Brainpolice:Your argument is warped. Without state restrictions on land ownership, I.E. by removing barriers to entry, access to land and the general oppurtunity to aquire it is initially INCREASED.
As I said, do your homework, what barriers to entry would these be, by the way?
Brainpolice:Likewise, without eminent domain, it is harder for a single person or organization to arbitrarily obtain vast swaths of land property, which means no land theft from current occupants.
And? I've never said otherwise. What you're essentially saying is that because some buisnesses currently use stolen money to work, without that ability all buisness will die.
Brainpolice:It also is erroneous to assume that all of the land in question must be sold, because some of it is simply unowned and open to be homesteaded.
Which is completely off topic.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Really? I don't see too many feudal land arrangements now.
That's a weak point, because we don't live in that era anymore (instead, we largely have neo-fuedal land arrangements, which isn't much of an improvement). But in either case fuedal land arrangements were based on state distribution of property titles. I don't know why you'd try to defend it on any libertarian grounds or try to claim that a fuedal society is a libertarian society. That's ridiculous on its face.
That's the point, the difference is as Byzantine said they have to compete capital as opposed to stealing it.
What are you talking about? We're supposed to be talking about A FREE SOCIETY here, and monarchy is not a free society. Their capital IS initially stolen. I don't think you have very much credibility to accuse me of strawmanning you when I claim that you guys effectively advocate monarchy.
Simply telling me to do my homework doesn't address my points.
No, I have not argued that, you are just grasping at straws. That is sidetracking from what I'm actually talking about, and hence you are being disingenous.
The point is, when you remove monopolies, the result is more choices for people and a more decentralized structure of ownership, which means that more individuals have their own independant cases of ownership. The point is also that without state legal privileges, there are natural limits on how much land a single person can manage to aquire. The state privileges actually allow certain people to aquire more than such natural limits allow.
No, it is not off topic at all if we are supposed to be talking about land ownership in a free society and the complications of how to deal with land ownership in the process of transformation into a free society. The state currently claims vast swaths of land that is unused and unhomesteaded, which constitutes a massive barrier to entry to land ownership.
Brainpolice:That's a weak point, because we don't live in that era anymore (instead, we largely have neo-fuedal land arrangements, which isn't much of an improvement). But in either case fuedal land arrangements were based on state distribution of property titles. I don't know why you'd try to defend it on any libertarian grounds or try to claim that a fuedal society is a libertarian society. That's ridiculous on its face.
Yes and if you've read Hoppe you'd know that the democratic state leads to greater intervention and is hence further from the free market. In fact, you don't need read Hoppe to understand this you just need to look at the fact. Since feudal times government intervention has increased.
I fail to see how it's a weak point in any case, you told me it was the result of state priveledge (a nice diversion since you've been unable to counter the economic incentives pointing to the arrangement I've favoured), I showed otherwise.
Brainpolice:Their capital IS initially stolen. I don't think you have very much credibility to accuse me of strawmanning you when I claim that you guys effectively advocate monarchy.
You're either extremely dull or purposefully ignoring what I've said. The difference between what I advocate and monarchy is that what I advocate is the very fact that the system advocated by me is voluntary since the capital has to be competed for, not stolen.
Brainpolice:Simply telling me to do my homework doesn't address my points.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't read the literature anyway. And, show which barriers these are, by the way.
Brainpolice:No, I have not argued that, you are just grasping at straws. That is sidetracking from what I'm actually talking about, and hence you are being disingenous.
No, I'm not. Please, stop this nonsense about me "grasping at straws" and being "disingenous" and debate properly.
Brainpolice:The point is, when you remove monopolies, the result is more choices for people and a more decentralized structure of ownership, which means that more individuals have their own independant cases of ownership.
Yes, and? It doesn't follow from their that everybody will own their anymore than it follows from saying that upon abolishing a monopoly on steel every who uses steel will own a steel factory.
Brainpolice:The point is also that without state legal privileges, there are natural limits on how much land a single person can manage to aquire
Yes, there are. So what? Once again, without state legal privileges there are limits to how big a buisness can grow, it doesn't follow from there that everybody will run their own buisness.
