How would you handle exceptional cases in a free society?

[AncapFTW]

I was just wondering how different people on this forum would handle cases which differ greatly from the norm if they were the Arbiter in this case.  Yes, I understand that these situations involve superhumans/etc. and therefore aren't realistic at this time, but with genetic engineering, cybernetics, and the like being possible and probably widespread in a free society, the issue could arrive eventually.  Also "let's just get a free society first", etc. doesn't address the topic, so please refrain from brushing the question aside.

 

Scenario 1:

1) Colossus (from the Xmen) gets hit by a drunk driver in a sports car.  He stands up, essentially uninjured, and punches the car's hood, causing over $10k in damage to the engine.  The driver sues him for damages, but he argues that, because the car hit him first, he shouldn't have to pay damages.

2) Planet of the Apes scenario, where Apes become sentient through genetic engineering.  They attack humans, then run off into the wild.  A year later humans start moving into their area, and they attack them on the grounds that they are trespassing.  The apes then send a representative to the humans to try and get the humans to leave them alone.  They are sueing to have humans banned from their territory without express permission from them.

3) A group of aliens with r selected breeding practices arrive.  They quickly overpopulate their land and start spreading into nearby land, with no regard for who owns what territory.  Many humans sue the individuals for habitually trespassing, and they respond with the argument that they have to spread or they starve to death.  On their homeworld land ownership was quite limited, with only rarer, non-food resources being owned.

4) An ant-like alien race has a massive degree of sexual dimorphism, with the women (queens, and "princesses") being human level IQ or above, and the males being of ape level intelligence.  The males have to have a connection to a female (telepathic, pheromone, we don't know), and if they don't get it their brains start to break down, essentially rapid Alzheimer's which kills them within days.  A human doctor rigs up an implant which prevents the breakdown process from occurring by tricking the brain into thinking the connection is still there.  The male then asks for asylum.  His mother demands his return, as she owns him according to their laws and customs.

[NotDarkYet]

exceptionally

[AncapFTW]

exceptionally

I added something to it, so they have to re-approve it.

[shirgall]

Stealth. To surprise each case unique up on them.

[EclecticIdealist]

in a principled manner

[dayna j.]

This is a joke, right?

[AncapFTW]

This is a joke, right?

Apparently, since no one here wants to answer it seriously, and would rather give smart alleck answers then answer the question.

 

I guess this forum is just full of people who like the IDEA of a free society, but don't want to actually think of what that would entail.

[Merrifield]

I was just wondering how different people on this forum would handle cases which differ greatly from the norm if they were the Arbiter in this case.  Yes, I understand that these situations involve superhumans/etc. and therefore aren't realistic at this time, but with genetic engineering, cybernetics, and the like being possible and probably widespread in a free society, the issue could arrive eventually.  Also "let's just get a free society first", etc. doesn't address the topic, so please refrain from brushing the question aside.

 

Scenario 1:

1) Colossus (from the Xmen) gets hit by a drunk driver in a sports car.  He stands up, essentially uninjured, and punches the car's hood, causing over $10k in damage to the engine.  The driver sues him for damages, but he argues that, because the car hit him first, he shouldn't have to pay damages.

2) Planet of the Apes scenario, where Apes become sentient through genetic engineering.  They attack humans, then run off into the wild.  A year later humans start moving into their area, and they attack them on the grounds that they are trespassing.  The apes then send a representative to the humans to try and get the humans to leave them alone.  They are sueing to have humans banned from their territory without express permission from them.

3) A group of aliens with r selected breeding practices arrive.  They quickly overpopulate their land and start spreading into nearby land, with no regard for who owns what territory.  Many humans sue the individuals for habitually trespassing, and they respond with the argument that they have to spread or they starve to death.  On their homeworld land ownership was quite limited, with only rarer, non-food resources being owned.

4) An ant-like alien race has a massive degree of sexual dimorphism, with the women (queens, and "princesses") being human level IQ or above, and the males being of ape level intelligence.  The males have to have a connection to a female (telepathic, pheromone, we don't know), and if they don't get it their brains start to break down, essentially rapid Alzheimer's which kills them within days.  A human doctor rigs up an implant which prevents the breakdown process from occurring by tricking the brain into thinking the connection is still there.  The male then asks for asylum.  His mother demands his return, as she owns him according to their laws and customs.

