In an AnCap society, would it be possible to eat your children?

[im3w1l]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

[myrkul]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

[im3w1l]

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

It would be horribly wrong.
But for the more twisted people: The threat of a long prison sentence. Would this also happen in AnCap, even though the child has no defence company? Could a company do it "pro bono"? Would regulating affairs between non-customers open up for morality laws?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

Abortion free for all (just choose the one that allows it). Ok

[myrkul]

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

It would be horribly wrong.

I'll deal with the rest later. First.... Why?

[Littleshop]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

The whole problem with people hiring different justice companies is that an anti-abortionist is going to hire their own justice company to protect the fetus in someones body who wants an abortion.  That would get messy. 

[myrkul]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

The whole problem with people hiring different justice companies is that an anti-abortionist is going to hire their own justice company to protect the fetus in someones body who wants an abortion.  That would get messy. 

Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."

[dree12]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

Eating your children ensures that your genes will never be passed on, and nobody else will eat their children.

If a justice company is wrong, then sever all ties with it and get a new one.

[Littleshop]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

The whole problem with people hiring different justice companies is that an anti-abortionist is going to hire their own justice company to protect the fetus in someones body who wants an abortion.  That would get messy. 

Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."

I am assuming the person wanting the abortion has no justice company or has hired a weaker justice company.

[myrkul]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

The whole problem with people hiring different justice companies is that an anti-abortionist is going to hire their own justice company to protect the fetus in someones body who wants an abortion.  That would get messy. 

Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."

I am assuming the person wanting the abortion has no justice company or has hired a weaker justice company.

Fighting is still expensive, and risks lives. Arbitration, by comparison, is cheap, and usually, nobody gets shot.

[im3w1l]

Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."

Why do you think that would be the result?

Eating your children ensures that your genes will never be passed on, and nobody else will eat their children.

Only if you eat all of them..


EDIT: Since I didn't get an answer to this question, and I think it's a very interesting one: Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?

[myrkul]

Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."

Why do you think that would be the result?

Simple, really. it's the one that causes the least trouble.

If you want a response to the rest of your post:

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

It would be horribly wrong.

I'll deal with the rest later. First.... Why?

[Littleshop]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?

To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.

The whole problem with people hiring different justice companies is that an anti-abortionist is going to hire their own justice company to protect the fetus in someones body who wants an abortion.  That would get messy. 

Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."

I am assuming the person wanting the abortion has no justice company or has hired a weaker justice company.

Fighting is still expensive, and risks lives. Arbitration, by comparison, is cheap, and usually, nobody gets shot.

If money is the dividing line between people getting shot and people not getting shot.... people will be shot. 

And sobody who wants to have an abortion needs to go to arbitration first? 

[im3w1l]

Myrkul: it's wrong to eat your children, because you take away their chance of a long fulfilling happy life.

[FirstAscent]

The thread title poses an important and legitimate question. It shows one of the many shortcomings of AnCap.

[dree12]

Myrkul: it's wrong to eat your children, because you take away their chance of a long fulfilling happy life.

This is a moot point because nobody will eat their children in the first place; it's clearly evolutionarily unfavourable. If they do, then they are not human, or subhuman, and don't deserve to have children.

[Severian]

In an AnCap society, would it be possible to eat your children?

Only if you can prove they're yours and everyone else agrees that you hold title to them.

I would hope an /s tag is unnecessary, but one never knows.

[im3w1l]

The thread title poses an important and legitimate question. It shows one of the many shortcomings of AnCap.

IKR!

Myrkul: it's wrong to eat your children, because you take away their chance of a long fulfilling happy life.

This is a moot point because nobody will eat their children in the first place; it's clearly evolutionarily unfavourable. If they do, then they are not human, or subhuman, and don't deserve to have children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_cannibalism

Benefits of filial cannibalism

• Satisfies current energy or nutrition requirements[2]
• In a bad reproductive environment, cannibalism is a way to make a recouping reproductive investment[2]
• Puts evolutionary pressure on offspring in order to make the offspring develop quicker[4]
• May increase the reproductive rate of a parent by making that parent more attractive to potential mates[4]
• Gets rid of offspring that take too long to mature[4]
• Removes weaker offspring in an overproduced brood, which makes the other offspring more likely to be successful[4]

[bb113]

If conditions arise making it advantageous for humans to eat their own children, it is very unlikely there will be any sort of functioning legal system anyway. So that argument is a moot point.

As to the people who only refrain from eating their children due to the threat of a prison sentence... Is there any evidence that exists?

[bb113]

The thread title poses an important and legitimate question. It shows one of the many shortcomings of AnCap.

No it doesn't. The thread title is an attempt to associate AnCap with the very, very uncommon, yet emotion-evoking, practice of eating children. Because there is no evidence it has been phrased in the form of a question. There are issues with AnCap but bringing up some fringe scenario isn't productive.

Another answer is that such people would be shunned by their peers, finding it impossible to do business or live anything more than a subsistence lifestyle. If they could somehow keep it secret, well then they would be keeping it secret from the state as well, once again making it a moot point.

[fornit]

but it does raise the question how you handle childrens rights when the parents can change the set of laws whenever they please.