Brainpolice:The state privileges actually allow certain people to aquire more than such natural limits allow.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make certain arrangements viable. Other state intervention does the opposite. So yes, you're correct, but you miss the mark.
Brainpolice:The state currently claims vast swaths of land that is unused and unhomesteaded, which constitutes a massive barrier to entry to land ownership.
Yes and often that state is able to do that because using such land isn't economically viable. And as free market economic teaches us the state can do this because it can externalize the costs of controlling such land. Notice, this land is also not available to those who would wish to own the land in order to rent it out.
You instructing me to debate propery is laughable when half of the time you are making non-sequitors and blanket statements.
Why are you argueing against a straw man of "everyone owns everything", as opposed to my actual argument? Do you simply have that strong of a motivation to simply be antagnostic?
You're misrepresenting my position again, as usual. I never argued that it follows that everyone will run their own buisiness - it wouldn't even make practical sense for literally everyone to run their own buisiness. I'm argueing that what follows is a general increase in the oppurtunity to be an owner, as the very nature of a barrier to entry is a decrease in the oppurtunity to be an owner, and the very nature of a monopoly is the lack of alternatives. The consquence of removing monopoly is a general increase in options and oppurtunities.
There is nothing "viable" about fuedal land arrangements. "Viable" for a handful of power elites maybe, but that's it.
Yes and often that state is able to do that because using such land isn't economically viable.
Who judges if the land is viable? By default, the state does. You have it backwards. It's made unviable by the state claim to ownership to begin with.
It does not follow that feudalism is therefore just or viable or consistant with libertarianism. It also is misleading to claim that there is absolute causation between the two. In either case, libertarianism is not about opting for a "less evil" form of government.
No, you haven't shown otherwise, you've completely ignored history, made nonsensical blanket statements and put foreward an incoherant hypothetical.
The difference between what I advocate and monarchy is that what I advocate is the very fact that the system advocated by me is voluntary since the capital has to be competed for, not stolen.
No, what you do is misuse libertarian theory to defend what actually is plain old monarchy. The claim of these single individuals over entire communities is not homesteaded or voluntarily exchanged for by definition. To claim that such a person is merely "competiting for capital" is disingenous, as they are making an arbitrary property claim that is not purely voluntary in nature.
GilesStratton:Not really, seeing as I supported it.
As I said, without state restrictions on property use it will be far more valuable.
The answer to this question is the same as answering the question regarding why workers would work for a company as opposed to making their own.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Brainpolice:You instructing me to debate propery is laughable when half of the time you are making non-sequitors and blanket statements.
Cut the nonsense and debate me without turning this into drama and proclaiming superiority.
Brainpolice:Why are you argueing against a straw man of "everyone owns everything", as opposed to my actual argument? Do you simply have that strong of a motivation to simply be antagnostic?
Because you've stated that individuals will want to own their own land. I've said otherwise and merely applied the theory of time preference and division of labour in regard to an industry you've not considered: that of providing a community. That is essentially not to different from a mall.
Brainpolice:. I never argued that it follows that everyone will run their own buisiness - it wouldn't even make practical sense for literally everyone to run their own buisiness. I'm argueing that what follows is a general increase in the oppurtunity to be an owner, as the very nature of a barrier to entry is a decrease in the oppurtunity to be an owner, and the very nature of a monopoly is the lack of alternatives. The consquence of removing monopoly is a general increase in options and oppurtunities.
Exactly, it wouldn't be practical for everybody to own their own business, likewise it isn't viable for everybody to own their own land. Which barriers to entry are these? You've apparently jumped from removing a monopoly on land to the claim that everybody will own their own land, it doesn't follow. Upon abolishing land new entreprises will arise: that of providing a community by performing improvements on the land and then renting it out. I've never said you've claimed everybody will own their own business, rather, I've provided an analogy.
Brainpolice:There is nothing "viable" about fuedal land arrangements. "Viable" for a handful of power elites maybe, but that's it.
Then it won't be difficult for you to counter the economic incentives I've provided, which as of yet, you haven't done.
Brainpolice:It's made unviable by the state claim to ownership to begin with.
