I'm here to pose a trolley problem to Ancaps, Libertarians, and anyone else who adheres to the NAP and/or claims to value private property rights above all others.
A train is heading towards five people, but there is a secondary track which you can pull a lever and divert it. However, this would cause it to trespass on the private property of another without their express consent.
Don't pull the lever, and multiple persons are killed by virtue of your inaction.
Pull the lever, and violate property rights but nobody dies.
Oh and P.S. If you answer that you want to pull the lever, you accept that violating property rights is OK in some circumstances, thereby accepting a role for government.
pull the lever halfway and derail the train so it falls on the people knocks the house down and everybody on the train dies
Grayson Miller
theres already a pic for this
Jayden Wood
>anaclaps >caring about preserving lives
theyre not paying you to pull that lever
Ryan Nelson
I wanted to draw my own bloody house alright. Sorry mum.
Sebastian King
literally the only correct answer
Jace Bennett
Most ancaps will put up a thin veneer of feigned pacifism and concern for human life. When push comes to shove they have to be hypocrites or psychopaths.
Asher Johnson
based japan
Camden Sullivan
...
Christian Brooks
fpbp
Anthony Turner
we have IDs, mr english teacher
Camden Gray
can you stop samefagging my thread kthx
Alexander Anderson
Nice one you fucking nip
Landon Phillips
That's a LOT of spooks in just on thread
Jacob Kelly
oh fuck I was doing airplane mode to switch IPs but forgot wifi was on
Dylan Robinson
>Trolley
its a Tram you fucking un-Australian cunt, get back on your fucking rickety boat and fuck right back to where ever you and your trolley came from
Dominic Hill
...
Daniel Robinson
There is already a rail bought and paid for by the rail company going through the property, no property rights are being violated as railways are the land property of the railway company. Pull the lever, the train continues down it's legal and pre-built rail.
Brayden Flores
If you give a fuck about "trams" you must be a Melburnian commo.
Hunter Torres
Your a crazy gook but I like it
Logan Ramirez
Also can't forget this classic;
John Ross
pretty funny i must say (even if its obviously on purpose)
Is this some kind of shitty trolling attempt or are you unaware that we have IDs to expose samefags?
Recall that NAP is merely a guiding principle, not a sacred cosmic law passed down by the gods. It is meant to increase peace, prosperity, and freedom if followed. Creating absurd hypotheticals doesn't invalidate ancapism, because you can create orders of magnitude more from the inconsistent principles held in statism. Neither is it violated if the property owner agrees for you to come on his property to pull the lever and save the people. 99% of the time this will be the case.
Josiah Myers
Your equivocations are the closest thing to a straight answer we've got and you're probably not even an ancap.
Isaac Morgan
>Recall that NAP is merely a guiding principle, not a sacred cosmic law passed down by the gods. It is meant to increase peace, prosperity, and freedom if followed. Creating absurd hypotheticals doesn't invalidate ancapism, because you can create orders of magnitude more from the inconsistent principles held in statism. Neither is it violated if the property owner agrees for you to come on his property to pull the lever and save the people. 99% of the time this will be the case.
So you're saying 99% of the time you'll be able to waltz up to the edge of the property, peacefully gain the attention of the homeowner, negotiate for temporary right of access for the machine rocketing towards people at this very instant, then hold a violent shoot out stand off after there's a misunderstanding about your intentions, kill them in self defence, claim the property as your own, return to the lever and pull it before anyone dies?
Adrian Turner
Pragmatically speaking, it's better to risk a property rights violation, because the benefits outweigh the negligible consequences. Ancap society will not be heavily populated with DROs who will shoot the lever-puller in this situation.
Ian Nelson
So then pragmatically speaking it's better to negligibly skim the incomes of citizens to save or enrich their lives by maintaining economically inefficient goods, services and infrastructure?
Ryan Roberts
The guy whose property you're violating gets his shotgun out and shoots you dead
ancap: 1 theism: 0
Christian Murphy
No. Briefly stepping on someone's property to pull a lever in order to save lives in a singular instance costs them nothing. It's as much a violation of the NAP as playing loud music at night and annoying the neighbor. Don't be obtuse.
