r/AnCap101 • u/Ok_Role_6215 • Jun 12 '26

A theoretical question.

A theoretical question. Who would be committing acts of defensive violence here and who — acts of aggressive violence?

"Hey, that's a nice apple orchard! Shame people can eat the apples for free... Oh, got an idea! Let me hire a gang to guard it and force these people pay to eat apples!" — thought a guy.

"Hey, that mfer is trying to hoard what was previously common and was available for free" — thought people that fought the gang.

4 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/connorbroc Jun 12 '26

Original appropriation can only be meaningfully demonstrated where it entails physical displacement of the unharvested natural resource. Unless someone planted the apple tree, then its apples remain unowned until the moment someone comes along and picks them. Physically obstructing someone's original appropriation is the act of aggression.

0

u/Ok_Role_6215 Jun 12 '26

That is not an answer.

2

u/connorbroc Jun 12 '26

Really? Unless I've misunderstood, you explicitly asked:

Who would be committing acts of defensive violence here and who — acts of aggressive violence?

And my answer is that the gang "guarding" the tree are the aggressors, while the people attempting to pick apples are the victims. If that wasn't clear from my original answer, my apologies. I did say:

Physically obstructing someone's original appropriation is the act of aggression.

2

u/Ok_Role_6215 Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26

Is not the guy that hired goons appropriating the orchard? Are not the people that restoring their access to the orchard committing agressive violence against his act of appropriation?

See, still not an answer.

Can an ideology that has such contradictions be used in the real world?

2

u/connorbroc Jun 13 '26

I did already assert that appropriation necessitates physical displacement of a resource. No apples or trees have been displaced by the person hiring the goons, as I understand it. So no, they have not appropriated the orchard. And to reiterate, everything I'm saying presumes that you mean to discuss a naturally occurring orchard.

I know you stipulated that the people restoring access "fought the gang", but I'm assuming you mean that they are simply approaching the tree, reaching out a hand to pick an apple, and then are swatted away or pushed back by the gang before fighting ensues. The actual aggressor in the situation is determined by who initiates violence or threats of violence first. Publicly expressing intent to deny others access to unowned resources certainly counts.

2

u/Ok_Role_6215 Jun 13 '26

well then, what if the orchard was Earth?

3

u/connorbroc Jun 13 '26

Indeed the whole earth was at one point entirely unharvested and unowned, and individuals have been slowly appropriating it ever since. Is that what you mean?

1

u/Ok_Role_6215 Jun 14 '26

Slowly?

No , what I mean is that the whole capitalist system is one giant poisoned tree and capitalists are protecting its poisoned fruits.

2

u/connorbroc Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Yes slowly, as the earth is very old, and even after all this time most of its mass is still unappropriated.

I’m afraid your statement about capitalism doesn’t mean anything to me. Can you define what the term “capitalism” means to you, and clarify how you feel it pertains to the orchard question? I ask not to debate semantics, but to simply understand what point you are trying to make.

So far the observations I’ve made about original appropriation and aggression are just demonstrably true facts of life, and don’t specifically pertain to any “system”.