Not for the state because it can externalize its losses. Really, this isn't difficult, it's just an application of the calculation debate.
GilesStratton: Juan: Not paying rent and not being bound to terms set by a landlord sound like incentives to NOT rent... These terms set by the landlords are what stops the value of your property to decrease. Which is a danger that a renter isn't exposed to.
Juan: Not paying rent and not being bound to terms set by a landlord sound like incentives to NOT rent...
Brainpolice:It does not follow that feudalism is therefore just or viable or consistant with libertarianism.
No, free association proves the former and economic analysis proves the latter.
Brainpolice:It also is misleading to claim that there is absolute causation between the two.
You're correct, nonetheless, I was merely responding to the point you've raised. You claimed that feudalism is only viable because of the state, I've provided economic analysis and history to show otherwise.
Brainpolice:In either case, libertarianism is not about opting for a "less evil" form of government.
I've never advocate any "less evil" form of government. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to live under a monarchy then I would under democracy.
Brainpolice:No, you haven't shown otherwise, you've completely ignored history, made nonsensical blanket statements and put foreward an incoherant hypothetical.
Which incoherent hypothetical would this be?
And I've not ignored history, in fact you've denied it in regards to Hoppe's superd book. Moreover, if you don't know anything about AE, history is meaningless without theory, which is what I've provided and you've lacked.
Brainpolice:No, what you do is misuse libertarian theory to defend what actually is plain old monarchy.
No, I haven't, stop repeating this.
Brainpolice:he claim of these single individuals over entire communities is not homesteaded or voluntarily exchanged for by definition.
But you're defining feudalism in regards to the statist context, completely misrepresenting my claim. My claim is that individuals would be able to raise the capital (for which they'd have to compete) in order to finance their purchase of large amounts of land required for such ventures. This is exactly where the disctinction lies between what I advocate and monarchy. The fact that individuals would have to homestead their land or gain it through voluntary exchange in order for such ventures to take place. As opposed to merely stealing it.
I've already debunked your idea on this. A community is not something that is owned by an individual. An individual doesn't homestead an entire community. A mall is not comparable to an entire community in this way. What you have done is misapplied economic principles in the attempt to justify your already existing preferance. This is otherwise known as confirmation bias.
The idea that noone wants to own land is silly. At a minimum, in the case of home ownership, people generally want to own land. For you to try to argue against common sense, namely that if given the oppurtunity people would generally prefer to own their own homes than to be either homeless or rent one, is quite strange. Clearly, you simply have an irrational preferance for there to be a handful of land owners that everyone else rents from (which, btw, the state functions as, taxation being the institutionalization of your feudal land rent and the state's territorial monopoly being the institutionalization of your land monopoly).
Exactly, it wouldn't be practical for everybody to own their own business, likewise it isn't viable for everybody to own their own land.
First of all, owning a buisiness and having land are qualatatively different things. By the very logic of it, the latter is easier to achieve than the former, as it is a prerequisite for the former. Furthermore, neither is it viable for all land to be owned by a few people who the multitude rent from, or for there to only be a handful of extremely large buisiness. Generally, the effect of state intervention has been the enabling of those things through barriers to entry and various privileges, hence limiting the ability to have land and have one's own buisiness. Why a libertarian would argue the opposite is beyond me.
You've apparently jumped from removing a monopoly on land to the claim that everybody will own their own land, it doesn't follow.
Once again, this is a straw man. Are you really this bad or is this on purpose? I never claimed that everyone will own their own land.
You haven't "provided" any economic incentives, you've made extremely shoddy arguments misapplying economic theory in the attempt to justify your preferance for feudalism.
Not for the state because it can externalize its losses.
Are you purposefully missing the point or what? That doesn't counter my point, which is that it makes it unviable for anyone else and illegalizes their use of it anyways.
Really, this isn't difficult, it's just an application of the calculation debate.
And yet mysteriously it isn't applied to corporations and any other institution.
Juan:No you didn't. Free market == cheaper stuff, including land. This is VERY basic economics.
