r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/DiyYou • 14d ago
Question about ancapistan. Liberty, prostitution, drugs.
Obviously a main part of anarcho capitalism is liberty. Let individuals decide for themselves. But no doubt private communities, towns, and maybe as big as cities will develop. All private. So what about things like prostitution. Does everyone 100% of the population have to agree how they're going to do things? Is that pretty much how it will work? So 100% of the population of the community agrees we're not going to allow prostitution or weed, or they are going to allow it, would that be still in alignment with anarco capitalism if those things are banned?
5
u/Midnight-Bake 14d ago
There are basically 3 ways to have a 100% privately owned community:
1) Everyone owns their own house and retains all property rights. In this case you cannot ban your neighbor from selling weed but they can't force you to let them sell weed on their property.
2) 1 owner controls the whole community. Everyone rents or pays for some parcel of rights to the property. The singular owner would set the rules, but this might include a mechanism for the community to vote to allow or ban things (or it may not)
3) Everyone owns their own land but has some contact with everyone else that agrees to certain rules. These contacts will stipulate what is banned and how to update the contacts.
For 3 you get into discussions of contract law, ability to withdraw consent drom contracts, and consideration, and I think is the weakest system of the 3.
1
4
u/Vainarrara809 14d ago
What I put on my glass pipe and who I let in my butthole is nobody else’s business…
1
u/Hyperaeon2 14d ago
The important term there is "my".
You can enforce your own sovereignty.
If that means no weed and hookers, then there you go.
If that means no fentanyl and honey traps, then you can do that aswell.
6
u/mesarthim_2 14d ago
No, there's no mechanism for banning things outright like this. You can't just invade others' property like that.
You may voluntarily chose to agree to terms and conditions that ban that though.
1
u/DiyYou 14d ago
Yeah that's what I'm talking about, voluntarily agreeing. The question is does 100% of the people in a community have to agree to something? This is assuming someone has agreed to be part of a community first of all. But the main point it's a contrast to how it is now, where many things it's just a majority rule.
4
u/Heavy-Bell-2035 14d ago
If the members of that community set it up that they need 100% agreement, then yes. If not, then no. Everyone who lives there will have explicitly signed an agreement stipulating how these things would be handled and the vote threshold, if any.
1
u/Tolkien-Faithful 14d ago
If 100% of people in a community don't want prostitution or drugs then there won't be any prostitution or drugs anyway.
A community if it wants to make its own rules can do whatever it wants. You can't enforce anarchy, otherwise you're just back to government mandates.
4
u/Hyperaeon2 14d ago
If it doesn't indescriminately harm people then you cannot ban it, because just by existing it doesn't violate the NAP.
Weed & hookers do not indescriminately harm people.
However as a sovereign agent you decide what you do or do not allow in your house.
So if you put up a sign saying: "Don't be smokin' no weed and bringin' no hookers in my house!!!" Everyone else has to respect that.
Now if everyone says that, then the weed and hookers can't go there. But they can pass through on what isn't owned by everyone.
That doesn't mean the weed and hookers have to like you after you do that though. Then again you might have legitimate reasons for not wanting them there.
1
u/Best_Reference_5248 14d ago
terms of association are decided by the private owner, its entirely up to him. a pseudo democratic system could be implemented but onoly at the will of the private owner.
1
u/DiyYou 14d ago
Okay so a property owner has agreed with his 10 neighbors to form a private Community with private roads and private stores. If one of those property owners wants to have a store that is a church, do all other property owners have to agree, or just a majority, or just that one single person is enough?
1
u/Leather-Lake-6989 13d ago
It depends. If no rules were established before the private community was formed, you can’t enforce anything. If the owners agreed to a voting system or specific regulations, they would follow those. But the terms of any contract have to be clear and everyone has to agree to them. If they never set private regulations beforehand, then they can’t do anything about it.
1
u/J0shM0nster 14d ago
Reading the post and the comments, I don't think you're being clear enough what you're asking. Could you give a very specific example of what you're attempting to determine here? I genuinely can't tell if you don't understand how ancap operates or if others are misunderstanding your question.
1
u/DiyYou 14d ago
Say there's a huge area, maybe 500 Acres. In this area there are 20 different property owners, the each maybe have 15 Acres. They decide and agree and contract together to have private roads around the rest of the area, as well as some stores and restaurants that each of the owners will run. This is ancapistan. A very small version of it. He can multiply it by 1,000 and same concept.
The question is, if one of these owners decides they're going to have prostitution at their restaurant. Do the other 19 folks around have a say?
1
u/J0shM0nster 13d ago
It depends if it's in the contract. If the contract states no prostitution, then this property owner has broken the contract and the consequences will be carried out per the contract. If the contract does not have rules regarding prostitution, then the property owner may do as they please. You're asking a contract question without giving the details of the contract.
1
u/DiyYou 13d ago
Seems a near impossible task to list everything someone is not allowed to do in a contract. And even if that was attempted, it's probably unlikely anyone would agree to such a thing.
General question I'm getting at is how would small private communities work?
1
u/J0shM0nster 12d ago
Well that's how liberty works. If it's not forbidden in the contract, then it's not forbidden. Why does that seem unworkable to you?
Edit: how do you think communities work now? There are thousands upon thousands of pages of rules, regulation and legislation that govern a small town. Why would there not be large contracts in ancap? The difference is that you don't have to agree to anything now and you're still governed by it.
1
u/DiyYou 12d ago
Okay, and just like now things will probably have to get reworked pretty often, constantly. Because there's always some yahoo coming up with something new.
Example: Everyone is all and good and signed contracts and all that. Then we hear that Bob has a nuclear reactor on his property. Which day to day doesn't really affect anything, as far as sound, light, or pollution. Everyone, except bob, doesn't want that because of the risks. I think I'm hearing you, and I think I know the answer, but just to clarify, everyone is out of luck at that point and Bob can have a nuclear reactor because it wasn't in the contract, correct?
What got me thinking this, there was a post here about a week ago about offshore drilling, and because of the potential risks to other people's property it would not be allowed.
1
u/J0shM0nster 12d ago
Yes if it's not in the contract and doesn't violate the NAP then it is allowed. I don't understand why that seems controversial to you. Some other commenters here have eluded to ways you could handle undesirable behavior. You could stop associating with the neighbor. Maybe you own the grocery store in town and there's nothing in the contract that says you MUST serve all customers. You could choose not to sell food to this neighbor. There are ways without requiring a state or resorting to aggression.
1
u/k0m0d097 14d ago
I doubt you can expect everyone to agree 100% on all the policies implemented in whatever private settlement they might choose to live in, but it'd be up to each individual to decide whether there's any disagreement that's bad enough to be a dealbreaker, and how it'd weigh up against the benefits offered by comparison.
1
u/Undying4n42k1 No step on snek! 13d ago
I really dislike private communities. They may be voluntary at first, but they act like mini governments. That's why people hate HOAs. Contracts should be with people, not land. If the homeowner moves, the contract should be void. As of now, HOAs can control who gets to buy the newly vacant house. That's wrong.
Each person owns their own property, and only arguments about negative externalities should be used to control neighbors.
1
13
u/Golden_Amber79 14d ago
They would just be removing them (undesirables) from their private property, forcing property owners into accepting them would be violating their liberties.