It would not. But then the water-poor would realize its better to be
practicial than idiological. I believe in real life noone is all-poor. One as
an individual or group has always something to offer. The water-poor/everyone
would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
> How does that make any sense?
Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence.
Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars
against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
> If you're talking about human life spans, ...
Though I concur this is not what I said. If you restrict the time period ofcourse
you are going to find all sort of anomolies.
> The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing
restrictions on power.
Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does
not. If current systems just focus on the former and leave latter alone
not only the unpleasent shifts of powers can be avoided but also
libertarianism/ancapism need not exist.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that stuff, btw. I don't agree at all with the philosophy but I think it's good to understand the logic behind it.
>The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
Except there are places today where there is a right to clean drinking water for everyone - presumably you and me are living in such places. (That's why I was saying "in shitty countries"). So the "not everyone can afford it" point is not an universal truth. Of course it's true if you build a system that wants to make it true.
>Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence. Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
I suppose the underlying assumption is that such wars can be won relatively easily and painlessly - I find that assumption highly questionable.
>Though I concur this is not what I said.
Indeed you didn't. My point was that your assumption only holds in time spans that are not practically relevant.
>Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does not.
I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here. There are lots of other ways I can abuse power that don't involve physical violence.
E.g., suppose I own some land that is crossed by a river that happens to be the major water source for some downstream communities. Now I can build a dam and make all kinds of outrageous demands to the communities and there is little they could do:
- they could try to find alternative water sources - which may be difficult or infeasible, depending on terrain. If I'm determined, I might also make it difficult by bringing as many relevant water sources under my control as possible.
- they could seize my dam or try to drive me away with force - which would violate property ownership and the NAP.
- they could give in to my demands, proving that my interests clearly outweigh the interests of the downstream citizens. Sucks to be them.
Economic warfare is the non-violent weapon. Win is not guranteed but
still its very effective. You as water-blocker will lose something if not due
to downstream community then others.
I also would guess that its a rare scenario otherwise market would have a solution.
> I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here.
Because a violent actor is much worse. Ancap is solution to one specific problem
not a path to utopia.
It would not. But then the water-poor would realize its better to be practicial than idiological. I believe in real life noone is all-poor. One as an individual or group has always something to offer. The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
> How does that make any sense?
Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence. Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
> If you're talking about human life spans, ...
Though I concur this is not what I said. If you restrict the time period ofcourse you are going to find all sort of anomolies.
> The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does not. If current systems just focus on the former and leave latter alone not only the unpleasent shifts of powers can be avoided but also libertarianism/ancapism need not exist.