Regardless of their "species", these scenarios are all manageable under a free societies, system of arbitration that would normally apply to humans.  Colossal could counter-sue the drunk driver.  The apes could sue the individual trespasser but not a collective of humans.  The r selected aliens are an invasion and could be treated as such.  The ants that seek asylum would be seeking it from individuals not a state and assuming, the Ants being alien do not participate in the accepted arbitration arrangement, they would have no protection or recourse to claim personal property.

[AncapFTW]

Regardless of their "species", these scenarios are all manageable under a free societies, system of arbitration that would normally apply to humans.  Colossal could counter-sue the drunk driver.  The apes could sue the individual trespasser but not a collective of humans.  The r selected aliens are an invasion and could be treated as such.  The ants that seek asylum would be seeking it from individuals not a state and assuming, the Ants being alien do not participate in the accepted arbitration arrangement, they would have no protection or recourse to claim personal property.

First, thank you for taking the situation seriously.    You were the first to do this.

 

Second, while I understand your response, I don't feel that I properly framed the issues as I see them, so here they are:

 

1) Someone interacts with you in a way that, in the vast majority of cases, would result in serious injury or death.  For whatever reason you are unharmed.  To what degree can you use violence against them or their property before you violate the NAP?

2) Some of them were born sentient, some became sentient due to human interference.  To what degree do they have rights?

3) How do you deal with a different species whose different biology has caused them to have a different understanding of property rights?

4) Like #2, they were given sentience, in a sense of self, by humans.  For most of their life, however, they were not technically sentient.  To what degree do they have rights?

[Mister Mister]

Apparently, since no one here wants to answer it seriously, and would rather give smart alleck answers then answer the question.

 

I guess this forum is just full of people who like the IDEA of a free society, but don't want to actually think of what that would entail.

You're trolling.  Also the free market will create sweet plasma rifles to deal with aliens.  But if apes ever become sentient, we'll probably need a government again.

[shirgall]

Apparently, since no one here wants to answer it seriously, and would rather give smart alleck answers then answer the question.

 

I guess this forum is just full of people who like the IDEA of a free society, but don't want to actually think of what that would entail.

 

They are lifeboat questions (wacky ones at that) and are demonstrating the real "free rider" problem that exists on these boards.

 

[Libertus]

Colossus (from the Xmen) gets hit by a drunk driver in a sports car.  He stands up, essentially uninjured, and punches the car's hood, causing over $10k in damage to the engine.  The driver sues him for damages, but he argues that, because the car hit him first, he shouldn't have to pay damages.

Both of their respective insurance companies will figure it out with each other.

[AncapFTW]

You're trolling.  Also the free market will create sweet plasma rifles to deal with aliens.  But if apes ever become sentient, we'll probably need a government again.

No, I'm not, I'm asking an actual question.  Thanks for just assuming the worst of me, though.  It really reflects well on you opinion of other people.

 

 

They are lifeboat questions (wacky ones at that) and are demonstrating the real "free rider" problem that exists on these boards.

 

1) there is no "freerider problem".  If something is offered for free, you don't say that anyone who uses it for free is a "freerider".  You chose to pay for the use of the site, I didn't.  If you don't want to pay, then don't.  Don't demand that I pay and then insult me for not "volunteering" to pay for something that's free because I was coerced into it.

2) I asked a question about how individuals would deal with situations outside of the norm and some people decided to respond with condescension and insults.

 

If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it.  There's no need to be a dick about it.

[A4E]

But if apes ever become sentient,

Is it your view that humans are the only sentient lifeforms on the planet? I'd like to have that explained to me.

[shirgall]

1) there is no "freerider problem".  If something is offered for free, you don't say that anyone who uses it for free is a "freerider".  You chose to pay for the use of the site, I didn't.  If you don't want to pay, then don't.  Don't demand that I pay and then insult me for not "volunteering" to pay for something that's free because I was coerced into it.

 

2) I asked a question about how individuals would deal with situations outside of the norm and some people decided to respond with condescension and insults.

 

If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it.  There's no need to be a dick about it.

 

The "free rider" problem is people that want us to consume time on issues that don't deserve serious attention. It was a reference to another thread.

 

There *is* a need to be a dick about it:

 

[Mister Mister]

No, I'm not, I'm asking an actual question.  Thanks for just assuming the worst of me, though.  It really reflects well on you opinion of other people.

 

 

How very passive aggressive of you.  Did you learn that from your mother?

  I still have a suspicion you are kidding.  Your scenarios are so ridiculous, I thought you were being clever, spoofing the people who bring up these scenarios, "how would a free society deal with X?!?!".  But if you are serious, I would ask, why is this important?  Given the very real and scary challenges we are facing today and will be for the next several decades, why should I waste a single brain cell on r-selected aliens?