That's not necessarily true. In a sense you're correct, as a result of lower time preference, there will be economic growth in a free economy. This isn't to say that things will necessarily be cheaper in comparison to how they currently are under the state. For example, a highly subsidized good would be more expensive in a free society. Moreover, you can't prove that land would be cheaper relative to other goods, which is the main issue.
Juan:Nonsense. Without state restrictions land will be far more easier to homestead, buy and sell. Bigger market, lower prices. You FAIL.
Perhaps land would be cheaper to homestead. Of course, you'd have to prove there are significant amounts of land out there that would be homestead. Which I doubt to be the case. In fact, as I've said before it's likely that a lot of this land wouldn't be economically viable to hold in a free society since the only reason the state can is that it can force the cost on to others. Moreover there would be "bigger markets" in all areas of the economy, not all of which would have other effects to offset the decrease in price as I mentioned with land (higher security in land, no restrictions regarding its use). Thus land would be more expensive relative to other goods, which is the more important issue.
Juan:Again, WHOLLY irrelevant. The fact that SOME people would prefer to rent instead of buying (just like they do TODAY) doesn't mean that a free society would be composed of a majority of tenants. You FAIL.
Well to begin with the number of people who rent today is lower due to various interventions that I've mentioned. But the vast majority of people would tenants, much in the same way the vast majority of people would be employees rather than capitalists. You seem to ignore time preference.
Are you really this bad in your conservatism as to try to make a blanket defense of feudalism? Wow. No libertarian theory proves feudalism, it can only delegitimize it. Feudalism is not consistant with free association to begin with.
You have not presented any economic analysis or history, just made a few absurd claims that have been totally debunked throughout this thread.
By your very own statements in this thread, you simply are outright advocating monarchy.
And I've not ignored history, in fact you've denied it in regards to Hoppe's superd book.
Hoppe is not a qualified historian, and his book does not provide any solid historical argument that fuedalism was a libertarian society. All he does is make arguments against democracy and assume a rosy picture for monarchy.
Moreover, if you don't know anything about AE, history is meaningless without theory, which is what I've provided and you've lacked.
Your claim to have "provided history" is laughable, given that all you've done is made an appeal to authority towards Hoppe.
I won't, because it's what your arguments clearly imply.
Your position is incoherent, given that its full of contradictary premises. There is no way to get to the same end result (monarchy and feudalism) in a purely voluntary context.
Brainpolice:A community is not something that is owned by an individual
Why not?
Brainpolice:An individual doesn't homestead an entire community.
It's called the division of labour. Individuals don't homestead the assets of an entire company, yet, they exist.
Brainpolice:A mall is not comparable to an entire community in this way.
And why is this?
Brainpolice:you have done is misapplied economic principles in the attempt to justify your already existing preferance. This is otherwise known as confirmation bias.
Drop the attitude stop the condescending tone and debate properly.
Brainpolice:The idea that noone wants to own land is silly. At a minimum, in the case of home ownership, people generally want to own land.
And what's the incentive for this?
Brainpolice:For you to try to argue against common sense
So now common sense beats economic theory?
Brainpolice:Clearly, you simply have an irrational preferance for there to be a handful of land owners that everyone else rents from
Yes, that's exactly it.
Brainpolice:which, btw, the state functions as, taxation being the institutionalization of your feudal land rent and the state's territorial monopoly being the institutionalization of your land monopoly
Yes and you can only classify what I advocate as a monopoly if you use the incorrect neoclassical definition.
Brainpolice:First of all, owning a buisiness and having land are qualatatively different things.
Not really, since in this case the ownership of land would be a business.
Brainpolice:By the very logic of it, the latter is easier to achieve than the former, as it is a prerequisite for the former.
So what? It's more difficult not impossible. In any case, I fail to see how ownership of a community would be more expensive than ownership of an airline or nuclear power plant.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, neither is it viable for all land to be owned by a few people who the multitude rent from, or for there to only be a handful of extremely large buisiness.
Why not? In any case, nobody has suggest merely a "few" landowners, the language you used is misleading. Moreover, I've never suggest a handful of big buisness.
Brainpolice:Generally, the effect of state intervention has been the enabling of those things through barriers to entry and various privileges, hence limiting the ability to have land and have one's own buisiness.