Ethan Price
That's the risk that the lever puller has to be willing to take. He is under no obligation to do anything, remember.
Wyatt Lewis
the contract with one's defency agency would probably contain a duress by circumstances clause.
next stupid and easily answerable question, please.
Hudson Young
So trespass and property violation is OK in general if it's to save lives. Comparable to say, maintaining a public police force or military?
Leo James
If he doesn't pull the lever the families of the victims sue him and one of them also hires a hitman to kill him
ancap wins again
Juan Jackson
Speculative, specific circumstances can be invented to solve any hypothetical question, you're not special.
Jordan Lopez
The current law already states this. In Canada at least, the charge for a break and enter is "Break & Enter with intent to commit an indictable offence". If you kick down someone door to save someone you're... Eh OK.
John Green
Public services cost money. Trespassing in an extraordinary circumstance costs nothing.
Not how it works.
Julian Kelly
>Public services cost money. Trespassing in an extraordinary circumstance costs nothing.
It costs the moral consistency of the sanctity of property rights. Call it a tautology but if you can violate them by cause of circumstance you can violate them.
Dominic Allen
The NAP deals with the non-initiation of aggression, this value system says nothing about inaction, you're not morally responsible for tying people to the track or setting the trolley in motion. You do not initiate any aggression by simply walking on by.
Having said that it's entirely possible and highly plausible that in a perfect libertarian society that people would voluntarily give up certain rights. For example if I run a service which chases down people who initiate aggression (a role similar to the police) then I might run a service where if customers expect to be covered by my service, part of the deal is to give access to their property for the sake of chasing someone through said property if they're fleeing.
In other words mechanisms which currently work using force could be opt-in systems in future, and there's good reason to believe many would be, because generally people want to be able to do things like enter property peacefully reciprocally. Neighbors generally are OK with allowing each other into their property to allow a child to retrieve a lost ball because giving them that right means they reciprocally can expect access back and everyone benefits.
In general a system where everyone mutually benefits you'll find most reasonable people opting into. The key difference is that of consent and force. And more importantly that of choice.
Luke Martinez
Not a argument, FUCKER
Colton Wilson
How do absolute property rights even work? am I allowed to look at your property? Photograph it? If I'm taking a picture of my property and your property is visible in the background, are you violating my property rights or am I violating yours? What if leaves from your trees blow onto my property? Can I return fire with a nuclear mortar due to your violation of the NAP? What if you grow crops very incompetently and that causes locusts to come and the locusts attack my crops? Can I defend my property against your NAP violating locust attack with phalanx guns that drop exploding shells on your property?
Hunter Rogers
And in the broad set of possible circumstances where property rights can be violated, ancapism provides a solution that violates far fewer rights than statism. You're looking for perfection when you shouldn't be; anarchism does not claim to be utopian. It just makes the case that it is better than statism.
Zachary Reyes
No one owns the photons reflecting off property so pictures are fine, they can't be considered aggression.
Natural processes such as leaves would no be considered aggression because aggression infers intent to be aggressive.
In the real world these are edge cases anyway and generally speaking wouldn't be worked out between reasonable people. This idea of taking extreme ideas to try and find and edge case isn't reflective of reality, you can do it with ANY system, you could have a government using nukes against citizens in the right scenario if you concocted an edge case for it.
Colton Thomas
Don't tell that to the Australian.
Jack Martin
Shoot my rocket launcher at the train which sends a back blast into my neighbor's private property so he shoots me with his rocket launcher which sends back blast into his neighbor's private property so he gets shot by his neighbor's rocket launcher, etc
Ayden Cook
If you pull the lever you accept that the property owner destroys the train while it is coming towards his property.
Jeremiah Parker
best one I've seen
Robert Davis
Can I reverse the trolly? Just in case there were any survivors. It's the humane thing to do.
Noah Thompson
...
Ethan Watson
why would there be operating train tracks on private property and the owner not expect a train to come through? picking at straws maybe?