[AncapFTW]

How very passive aggressive of you.  Did you learn that from your mother?

  I still have a suspicion you are kidding.  Your scenarios are so ridiculous, I thought you were being clever, spoofing the people who bring up these scenarios, "how would a free society deal with X?!?!".  But if you are serious, I would ask, why is this important?  Given the very real and scary challenges we are facing today and will be for the next several decades, why should I waste a single brain cell on r-selected aliens?

I'm going to try and ignore your condescension and deal with this as if you aren't trolling me.

 

I detailed above the actual issues I was trying to deal with.  There are many different opinions on how different things SHOULD be done, and I was merely asking how various people on here WOULD deal with these issues.  Every one of these questions actually reflects on real life issues, and I was taking the real life issue out of it to get to the core of the matter.

 

Unfortunately, almost everyone on here decided to attack or mock me rather than behave in a civilized manner, which makes me wonder if the whole forum is full of trolls and I'm one of the few non-trolls on here.

[AncapFTW]

The "free rider" problem is people that want us to consume time on issues that don't deserve serious attention. It was a reference to another thread.

 

There *is* a need to be a dick about it:

 

Like I said, "If you don't want to answer the question, don't answer it."  You are the one that decided that this needed serious attention when you chose to respond to it in a condescending manner.  No one forced you to read it or respond.  No one even asked you to specifically.  You just decided to read it and respond with snark.

 

If there is a free-rider here, then it is you, as you are ruining other people's conversation by adding nothing except self-absorbed non-comments and links to videos where someone else explains things.

 

As I'm not even being a nitpicker (if I am, then please explain how I am) I'm not even going to bother with the video.  After all, it's really just you, once again, treating others like they aren't worth your time while simultaneously interrupting their conversations, proving that it is worth your time in some ways.

[shirgall]

The first time I responded, there was only a thread title and no posting to respond to. There was no conversation being interrupted.

[AncapFTW]

The first time I responded, there was only a thread title and no posting to respond to. There was no conversation being interrupted.

The first time, yes, you just posted a smart alleck comment instead of waiting for the topic to appear.  Sense it appeared, though, you've responded multiple times.  So why do you continue responding if you aren't getting something out of this?

[dsayers]

If there is a free-rider here, then it is you, as you are ruining other people's conversation by adding nothing except self-absorbed non-comments and links to videos where someone else explains things.

Do you think that is what free-rider means?

 

The questions ARE bogus. The nice thing about objective morality (apart from it being accurate) is that it simplifies everything.

1) Colossus (from the Xmen) gets hit by a drunk driver in a sports car.  He stands up, essentially uninjured, and punches the car's hood, causing over $10k in damage to the engine.  The driver sues him for damages, but he argues that, because the car hit him first, he shouldn't have to pay damages.

We don't have to assume Colossus here. Person A steals a candy bar from person B. Person B shoots person A in the head. The value of a candy bar versus a life is disproportionate to the extent that no reasonable person would see them as comparable. Therefore person B's action was NOT defensive force. It was retaliation, which is the creation of a new, larger debt. Person B is actionable.

[labmath2]

I was just wondering how different people on this forum would handle cases which differ greatly from the norm if they were the Arbiter in this case. Yes, I understand that these situations involve superhumans/etc. and therefore aren't realistic at this time, but with genetic engineering, cybernetics, and the like being possible and probably widespread in a free society, the issue could arrive eventually. Also "let's just get a free society first", etc. doesn't address the topic, so please refrain from brushing the question aside.

 

Scenario 1:

1) Colossus (from the Xmen) gets hit by a drunk driver in a sports car. He stands up, essentially uninjured, and punches the car's hood, causing over $10k in damage to the engine. The driver sues him for damages, but he argues that, because the car hit him first, he shouldn't have to pay damages.

2) Planet of the Apes scenario, where Apes become sentient through genetic engineering. They attack humans, then run off into the wild. A year later humans start moving into their area, and they attack them on the grounds that they are trespassing. The apes then send a representative to the humans to try and get the humans to leave them alone. They are sueing to have humans banned from their territory without express permission from them.

3) A group of aliens with r selected breeding practices arrive. They quickly overpopulate their land and start spreading into nearby land, with no regard for who owns what territory. Many humans sue the individuals for habitually trespassing, and they respond with the argument that they have to spread or they starve to death. On their homeworld land ownership was quite limited, with only rarer, non-food resources being owned.

