/liberty/ - Liberty

>>89774

>not clear who is responsible for bystander deaths as cameras are a breech of privacy and all

You are free to record anything you are free to see.

If there are several gangs, then the one who breaks the NAP is deemed responsible for the property damage caused during fight. Only if it has insufficient resources for some reason then the one who defended will have to pay the rest. Also, it's stupid to go doing daily things during actual armed conflict, might as well go farming on a mine field, while if there is not some prolonged fighting, then if someone starts shooting or pointing arms at others he might get targeted himself and killed if necessary, so these things are very deincentivized, more than physical presence of a cop today would do.

>>89775

>You are free to record anything you are free to see.

Lat's say said marketplace has no reason to maintain cameras, plus it's hard to film a bullet

The point is there is no way to determine who damaged whom, just a stray bullet from a gang war, or maybe even just a spontaneous shoot-out between two or more non-clearly defined groups, so that there are no organisations or entities involved that you can sue.

> it's stupid to go doing daily things during actual armed conflict

Well, you have to do daily business, how do people get bread in war zones? Inb4 they don't. Groceries have to be acquired even if there is a city-wide gang war. inb4.2 people live in basements. Let's not be all that futuristic, we could give this a Wild West setting. This seems like a weak point of libertarianism, I mean once we get repulsor shields this is completely no longer an issue, but until then street shoot-outs would result in more deaths than was intended and no-one to charge. Even if the gangs are well defined, there is no evidence which one killed someone and they are not likely to be honest or cooperate with local will-of-employer enforcement or sheriff or vigilantes. Naturally the struggle would incentivise one of the gangs to take safety measures so that they would appear more safe and people would casually shoot at the other gang for being negligent and irresponsible, but that's no iron rule and people will die and property will be damaged.

>>89777

as the other anoncap said, the gang which started the aggression wouod be deemed responsible for any and all stray bullets.

>>89777

>Lat's say said marketplace has no reason to maintain cameras, plus it's hard to film a bullet

Personal recording devices and cameras located on property. Also, flash and pointed guns are easy to record even in 360p.

>The point is there is no way to determine who damaged whom

There certainly is, just not with 100% reliability. Go with the most probable scenario, as well as compare words of the involved.

>Well, you have to do daily business, how do people get bread in war zones?

War zones are not ancap system, they are warzones. Ancap is an established system, at least the ancap we're talking about. If it is a war sone, then people would act like they are in a war zone, with shooting, fighting and all other ways thing can go wrong because it's literally a SHTF scenario.

>Groceries have to be acquired even if there is a city-wide gang war

Kinda weird for established gangs to appear when they can easily be shot without long courts, prisons that create the and welfare for poverty to spread. Also, if you have the problem you don't have enough PMCs, there will be a high demand for their cervices, which directly decrease their numbers.

>Let's not be all that futuristic, we could give this a Wild West setting.

Still the same thing applies, the ones who fought have to pay for the damage dealt, the survivor if he is one, or go to above if you have multiple people under suspicion.

> street shoot-outs would result in more deaths than was intended and no-one to charge

I think the only serious problem here is the fact that if innocent bystanders died there's not much can be done to change that. If this is not the case, then you either capture the guilty, or find the guilty and capture them, which is what detectives of PMCs are for. Guilty for damaging property, of course.

>they are not likely to be honest or cooperate

Again, it's in best interests of those who did not to tell the truth, because others would have to lie and still cannot do much about details that can surely be found out. Covering their expenses for the property damage and the medical help, as well as court/detectives' work(if it costs extra) is also a good bonus, because the one who defended will pay for only fracture of things that are not covered by contract.

>that's no iron rule and people will die and property will be damage

This is the same as with any other system but ancap offers the least opportunities for such a thing, generally.

>using Shadowrun to describe AnCap when Shadowrun is the prefect example of a dystopian, oligarchic surveillance society

ShadowRUNNERS are AnCap, or faggot ecoterrs. The megacorps are most definitely NOT anarchist.

