link to original reddit post by /u/deaths_accountant
TL;DR how can the examples be resolved so that negative liberties don't come into conflict with each other?
I have spoken to a number of anarcho-capitalists, and many predicate their view on the idea that negative liberty cannot be infringed. This clearly doesn't hold water if negative liberties can come into conflict with each other- as one necessarily has to be overruled. As such, I would like to pose some examples to those who believe that negative liberties cannot conflict, to see how they can be reconciled. (I don't think the fact that I'm a leftist is actually very relevant to my questions)
1.) Suppose person A owns a large forest, which they make use of by farming grouse. Person B is kidnapped, and taken to the middle of the forest by person C, but then person C flees. Person B is hungry and can't find their way out, and the only way they can avoid starving is to eat A's grouse, which infringes on A's property rights. However, presumably B also has some sort of negative liberty from being prevented to do what is necessary to stay alive- which in this case entails taking A's property. A is not aware B is in the forest, so they can't trade.
2.) Suppose person X lives on a Peninsula, such that the only way to get out is via person Y's land, or by boat. Person Z is polluting an acid into the nearby water, which they own, so strong that X's boat will dissolve if X tries to get out that way. Person Y wants to build all over their land, so there is no longer a path through for X. As such, X is trapped. It seems Z has a negative liberty against being prevented from polluting, and person Y has a negative liberty against being prevented from building, but X has a negative liberty against being trapped in their house.
3.) Person R owns a private road that they regularly drive their truck along, and need to do to keep their business afloat. Person S is a rough sleeper, and deaf, and gets blown onto the road in their sleep by strong winds. R's truck transports chemicals that are harmless, but R happens to be allergic to (and S knows this), so that if R tried to move S, R's hands, which are converted in chemicals, would cause S to have a severe allergic reaction and die. S has a negative liberty to proceed, but cannot do so without infringing on S's right to life.
I would appreciate any response that tries to explain how these scenarios can be interpreted/resolved so that they don't cause any negative liberties to come into conflict with each other.
Some addenda:
Obviously 1 involves someone else infringing on liberties, but this will inevitably sometimes occur, so the question of what the 'right' thing to do given that this has already happened is a reasonable one. One may of course require that person to pay damages, but that doesn't resolve the question of what the libertarian thing to do in the scenario they have created is.
These scenarios are extremely unlikely, but if they cannot be resolved, they still suggest counterexamples to the idea that negative liberties cannot come into conflict- which is my point.
It may be possible to cheat your way out of the scenario, like if S edges R off the road with the truck, but one could imagine a reason why that isn't possible, so I hope you will engage with the spirit of the example, not the technicalities.
If negative liberties can come into conflict, it would mean that it is necessary to either place more responsibility on individuals than simply to not infringe others' negative liberty, or to have some other system- which individuals cannot be made to consent to- which resolves such conflicts when they arise. Either of these would seem to entail the existence of a state, or communism-type system, which libertarians also reject. (I think this is a basically Hobbesian argument)