Suppose that we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Now suppose that a wealthy businessman wanted to buy up all the land on a certain hill, which already had a few homeowners presently living there. Suppose he offered double the market value of these homes, and all but one homeowner was willing to sell. What if the final homeowner absolutely refused to sell at any price (perhaps the home had sentimental value, had been built by his and his father's bare hands, or something like that)?
What if the rich land-buyer then proceded to buy all the adjacent properties to this man's home, and built tall wooden fences on three sides of the home, to block out all sunlight, in order to "convince" this man to sell?
Would this violate the principle of non-coercion? Would this be an acceptable use of private power (wealth)? Would the sale, if it occurs, constitute a voluntary transaction between consenting adults?
If this does not constitute abuse of power, then why not?
If it does, then why? And what mechanisms might an anarcho-capitalist society have in place to prevent such abuses?
By the way, this is not merely hypothetical: Railroad magnate Charles Crocker did this very thing to a homeowner that refused to sell when Crocker was trying to buy up all the land on Nob Hill in San Fransisco, California in 1877.
This is contingent on whether one cares about sunlight. If the rich guy is deliberately building the fence just to cause the native discomfort, he will probably be able to sue for damages.
JimmyJazz: What if the rich land-buyer then proceded to buy all the adjacent properties to this man's home, and built tall wooden fences on three sides of the home, to block out all sunlight, in order to "convince" this man to sell?
Who will buy that same wealthy man's goods? What if his neighbors decide not to let him use their property to sell his goods to other people? I think that the real argument (one that I try to argue in an "article" I wrote: Inevitability of Government) is that the man's actions creates a crisis of sorts (at least, to the people immediately effected). What stops those effected to band together and attempt to coerce the wealthy man through violence to step down? Alternatively, what stops someone from surrendering away their personal freedoms to some larger entity, which promises that smaller entrepreneur protection (which is, effectively, some type of pre-government)?
The homeowner has pressumably homesteaded the right to a certain amount of sunlight, therefore, the wealthy douche bag would be violating the rights of the homeowner if he builds a fence that completely blocks the sunlight to the homeowner's property. Btw, do you have a link to the example of Nob Hill you gave?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel:Btw, do you have a link to the example of Nob Hill you gave?
Not that tells you any more than I already have, but sure.
Jimmy, thanks for the link. Charles Crocker and the Central Pacific Railroad used government bonds to finance their railroad. It was a result of the public-private partnerships in the 19th century; in other words, mercantilism or fascism.
Daniel: Jimmy, thanks for the link. Charles Crocker and the Central Pacific Railroad used government bonds to finance their railroad. It was a result of the public-private partnerships in the 19th century; in other words, mercantilism or fascism.
that thing called "government" keeps popping up...
"mercantilism or fascism" ... good points
That's an interesting aside, thank you.
ignore... mess up post on my part...
JimmyJazz:Suppose that we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society. Now suppose that a wealthy businessman wanted to buy up
Now suppose that a wealthy businessman wanted to buy up