>>89777

>This seems like a weak point of libertarianism

How? Your scenario is basically that something bad happens, but there is no evidence to link anyone to the bad event. Well, by that standard, every system will fail. A government might make it a rule that shooting in the streets is forbidden, but the market might also make it a rule that shooting in its McStreet is forbidden, so that's no relevant difference, either.

>but until then street shoot-outs would result in more deaths than was intended and no-one to charge.

Sure you can charge someone. There are so many legal ways out that I don't know where to start. Sue the gang that started firing first, because it instigated the shooting; sue the gang that fired back when retreat was a realistic option, because while you may defend your life with violence, you do have to use other, less convenient but comparably effective options when the lifes of others are at risk. Better yet, sue them even if they didn't do anything objectively wrong, by whatever legal standards you use to assess that, because they acquired something (their safety) at the expense of someone else (his life). You can sue all shooters on that ground because they all acted for the protection of their group, not just themselves individually.

I can tell you, under a government, it wouldn't look any different. Even if there was a legal grey area involved, or a real loophole, guess what? The judges would create a quickfix. That's what actually happens IRL, because legislators cannot foresee every possible constellation.

You could use eyewitness accounts to figure out who was where, then look at the trajectory of the bullets. Basic forensics.

Thank you all for your answers, i see this board is not as dead as I presumed. First of all, I am a full bloody AnCap, sometimes Stirnerite, and so I have no misgivings about the theory of AnCap. Of course, with private markets and streets, private cities for that matter, PMCs and a host of other developments AnCap would be more like suburbia than Brasil. But one thing is the noble theory of AnCap and another it's practice, so actually simple anarchy with exchange under power balance and mutual benefit and popular armistice because shooting is in no-one's economic interest. HOWEVER Somalia, for all it's government-created problems, is pretty AnCap and that's more of the setting. There are multiple problems with tracking down who shot a certain bullet, street warfare is not a saloon brawl and with spontaneous confrontations there is no side that 'started it'. Also, it's hard suing someone when they have no intention of going to an arbiter. Inb4 subscription police: the situation is not as clear. We are not talking about a well settled AnCap reality, but the AnCap that is humanly possible with things like large groups of armed people who have some ideology driving their aggression. actually the largest flow of AnCap in general is the largest flow of Marxism: the assumption that people are "homo economicus" and all ideology is just a product that we buy into when our socio-economic position makes it the best choice for us, but that's for a different post

>>89792

Good post, I like your breakdown of private security. It's a lot like medical professionals in ancient China, who were paid a small allowance by each patient when not ill, so the doctor had direct incentive to cure people and keep them alive for as long as possible.

>>89784

>haha, funny tapestry, I save"

>let's check if /liberty/ is alive

>open folder, choose random image, come up with issue loosely based on picture

>"herp derp how can you not know the lore of some game that I like you faggot"

>there was no point 4

>???

>profit

>>89777

>Lat's say said marketplace has no reason to maintain cameras, plus it's hard to film a bullet

But you just gave a reason–to facilitate security. If people decide they don't need cameras for security they'll go to places where there aren't cameras. If they're willing to accept cameras then they will, the marketplace will determine which policy prevails (and even then the one that "loses" would still have a market presence, it would just be marketed as a niche instead of a standard).

>we could give this a Wild West setting.

The "Wild" West actually had very low homicide rate and was a relatively peaceful place to live. Most duels and similar didn't just happen in the middle of everyday life either, they were at a pre-determined time and place; the participants made sure to stay clear of bystanders and vice versa.

>Well, you have to do daily business, how do people get bread in war zones?

By modifying their behavior to match their circumstances. If travelling alone is dangerous, you travel in convoys or caravans. If you know Store A is in the middle of disputed territory, go to Store B. This isn't that complicated.

