Daily Anarchist Forum

Questions And Challenges => Challenges To Anarcho-Capitalism => Topic started by: Syock on July 16, 2013, 06:32:49 AM



Title: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: Syock on July 16, 2013, 06:32:49 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2363990/Chinese-man-refused-luxury-home-scheme-left-marooned-developers-surround-home-MOAT.html

Well, it didn't happen in ancap, but wow.   Most people just pose the question of what if the roads are all owned.  What if they build a moat!?


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: Seth King on July 16, 2013, 05:36:03 PM
That's awesome.


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: MAM on July 25, 2013, 11:07:37 PM
So now that these developers have committed kidnapping who is tasked with putting their heads on spikes?


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: Seth King on July 26, 2013, 12:11:44 AM
So now that these developers have committed kidnapping who is tasked with putting their heads on spikes?

How is it kidnapping? I assume it was their property they built the moat on.

Obviously "their property" is a loaded statement considering that there is no such thing as real private property not sanctioned and protected by the state.


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: MAM on July 26, 2013, 12:19:50 AM
So now that these developers have committed kidnapping who is tasked with putting their heads on spikes?

How is it kidnapping? I assume it was their property they built the moat on.

Obviously "their property" is a loaded statement considering that there is no such thing as real private property not sanctioned and protected by the state.

If home boy can't leave his house do to their actions they are keeping him in that house against his will i.e. they're kidnapping him.


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: Seth King on July 26, 2013, 01:50:23 AM
I don't see it that way at all.

#1 He is allowed to leave. He crosses the moat all the time.

#2 Even if the moat WERE uncrossable, that's still not kidnapping. Kidnapping requires abduction. He's on his own property. He has no right to go onto anybody else's property. Also, he's not being held hostage because nobody is on his property holding him against his will.

#3 I think barricading a person in on their own property would actually be a very good form of house arrest in the future. No need for expensive and cruel prisons.


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: state hater on August 10, 2013, 07:47:35 PM
So now that these developers have committed kidnapping who is tasked with putting their heads on spikes?

How is it kidnapping? I assume it was their property they built the moat on.

Obviously "their property" is a loaded statement considering that there is no such thing as real private property not sanctioned and protected by the state.

I thought that one of the main ideas of market anarchism is that there is real private property without the state.  I'd imagine that this would work something like:  you homestead previously-unclaimed wilderness (or simply continue to occupy property that you owned during the state period), then register the boundary coordinates with your DRO, which then passes this information along to all the other DROs, and if none of them contest this on behalf of any of their subscribers, then you are the rightful owner of that land. 


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: state hater on August 10, 2013, 07:49:33 PM
I don't see it that way at all.

#1 He is allowed to leave. He crosses the moat all the time.

#2 Even if the moat WERE uncrossable, that's still not kidnapping. Kidnapping requires abduction. He's on his own property. He has no right to go onto anybody else's property. Also, he's not being held hostage because nobody is on his property holding him against his will.

#3 I think barricading a person in on their own property would actually be a very good form of house arrest in the future. No need for expensive and cruel prisons.

Of course, innocent people would be protected from this via contracts with the local road company (perhaps provisions for house arrest would be worked into those very contracts), which I outlined in a thread that I started on the freedom of movement in a stateless society. 


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: MAM on August 10, 2013, 08:22:43 PM
I don't see it that way at all.

#1 He is allowed to leave. He crosses the moat all the time.

#2 Even if the moat WERE uncrossable, that's still not kidnapping. Kidnapping requires abduction. He's on his own property. He has no right to go onto anybody else's property. Also, he's not being held hostage because nobody is on his property holding him against his will.

#3 I think barricading a person in on their own property would actually be a very good form of house arrest in the future. No need for expensive and cruel prisons.

If he's allowed to leave then that's not kidnapping. You don't need to be held hostage to be kidnapped. If I lead someone to a closet and lock them in it (even if they went into the closet willingly) I'd consider that kidnapping. I'd even consider it kidnapping if it was their closet I locked them in.


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: Seth King on August 10, 2013, 08:28:02 PM
So now that these developers have committed kidnapping who is tasked with putting their heads on spikes?

How is it kidnapping? I assume it was their property they built the moat on.

Obviously "their property" is a loaded statement considering that there is no such thing as real private property not sanctioned and protected by the state.

I thought that one of the main ideas of market anarchism is that there is real private property without the state.  I'd imagine that this would work something like:  you homestead previously-unclaimed wilderness (or simply continue to occupy property that you owned during the state period), then register the boundary coordinates with your DRO, which then passes this information along to all the other DROs, and if none of them contest this on behalf of any of their subscribers, then you are the rightful owner of that land. 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Of course there is real property without the state. I was merely trying to make the point that what many people call "private" property is in fact, corporate property, and therefore state property, which is therefore not really private.


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: George Clinton on August 10, 2013, 09:48:59 PM
I think this man is actually a smart guy. He was offered likely a very high amount of money to move, and he told them to fuck off. So the land developers get angry, spend probably a healthy chunk of money building a moat to "teach him a lesson." But in the long run, all the land developers are going to end up with is another problem to fix after they pay the man the original offer. In the end, the man teaches these assholes a lesson in how to deal with people, and not fuck themselves in the process.


On a slightly related tangent. I seen a documentary not long ago, something about Chinese ghost cities, maybe on Vice? Anyway, China apparently has quite a few large cities that have been developed over the last X amount of years, the only problem is is that they are way under populated. Might be of interest to some people so I thought I would mention it...


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: Syock on August 11, 2013, 06:47:28 AM
On a slightly related tangent. I seen a documentary not long ago, something about Chinese ghost cities, maybe on Vice? Anyway, China apparently has quite a few large cities that have been developed over the last X amount of years, the only problem is is that they are way under populated. Might be of interest to some people so I thought I would mention it...

I thought I had made a post on this forum about that in the past, but apparently I didn't.  It has to do with the form of leadership they have in China.  

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2573.0.html

In order to advance, they have to show growth in their administrative region.  They build cities to claim growth and get ahead.  It is a form of political/economic fraud.  The growth that China posts every year is bogus.

(http://watchdocumentary.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/China-Ghost-Cities-and-Malls-Documentary.png)


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: SimonJester on September 11, 2013, 12:22:39 PM
On a slightly related tangent. I seen a documentary not long ago, something about Chinese ghost cities, maybe on Vice? Anyway, China apparently has quite a few large cities that have been developed over the last X amount of years, the only problem is is that they are way under populated. Might be of interest to some people so I thought I would mention it...

I thought I had made a post on this forum about that in the past, but apparently I didn't.  It has to do with the form of leadership they have in China.  

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,2573.0.html

In order to advance, they have to show growth in their administrative region.  They build cities to claim growth and get ahead.  It is a form of political/economic fraud.  The growth that China posts every year is bogus.

(http://watchdocumentary.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/China-Ghost-Cities-and-Malls-Documentary.png)


Not a new concept, or consequence.  Google "Potemkin Village".


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: anarchoguitarist on September 13, 2013, 05:03:24 AM
To me this story shows that an average person has more property rights in China than in the US.  Can any of you imagine such a thing happening in the US?  I can't.  That elderly man would have been forced off his property by eminent domain laws long ago if he lived in the states.


Title: Re: Surrounded by Moat
Post by: anarchoguitarist on September 13, 2013, 05:16:11 AM
By the way, stories like these seem to be quite common in China.  They call them "nail houses" there:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/11/the-house-in-the-middle-of-the-street/100411/

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-21393