Actually the effect of the state's monopoly of land has had the same effect on the enteprise on owning land as it has had on the private production of defense.
Brainpolice:Why a libertarian would argue the opposite is beyond me.
I'm going to ask again, stop the appeals to libertarianism and debate properly.
Brainpolice:Once again, this is a straw man. Are you really this bad or is this on purpose? I never claimed that everyone will own their own land.
Ok, well if you're going to pedantic I'll rephrase this. You've jumped from the state having a monopoly on land to most people owning their land. Which, as in the case of every other buisness, doesn't follow.
Brainpolice:You haven't "provided" any economic incentives, you've made extremely shoddy arguments misapplying economic theory in the attempt to justify your preferance for feudalism.
Then disprove it. Or if you think my arguments are shoddy read the pieces I've suggested by Hoppe and Spencer MacCallum. Preferably both.
Brainpolice:That doesn't counter my point, which is that it makes it unviable for anyone else and illegalizes their use of it anyways.
And? The point is that is essentially wouldn't have any effect on the price.
Brainpolice:And yet mysteriously it isn't applied to corporations and any other institution.
Actually it is, although not corporations necessarily, just big business. Actually Klein has a wonderful piece on this. So you're criticism misses the mark.
GilesStratton:And yet you haven't met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land.
You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
GilesStratton: Juan: Free market == cheaper stuff, including land. That's not necessarily true.
Juan: Free market == cheaper stuff, including land.
In a sense you're correct, as a result of lower time preference, there will be economic growth in a free economy.
Moreover, you can't prove that land would be cheaper relative to other goods, which is the main issue.
Perhaps land would be cheaper to homestead.
Of course, you'd have to prove there are significant amounts of land out there that would be homestead. Which I doubt to be the case.
Thus land would be more expensive relative to other goods, which is the more important issue.
But the vast majority of people would tenants,
Brainpolice:Are you really this bad in your conservatism as to try to make a blanket defense of feudalism? Wow. No libertarian theory proves feudalism, it can only delegitimize it. Feudalism is not consistant with free association to begin with.
You're equivocating here. You're defining it in the statist context to disprove a free market tendency. I've said nothing that contradicts the principles of free associations.
Brainpolice:You have not presented any economic analysis or history, just made a few absurd claims that have been totally debunked throughout this thread.
Yes, I have.
Brainpolice:By your very own statements in this thread, you simply are outright advocating monarchy.
First of all you're incorrectly conflating feudalism and monarchism. Secondly I've not defended monarchism since I've advocated freedom of association.
Brainpolice:Hoppe is not a qualified historian,
Wonderful answer there BP.
Brainpolice:and his book does not provide any solid historical argument that fuedalism was a libertarian society. All he does is make arguments against democracy and assume a rosy picture for monarchy.
You're clearly not read his book then.
Brainpolice:Your claim to have "provided history" is laughable, given that all you've done is made an appeal to authority towards Hoppe.
I have, you've just chosen to ignore it.
Brainpolice:Your position is incoherent, given that its full of contradictary premises. There is no way to get to the same end result (monarchy and feudalism) in a purely voluntary context.
So you've just ignored what I've said? I've not advocated monarchism and I've not advocated feudalism as you see it.
MacFall: GilesStratton: And yet you haven't met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land. You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home.
GilesStratton: And yet you haven't met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land.
Juan:It's not 'necessarily true' that a free-market economy is more efficient (i.e. produces cheaper things) than any other alternative ?
Yes, it's necessarily true that the free market is the most efficient means of satisying the demands of the consumers. But this doesn't mean it produces cheaper things, no.
Juan:he reason why a free society has higher growth is property rights, not lower time preference. Time preference is a characteristic of individuals and is not uniform or constant even for the same individual.
You're missing the mark. I'm saying that the reason for economic growth is a lowering of time preference, as Mises and Rothbard have argued.
Juan:Actually you can't prove it would be more expensive
Actually, I've substantiated my claims that it would be.
Juan: If you want to find out whether there's some land left on earth or not, I suggest you take a look at a map.
If you want to prove that there's large amounts of valuable land that the government prevents people from homesteading, I suggest you assume the burden of proof and deal with it.
