Mfw ancaptards wouldn't pull the lever

>mfw ancaptards wouldn't pull the lever

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'm an ancap and I would pull the lever. The 'no trespassing' is clearly with the intention of not getting stolen, harmed, or people just destroying property. That will not happen in this instance. Whether you get consent before or after the fact is not important. If a guy is getting chased by a bear and he can only escape by jumping my fence, I would not mind. It is expected that I of course would be able to live alongside people with similar values and segregate ourselves from others because theres no government forcing us to live with niggers or shitskins so the owner of that place would have a similar mentality and would not mind.

...

the lever will break if you pull it and the train will start a fire on the owner's land

private property does not exist.
you're just leasing it from the government.

>The 'no trespassing' is clearly with the intention of not getting stolen, harmed, or people just destroying property.
It also means no standing on the property, crossing onto it and messing with other things on the property, and especially not messing with the function of transportation systems on the property. You would be shot by the automated missile defense systems the moment you crossed onto the property anyways and it would be perfectly fine under anarcho-capitalism.

You know you are a retard when you have to come up with scenarios where you know the future ahead of time.

I would pull the lever anyway. WIth my segregated community it is expected that the owner will let it go and/or the people I saved will chip in to pay for fixing that shit. I would not pull the lever in a non-segregated society and would happily watch degenerate race-mixing scum die.

>there are automated missile defense systems
>but there are no systems keeping track of the people about to die who are on the track and pose as a liability to the owner/danger to the trolley because objects on the tracks can always be dangerous
Go be retarded somewhere else.

What is enforcing the segregation and 'likemindedness of others' in your community?

Maybe the owner meant for it to be that way.

Whatever you think. You can live wiith whoever you want in ancap society.

i made that up on the spot

the purpose of the trolley exercise is to force you to choose between two bad outcomes, not be a faggot attempting to explain why one isn't bad at all.

right, so nothing?
what if the owner of the property was 'likeminded' but recently changed his mind and didn't want anyone on his property anymore for no reason?

>two bad outcomes presented in a scenario
>one isn't actually bad
>OH GOD THE SCENARIO ISN'T SUPPORTING MY VIEWS TIME TO CHANGE THE SCENARIO
Hello, retard.

Then the rest of the community hunts him down for getting up to 6 people killed.

gun battle, obviously. whoever can kill the other first wins, the way human scum was meant to live in this hell

is he allowed to defend himself from attackerss IE the towns people who are "justified" in attacking him? do they have to send him a notice first and he signs it so everyone is in agreement beforehand?

Well I mean clearly pulling the lever would insinuate that you willingly allow the train on your property.

why cant you adapt to the new scenario, you beaner coward?

>pulling the lever
>not eliminating competition

>Then the rest of the community hunts him down for getting up to 6 people killed.
What if no one liked the 6 people? What if no one believed you about them? What if they were his slaves he bought and had the right to murder? What if they were non-white and your community celebrated it instead?

>is he allowed
He is certainly able.

>do they have to send him anotice first
The actions to be taken by the community would have been made clear the moment he moved into the community. He would have had to acknowlege them at that moment.


I already gave my answer to the new scenario, you absolute retard.

As an ancap yes I would pull the lever

I don't think the owner would care. Even if he did, the people I saved and the community overall would probably acknowledge the virtue of my actions and help me pay up the legal consequences of trespassing that guy's property.

Is that the best you got?

>right to murder
>slaves
>i'm going to shit on ancaps by pretending they are based on nothing and conveniently ignore the NAP.

4 people are getting their NAP violated, obviously i would pull the lever.

>I already gave my answer to the new scenario, you absolute retard.

can't you come up with one that isn't falling apart under the most basic scrutiny?

>124523240

Oh, theres 5 people, one more reason to pull the lever.

That's the reason proportionality is a thing in ancap theory:

mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-0

>falling apart under the most basic scrutiny?
>never actually addressed my answer to the new scenario
Great scrutiny, m8.

It doesn't violate the NAP though
>"Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway-freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children."

>Tfw you get btfo by a Mexican intellectual for real.

thats a nice painting

>I would pull the lever anyway. WIth my segregated community it is expected that the owner will let it go and/or the people I saved will chip in to pay for fixing that shit. I would not pull the lever in a non-segregated society and would happily watch degenerate race-mixing scum die.

Expecting the owner to let it go? Dude was violating the NAP of 5 people, you made an accomplishment violating his property and saving those poor people.

This doesn't address slavery or murder at all. It only addresses the need of childs to have a caretaker. It never even says anything about child slavery or murder. Why? Because minors are protected under the NAP.

I helped the morons on the other side by pretending the owner did not do that and someone else did. It would be too easy otherwise.

>implying that it's a bad thing.

>I helped the morons on the other side by pretending the owner did not do that and someone else did. It would be too easy otherwise.

If the owner didn't do that, then you wouldn't be punished too hard, that's proportionality: mises.org/library/punishment-and-proportionality-0

Your punishment must bee proportional to your infraction, pulling a lever isn't something that severe.

That is what I have been explaining. I would live with people who believe in proportionality.

Yes I would pull the lever, it goes under defense of other's life.

so then i can take your money to pay to feed and medicate myself then, right?