4) An ant-like alien race has a massive degree of sexual dimorphism, with the women (queens, and "princesses") being human level IQ or above, and the males being of ape level intelligence. The males have to have a connection to a female (telepathic, pheromone, we don't know), and if they don't get it their brains start to break down, essentially rapid Alzheimer's which kills them within days. A human doctor rigs up an implant which prevents the breakdown process from occurring by tricking the brain into thinking the connection is still there. The male then asks for asylum. His mother demands his return, as she owns him according to their laws and customs.

The simple answer to all the questions us that they are unanswerable. Situations dont exist in a vacuum.

 

Just using the first case as model. Are we all aware that mutants exist. Do we know their powers? Do we have systems to deal with altercations between mutants and non mutants? What is the rule about drunk driving? What is the rule about damaging someone's property? Was the drunk driver aware he was hitting a mutant that would not die?

 

Things happen within a network and background of information and practices.

[Libertus]

A powerful dangerous guy like Colossus will certainly have a "handler" - somebody he works for, who in exchange, covers his "bills", when he's acting up. If he had no handler, he would not even be let in the city, let alone have any business driving on roads.

[Des]

I was just wondering how different people on this forum would handle cases which differ greatly from the norm if they were the Arbiter in this case.  Yes, I understand that these situations involve superhumans/etc. and therefore aren't realistic at this time, but with genetic engineering, cybernetics, and the like being possible and probably widespread in a free society, the issue could arrive eventually.  Also "let's just get a free society first", etc. doesn't address the topic, so please refrain from brushing the question aside.

 

Scenario 1:

1) Colossus (from the Xmen) gets hit by a drunk driver in a sports car.  He stands up, essentially uninjured, and punches the car's hood, causing over $10k in damage to the engine.  The driver sues him for damages, but he argues that, because the car hit him first, he shouldn't have to pay damages.

2) Planet of the Apes scenario, where Apes become sentient through genetic engineering.  They attack humans, then run off into the wild.  A year later humans start moving into their area, and they attack them on the grounds that they are trespassing.  The apes then send a representative to the humans to try and get the humans to leave them alone.  They are sueing to have humans banned from their territory without express permission from them.

3) A group of aliens with r selected breeding practices arrive.  They quickly overpopulate their land and start spreading into nearby land, with no regard for who owns what territory.  Many humans sue the individuals for habitually trespassing, and they respond with the argument that they have to spread or they starve to death.  On their homeworld land ownership was quite limited, with only rarer, non-food resources being owned.

4) An ant-like alien race has a massive degree of sexual dimorphism, with the women (queens, and "princesses") being human level IQ or above, and the males being of ape level intelligence.  The males have to have a connection to a female (telepathic, pheromone, we don't know), and if they don't get it their brains start to break down, essentially rapid Alzheimer's which kills them within days.  A human doctor rigs up an implant which prevents the breakdown process from occurring by tricking the brain into thinking the connection is still there.  The male then asks for asylum.  His mother demands his return, as she owns him according to their laws and customs.

These are not answers to the question as stated, because the comments below relate to the treaty and insurance environment in which the arbiter will operate. Comments are:

 

1)Colossus makes a claim on his "insult/annoyance insurance" and his insurers settle the matter with the drunk driver's insurer. The drunk driver's insurer hikes his premiums for driving while drunk and thereby causing insult/annoyance to other people. The actual repairs are almost free because of plentiful solar energy harnessed by space mirrors, combined with nanomanufacturing processes that convert cheap materials into cheap goods.

2)Each Sentient/arguing apes is a person, all valid moral rules apply. My suggestion is that every person (sentient apes, space aliens, etc), joins a treaty group, in which each person has a treaty with the other people in that group, to act morally towards others in that group. Each person then subsequently ratifies extensions of that treaty to members of other treaty groups. If a particular sentient ape does not have a ratified treaty with me (directly or indirectly), then my hired security is defending me against him (and his defending him against me). If we don't have a treaty then I have not recognised his land claim and can choose whether or not to trespass as my own risk. If we do have a treaty then the treaty resolved the territorial disputes and we refer to the land provisions of the treaty to determine trespass.

3) variation of (2).

4)Is the male space alien a pet or a person? I don't kill or set free other people's pets, except in self defence. In the treaty type future I predict, that restriction of my conduct is because pets are specified in the treaty, with rules for how to treat the pets (pets as distinct from livestock) of other people. If the alien males can start an uprising that can threaten my life, I want them regarded as people, and I want a treaty with each of them. If not, it is fine with me to regard them as pets or as people (if they have the capacity to follow through on a commitment to a treaty).