Let me ask you this: How does the statist system deal with gang wars and innocent bystanders, if isn't clear who to charge? You still have the same basic problem, making muh gubmint in charge of security and prosecution doesn't change this. Ancap isn't a utopia and it's not supposed to be. There are going to be problems with imperfect solutions, because that's how life fucking works. This idiotic whataboutism in which you fabricate some unrealistic edge-case scenario where rights might not get perfectly enforced does nothing to challenge the greater idea. What you're doing here is the equivalent of an ancap searching for articles of jaywalkers getting run over, and triumphantly screaming, "HAHA STATISTS, WHERE ARE YOUR PERFECT GUBMINT ROADS NOW? OWNED11!1!!" It's ridiculous and means nothing.

>>89805

>HOWEVER Somalia, for all it's government-created problems, is pretty AnCap

THis would only be true if Somalia got the way it is as a result of government power being decreased. But this wasn't the case, in fact the Somalian government was pretty authoritarian before the collapse but was still unable to prevent it.

>actually the largest flow of AnCap in general is the largest flow of Marxism

That's also not true. Austrians can and do take "noneconomic" factors into account into their theories; this idea of humans being mindless automatons is used mostly by Keynesians and the Chicago school. Marx doesn't have a good enough grasp of what motivates humans to develop any kind of economic theory at all, using terms like "class consciousness" to cover the holes in his reasoning.

>>89808

>But you just gave a reason–to facilitate security

Of course there is an incentive, but when the market is simply a piece of land that the people around it decided not to build on and use for trade, there is no immediate need to set up cameras. Even if the market is privately owned, AnCapolis does not require a massive urban setting, in fact, AnCap operates best in rural and semi-rural setting

>The "Wild" West actually had very low homicide rate

I don't give much of a fuck about the homicide rate, mutually implied destruction and the high risk of opening fire at people who we don't like made murder not as popular of a hobby, but the Wild west setting is more important not for murder rate, but small, remote, self governed (or non-governed) community

>What you're doing here

No, I am not looking for problems with AnCap. I am an AnCap and have no problem with random people dying due to gang wars (or simply fraction wars, gang is not an accurate word perhaps)

>THis would only be true if Somalia got the way it is as a result of government power being decreased

Well, the government power did decrease, abruptly. The government created problems I am referring to is America's encouragement of piracy in the region to have a toehold to close the Bab-al-Mandab if they need to. Furthermore Somalia does now have a government and would not call it as AnCap as it should be. BUT Somalia did give us a glimpse of what a modern AnCap would look like. I personally would rather choose a position in mid society there than in mid society Sweden, though that's more of an aesthetic and moral choice and not an economic calculation.

>actually the largest flow of AnCap in general is the largest flow of Marxism

Rothbard does base his theories on homo economicus. Austrians are not AnCaps. Carl Menger had it right ofc. Also Marx does provide a very simple economic mechanism, one that is highly materialistic (as much as possible, although it still is inconsistent due to Hegel's unremoved influence) but this is not the point of the thread

In AnCap random people will be shot and there will be little or no consequences. In advanced, civilised AnCap this may not be the case. I am fine with both situations, though running around with a gun and shooting people with a different colour jacket with no consequences sounds like good fun as does ducking while shopping, so I'd rather choose the first option.

AnCap is a utopia, but it shouldn't.

>>89806

>were paid a small allowance by each patient when not ill, so the doctor had direct incentive to cure people and keep them alive for as long as possible.

wow it sounds great

today doctors are not even bound to cure you, they are bound to try to cure you. where i live only nonprofessional doctors (quackery) give you warranty, suprisingly

>>89807

Don't fly colors from foreign nations you fucking idiot. The content of your posts is a representation of your person. People post things they like, people like things they know. People like you sicken me. I bet you just post "le hilarious animu gal" all the time too.

>>89915

Yes sir, sorry sir, sorry to appropriate your culture sir, your jackboot tastes great sir