cody on Nostr: Ironically this is another example of why anarcho-capitalism isn’t an internally ...

Ironically this is another example of why anarcho-capitalism isn’t an internally consistent/sustainable system. No one has 100% perfect information to understand the full future consequences of their choices, nor does anyone have 100% control over those consequences. So even if you create “ownership” over something in a particular moment, your future “sovereignty” is still always constrained by the same relational forces of everything else in time and space you didn’t obtain ownership of. And you can’t own everything, nor can you exist forever.

Anytime you try to assert self-ownership as an ordering principle it’s going to run into very real spatial and temporal limits it can’t account for, which means it is not a good a-priori principle to use if we think one exists to explain order in the world. Maybe it’s a useful heuristic to understand how some things in the world work in practice, but it can’t act as a fundamental natural law if it can be violated. We don’t say that physics theorems or math proofs are invalid because they’re super complicated and aren’t likely to ever really be observed in the real world outside of contrived experiments, so we shouldn’t use complexity as an argument here if we’re trying to talk about the same forces—albeit from a more philosophical perspective.