[AncapFTW]

A powerful dangerous guy like Colossus will certainly have a "handler" - somebody he works for, who in exchange, covers his "bills", when he's acting up. If he had no handler, he would not even be let in the city, let alone have any business driving on roads.

So, if he wants to be able to do something that anyone is allowed to do, he must enter into a contract with someone else to "earn" that freedom?  A person's freedom depends on how physically imposing they are?

 

Also, he was walking, not driving.  Otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be deadly force used against him.

[Merrifield]

First, thank you for taking the situation seriously.    You were the first to do this.

 

Second, while I understand your response, I don't feel that I properly framed the issues as I see them, so here they are:

 

1) Someone interacts with you in a way that, in the vast majority of cases, would result in serious injury or death.  For whatever reason you are unharmed.  To what degree can you use violence against them or their property before you violate the NAP?

2) Some of them were born sentient, some became sentient due to human interference.  To what degree do they have rights?

3) How do you deal with a different species whose different biology has caused them to have a different understanding of property rights?

4) Like #2, they were given sentience, in a sense of self, by humans.  For most of their life, however, they were not technically sentient.  To what degree do they have rights?

1) None, after they have acted.

2) The individual gains acceptance in the society by assimilation.  The recognition of rights will follow.

3) Private Property is a baseline. If a group or individual doesn't respect that it is an act of aggression.

4) #2 applies regardless of how they came to be.

 

I probably should have asked earlier, but I would also like a clarification of your meaning of sentient.

[AncapFTW]

1) None, after they have acted.

2) The individual gains acceptance in the society by assimilation.  The recognition of rights will follow.

3) Private Property is a baseline. If a group or individual doesn't respect that it is an act of aggression.

4) #2 applies regardless of how they came to be.

 

I probably should have asked earlier, but I would also like a clarification of your meaning of sentient.

1) Do you mean that you can't act, or that there isn't a limit on what you can do?

 

I suppose I'm confusing it with sapient, but some definitions of that don't fit.  I'm using the word to refer to beings which have a sense of self, and can act on its own, can make decisions, learn, and has a sense of self preservation.

These are not answers to the question as stated, because the comments below relate to the treaty and insurance environment in which the arbiter will operate. Comments are:

 

1)Colossus makes a claim on his "insult/annoyance insurance" and his insurers settle the matter with the drunk driver's insurer. The drunk driver's insurer hikes his premiums for driving while drunk and thereby causing insult/annoyance to other people. The actual repairs are almost free because of plentiful solar energy harnessed by space mirrors, combined with nanomanufacturing processes that convert cheap materials into cheap goods.

2)Each Sentient/arguing apes is a person, all valid moral rules apply. My suggestion is that every person (sentient apes, space aliens, etc), joins a treaty group, in which each person has a treaty with the other people in that group, to act morally towards others in that group. Each person then subsequently ratifies extensions of that treaty to members of other treaty groups. If a particular sentient ape does not have a ratified treaty with me (directly or indirectly), then my hired security is defending me against him (and his defending him against me). If we don't have a treaty then I have not recognised his land claim and can choose whether or not to trespass as my own risk. If we do have a treaty then the treaty resolved the territorial disputes and we refer to the land provisions of the treaty to determine trespass.

3) variation of (2).

4)Is the male space alien a pet or a person? I don't kill or set free other people's pets, except in self defence. In the treaty type future I predict, that restriction of my conduct is because pets are specified in the treaty, with rules for how to treat the pets (pets as distinct from livestock) of other people. If the alien males can start an uprising that can threaten my life, I want them regarded as people, and I want a treaty with each of them. If not, it is fine with me to regard them as pets or as people (if they have the capacity to follow through on a commitment to a treaty).

4) He's kind of a pet, kind of a slave.  He's a member of the species, and can reproduce with their queens/princesses, but before the human interference he wasn't really self-aware.

The simple answer to all the questions us that they are unanswerable. Situations dont exist in a vacuum.

 

Just using the first case as model. Are we all aware that mutants exist. Do we know their powers? Do we have systems to deal with altercations between mutants and non mutants? What is the rule about drunk driving? What is the rule about damaging someone's property? Was the drunk driver aware he was hitting a mutant that would not die?

 

Things happen within a network and background of information and practices.

