What if he offered to sell the water to me for $1mn then lent me $1mn as I only had $5 on my person? Would the contract be legitimate if 2 people found me and 1 loaned me the money and the other made the sale?
...
What if a storm blows us out to sea and we run out of fuel? Is the captain obliged to share any rations he packed with me or am I going hungry due to my own neglect? Can he sell me rations at extortionate prices?
Reasonable legal processes have evolved for centuries under the Common Law. I see no reason why, in a libertarian anarchy, we won't continue that tradition of reasonableness.
Exactly where the boundary lies in particular, unlikely, extreme cases, may well be a difficult question to answer. Under any system.
Perhaps land owner A sells to land owner B this has an effect on other land owners in the locality. Land owner K may wake up one morning to find his property completely enclosed by landowner B. K has a right of way established on this land as he regularly transports his goods to market on horseback. Overtime technology advancements make it more profitable to transport goods using vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. K wishes to use an ICE to transport his crops but B objects on the grounds that the larger heavier vehicle would cause greater damage to her crops and top soil. She also objects to the noise and smoke produced by the vehicle. If K continues using horses as transportation he will be put out of business as his competitors will undercut his prices. Do you recognize the position of power that B now holds over K?
Sure. K may be better off either selling his property, or negotiating terms with B.
I must stress, though, that such scenarios can easily be constructed under any legal system. The question isn't whether any legal system will perfectly render intuitively-just results under any and all scenarios, but rather which legal system as applied in practice by reasonable people under common conditions, is more likely to result in just outcomes.
Further, every society and every legal system are ever-evolving. Even governments evolve and often improve their performance over time. Motivated individuals and for-profit corporations tend to be much more responsive. So while it is easy to paint an isolated instance of potential injustice, it is much more difficult to extrapolate from that to a sustainable long-term pattern of injustice.
Thus if the problem you describe above is at all common, people will quickly learn of the need to negotiate flexible, "technology-proof" rights of way. Perhaps agree on common, democratic control over critical arterial roads. Or strong preference to relocate to places served by multiple, competing, reputable road operators.
Do I have any homesteading rights if I was born there?
Homesteading is the process of acquiring property rights in previously-unowned resources. Nobody has "homesteading rights" over resources that are already owned. Everybody has "homesteading rights" over unowned resources.
What if a global solidarity movements made up of labour and consumer groups pressured the company to improve wages and working conditions at the expense of shareholder dividends?
As long as the pressure doesn't involve force, but merely threats of boycott and the like, it is perfectly legitimate. It seems to me, however, to be counterproductive.
The pressure will have the inevitable effect of raising prices or lowering wages for other workers. It is an illusion to believe that above-market wages can sustainably be paid by reducing dividends. Explaining why would require a divergence (albeit an interesting one) into economics.
Since the consumers would have to pay for their pressure through higher prices, they may as well contribute money directly to the needy workers, rather than rely on the indirect and unreliable process you describe.
If you wish to live in an an-cap world you need to make it sustainable. If the majority of the population is suffering destitution and (in their view) injustice then they are likely to abandon NAP and forcefully redistribute property by way of land reform and taxation.
I agree. However, I don't think the scenario you paint is likely. Much more likely is that economic freedom will (as it has always) result in unprecedented growth and prosperity.
1- The capitalists make voluntary arrangements to redistribute wealth so as to appease the impoverished majority and engage in intense propaganda campaigns in an attempt to scare people away from statism, socialim, communism, etc.
2- Capitalists abandon NAP and terrorize and oppress the poor with extreme violence. Also a propaganda campaign claiming that they are protecting freedom, not their class interests.
You are making the mistake of implicitly accepting socialist propaganda. In a free market it is much more difficult to acquire, and even more difficult to maintain, high levels of wealth.
To make excess returns, a capitalist needs to continually innovate, or else face inevitable competition that tends to drive prices down to the cost of production, and wages up to the marginal productivity.
Without protective government regulation (including intellectual monopolies), a free society will see a much more vital, dynamic, competitive market. A few people may come with great ideas that create great wealth, a small part of which they retain. More typically, however, capitalists will find life much more difficult, constantly facing new entrants that force them to "squeeze down" any excess profits.
I didn't mean to suggest that inequality and injustice are unique to an-cap. I want to explore what, if any, checks and balances exist to prevent or redress them.
The best ones, namely the resolute and unwavering protection of private property rights.
As soon as society institutionalises and legitimises violations of property rights, it becomes very easy to excuse, rationalise and popularise such violations. The effective control over the institutions legitimised in robbing others (the political sphere) quickly passes to the most powerful elements in society (whether by wealth or social popularity). Even when, as is common today, there is broad sentiment that such powers ought to be used to benefit the weak, the practical combination of self-interest, economic ignorance, hidden costs, political demagoguery, rational ignorance (by voters) and the inherent knowledge problems of central planning all conspire to frustrate even the best of intentions.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
- By QatzelOk
- By Fasces
- By JohnRawls
- By litwin