloodshed in the process.

>What if the vast majority of human beings decided that aggression against a certain group is acceptable? That basically ends up being tyranny of the majority, how is that any better than a state controlled by direct democracy? It's not that states are "magical", but rather that in the absence of a state, any sort of group intending to exert power (even if only to enforce the NAP) effectively BECOMES a state.

It almost sounds as if states were a natural evolution of social organization in a hostile environment.

>What if the vast majority of human beings decided that aggression against a certain group is acceptable?

Literally what prevents the current local, state, and federal governments from doing this to you, right now, under the guise of imminent domain or a fraudulent criminal justice case. Only everyone else around you calling bullshit because that's unfair as fuck.

We are not so removed from our Feudal warlord origins as we would like to think, but we are also not all as sociopathic as we have been led to believe.

Again, that works in situations where the majority of people are on the side of peace and civility. But in a society where most people are decent like that, why wouldn't democracy work just as well? A lot of libertarians are skeptical of democracy because it leads to "tyranny of the majority", yet violence is INHERENTLY democratic, and so unless the (non-democratic) state has a monopoly on violence, any society ends up with tyranny of the majority.

That's pretty much my point. But if you oppose the coercive nature of a state, that indicates that the solution is not to get rid of states, but to get rid of hostile environments. How do you plan on doing that?

Then you get Somalia

Post more ancap memes

> how do you get rid of hostile environments
Murdering every tribe but your own, historically speaking. That's half the point of a state anyway, raising manpower.

Without outside pressure from other tribes, you could probably swing much simpler structures ala Polyneisan tribes.

Ancapistan is the jew wet dream

Exactly this.

> implying ivory tower intellectuals from both the conservative and progressive camps haven't always dreamed of not having someone telling them what to do

Arbitration?

Murdering everyone who disagrees with you is the exact opposite of non-coercion though.

Not an argument

Why do people have to go to austitic extremes about everything?
>governments suck at some issues and sometimes step out of boundaries.
Yeah.
>Let abolish the state altogether.
Uh what?

Can someone explain the NAP me? From what I can tell it seems like a retarded reinvention of the social contract for people who cannot accept its existence

it's bound to happen sooner or later when goverments became too corrupt and there's no good goys to defend it anymore. what happens after that is different question.

...

I AM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN
youtube.com/watch?v=Ebt0l8s3aMQ

Why is /leftypol/ so obsessed with anarcho-capitalism and always spamming these threads?

Anarcho-capitalism is just a meme and that is all it will ever be. Not even the Koch brothers would go that far. Surely the "revolution" would be better served by focusing on state capitalism and neoliberalism, they are the mean to which your socialist societies always seem to regress to and systems that are actually in power and supposedly the cause of all your ills.

Usually if a government becomes too corrupt and fails, it becomes replaced by another one, which is often just as corrupt. Governments rarely go away for good, they're the easiest way for society to structure itself, so generally if there isn't a government somewhere right now, there will be one there soon. From a practical viewpoint, I think a decent government is better than no government at all - there will always be taxation, some amount of corruption, and so on, so long as you live under a government, but getting rid of a decent government usually just creates an opportunity for an even worse one to take over.

>Why do you believe the state is the only entity capable of mediating between two disagreeing parties?

It's not that other entities can't, it's that other entities don't have a monopoly of violence so the agreement isn't forceful.

How can I be sure the mediator who offers his services for a fee doesn't rule in favour of the highest paying party?

sometimes it's ok to violate the NAP

it's just a principle not a law or anything

In the absence of a state, there will be other groups with a monopoly on violence. The state's monopoly on violence is not due to any legal aspects (because only the state's OWN laws say it is, and those laws only hold meaning because of the states pre-existing monopoly on violence), but merely due to its size - the government's military and police forces are far more powerful than any individual or small group. Even if you were to somehow get rid of the state, there would still be a group (formal or informal) that is willing to use force as necessary to enforce the status quo. And even if there was no single large group capable of violence, we'd instead have a bunch of smaller groups capable of violence, so you'd basically have constant gang warfare. If you want to avoid violence, then probably the best route is to support a strong government that is willing to protect people's freedom and avoids passing draconian or oppressive legislation. Because without a state, there is a lot less disincentive for smaller groups to resort to violence to get their way, when there is no large centralized group willing to use violence to maintain stability.

Well I had sex with you're wife!

Libertarians seem to think it should be the only "law" that should exist though. So the question is, who would be trusted to decide whether a particular NAP violation should be punished or not?

>Libertarians
You mean ancaps. Libertarians are about the minimalist government protecting maximum civil liberities. It's more about laws which protect the individual rights rather than no rights.

>In the absence of a state, there will be other groups with a monopoly on violence

No there won't. That's an oxymoron. A monopoly implies that only 1 group has exclusivity.

Regardless, a country without a monopoly of violence is called a civil war.

>No there won't. That's an oxymoron. A monopoly implies that only 1 group has exclusivity.
I said in the ABSENCE of a state. Meaning, that if there is no state, somebody OTHER THAN a state will have a monopoly on violence. Though, at that point, you might as well call that group a state.

It would just be a regional monopoly.

Anarcho-capitalism is an easy target. Commies can't compete with glorious neoliberalism.

trial by mutually agreed jury of peers

This

Why? What kind of hidden magic do states have?

Thunderdome

A fight to the death.

They go to mcdonalds court

That's the problem, you can't. Even when the state does the mediation the highest paying party
usually wins.

Kek

>Even when the state does the mediation the highest paying party usually wins.
literally when

monopoly on violence and enforcement.
that's the magic

third party moderator decides who had the earliest legit claim.

>monopoly on violence and enforcement.
Except states don't have a monopoly on that. They don't even have a majority of the action. There are several times more private security guards than state funded police officers. Even the government itself spends more on private guards than they do on police. Also police strikes historically haven't been associated with an increase in crime rates, so no, not having the state impose force on civilians isn't going to magically turn everyone into homicidal maniacs. A lot of you sound like you're living in this imaginary world where the state does all these things they don't actually do in reality.

>monopoly of violence is a racial special ability of the state race

that's not true

>glorious
>neoliberalism
The ideology that has caused all the modern cancers that plague the planet? Unchecked immigration, plutocratic legislation, lobbying bordering bribery, financial criminals like Mr. Fuld getting off without even a fine, unique cultures devolving into a grey unrecognizable mass of McDonald's and Coca-Cola advertisements, low effort mass produced "entertainment", corporations and their profiteering overriding national governments, the delusion of eternal growth, globalization that has caused suffering all around the world.

This ideology is glorious to you?

you mean the McCourt™?

>you will never be a McJudge

AnCaps usually claim that both parties would have to agree on a mediator who they both consider impartial and trustworthy enough that they'll agree to his verdict regardless of whom it favors.

Or i could shoot the guy in the face and bury his body far away from anybody.

Why complicate matters? Just invite him into your home, then shoot him, and claim that he refused to leave your private property after you told him to, thus violating the NAP and justifying you killing him.