True, I couldn't provide a huge amount of detail, and those details could change the issue drastically.  My assumption would be that, like the marvel universe, people know about mutants, but that they are rare and often indistinguishable from non-mutants, and most wouldn't survive being hit by a car.  The rules about drunk driving and damaging others property are different depending on the specifics of the free society, so assume your ideal form of it.

 

The biggest issue is the person's intention.  Shooting Deadpool is far different than shooting Professor X.

[dsayers]

Are we all aware that mutants exist. Do we know their powers? Do we have systems to deal with altercations between mutants and non mutants? What is the rule about drunk driving? What is the rule about damaging someone's property? Was the drunk driver aware he was hitting a mutant that would not die?

Not on of these questions are relevant. The driver initiated the use of force by engaging in a behavior that was binding upon another without their consent. Colossus initiated the use of force for the same reason. Yes, it was in response to the same, but I've already covered how the disproportion makes it clear that it is not the settling of the initial debt, but a creation of a newer, much larger one.

[labmath2]

Not on of these questions are relevant. The driver initiated the use of force by engaging in a behavior that was binding upon another without their consent. Colossus initiated the use of force for the same reason. Yes, it was in response to the same, but I've already covered how the disproportion makes it clear that it is not the settling of the initial debt, but a creation of a newer, much larger one.

 

It doesn't matter for determining violations of NAP, but it matters for determining restitution and punishment. The driver initiated force on colossus and then colossus initiated force on the driver if it was clear the driver was no longer in a position to attack him (no longer driving nor getting out of his vehicle to assault him).

[AccuTron]

Is it your view that humans are the only sentient lifeforms on the planet? I'd like to have that explained to me.

 

I was wanting to add this to the forums someplace, and this seems like the place.  I don't know about sentient per se, but it is perhaps THE cutest thing I've ever seen:

 

A few years ago, I was at a mountain home in the western USA, on an upper deck, observing a dormant terraced garden.  A blur of chipmunks appeared, all tussling with each other.  After a moment I realized that it was a litter of pups out playing in the world.  

 

My attention was drawn to two of them by themselves, with one having it's head under the other, face up.  I watched this a bit, and realized that the top chipmunk was the slightly larger mother, and one pup just didn't want to stop nursing.  The other pups were a blur of fur a few feet away.

 

The mother would move, but the one pup would follow her, and jam his head underneath her, and this was repeated a few times.  Eventually, the mother took her pup aside, both of them standing facing each other, little arms hanging down at their sides, looking for all the world like charming Disney characters.  

 

The pup moved towards the mother, and the mother put her paws on the pup's shoulders and straight-armed him back.  This repeated 2-3 times.  They stared at each other for a moment.  Then the mother reached over and hugged the pup, arms around it's shoulders.  Then they took off back to the other pups, problem apparently solved.

[A4E]

It could be that when people talk about sentience here, they actually mean "able to partake in human communication and relations". Which of course is an unrealistic expectation of something that is not human. Just like it is unrealistic that a human is going to partake in seagull communication and relations.

[Merrifield]

1) Do you mean that you can't act, or that there isn't a limit on what you can do?

Meaning you cannot react violently.

[AncapFTW]

Meaning you cannot react violently.

So, in your opinion, no harm was done, despite the extreme chance of harm, therefore no punishment is warranted?

 

 

 

???

What are you saying?

[AncapFTW]

It could be that when people talk about sentience here, they actually mean "able to partake in human communication and relations". Which of course is an unrealistic expectation of something that is not human. Just like it is unrealistic that a human is going to partake in seagull communication and relations.

I define it as able to make decisions, being self aware, and having a desire for self-preservation.  Most lifeforms fit the last one, and many apes meet the first one.  As I have no way to determine if they meet the second one, I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Of course, that doesn't mean I expect them to behave like humans.  They do engage in trade, even prostitution, but how do I know how they view trade?  Sure, I might think I convinced them to trade me gemstones for coconuts, but how can I be sure they understand it the way I do with communications that are far more advanced then the sign language we've taught them.  And that's just the most closely related species on the planet to us.

[dsayers]

It doesn't matter for determining violations of NAP, but it matters for determining restitution and punishment.

No it doesn't. This is precisely why it's useful to view the initiation of the use of force as a voluntary creation of a debt.

 

I don't know what you mean by the word punishment. That comes from a statist mentality and the topic is about a stateless society.

 

Restitution is the same as any other initiation of the use of force: The amount of damage done plus whatever it takes for the victim to recoup it.