Juan:Unfounded assertion. This is getting boring.
Yes this is. Because you reject anything that doesn't agree with your dogma as "unfounded", I've argued why this would be the case and you've ignored it.
Giles, please stop referring to your "plethora" of reasons as to why the state drives property values down as "eminent domain, etc." It would seem to me that the only thing you have been able to come up with is eminent domain, and are just putting the et cetera to make it look like you have more. Please post all of your reasons, or at least a large majority of them.
Furthermore, your argument that eminent domain has any noticable impact on property values is incredibly weak. 80% of the people in this country don't even know what eminent domain is, and there's no way that it is factoring in to ANYONE's decision to purchase land.
As has been said multiple times, but needs restating as you don't seem to understand it, even if it's true that property values would be higher in a free market, then rent would go up at the same amount. So your claim that rent would be more preferable in a free society is totally bunk. In addition to that, that claim defies all common sense, and is absurd on its face. Paying rent is like throwing your money into a furnace, you keep paying and paying, and when you finally move out...you have nothing to show for it. Home ownership, on the other hand, is an actual investment...it's just like paying rent, except you are actually getting an asset in return. There is no reason for rent to be preferable in a free society.
As for proof that the state actually drives property values UP:
It is well known fact that the state created the housing bubble that just recently burst by limiting what land could be used to build houses on. This, of course, artificially limited the supply which in turn, artificially raised the price. Additionally, zoning codes obviously drives prices up as well.
Juan: MacFall: GilesStratton: And yet you haven't met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land. You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home. I'd bet 5 cents that Giles would prefer to "own a community"...
Only so I could refuse entry to leftist scum like you.
No bet.
I've explained why to you in great detail already. It is physically, logically and practically impossible for an entire community to be homesteaded or voluntarily traded for by a single person, particularly given the pre-existance of a whole slew of individual occupants of the community who have their own homes and their own buisinesses. In the absence of the unanimous consent of literally everyone in the community to uniformly yield (either sell or just give up) their property to this single person, this single person's claim to own the entire community is not legitimate according to any libertarian property rights theory. In short, your idea blatantly rubs up against other people's property rights and inherently begs the question about how you intend to transfer property titles. To simply disregaurd everyone else's property rights in this way cannot be reconciled with any consistant application of property rights.
The division of labor /= an individual homesteading an entire community. That's quite an absurd conflation.
Because not only is an entire community much larger, but it currently has individual occupants with their own property rights to take into consideration! You can't just disregaurd their property rights in favor of some monarch.
Your own fundamental economic well-being and survival!
False equivocation. I'm not argueing against economic theory, and you're not presenting economic theory.
Actually what you advocate functionally would even match the Austrian definition of a monopoly.
Ownership of land, in libertarianism, has a specific criteria, it is not a free-for-all buisiness in and of itself.
A city includes all of the infrastructure within it. A nuclear power plant or airline would exist WITHIN a city. Don't be dense.
Your ignorance and motivate to disagree is astounding. The state makes it harder for an individual to own a buisiness. That is a fact, backed up by free market economics. How you manage to conclude the opposite of what libertarians tend to conclude from the exact same principles is bizzare.
I don't give a shit about the price! Why do you keep returning to property VALUES when I'm talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS.
GilesStratton: Juan: MacFall: GilesStratton: And yet you haven't met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land. You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home. I'd bet 5 cents that Giles would prefer to "own a community"... Only so I could refuse entry to leftist scum like you.
It's funny that you choose to unleash the anti-left rhetoric on Juan, who doesn't identify as a left-libertarian.
nibbler491:Giles, please stop referring to your "plethora" of reasons as to why the state drives property values down as "eminent domain, etc." It would seem to me that the only thing you have been able to come up with is eminent domain, and are just putting the et cetera to make it look like you have more. Please post all of your reasons, or at least a large majority of them.
Not once have I used the word plethora.
And I've mentioned the fact that the state's monopoly on land means it can forbid certain discriminatory practises in regard to land that makes it less valuable to the owner.
nibbler491:Furthermore, your argument that eminent domain has any noticable impact on property values is incredibly weak. 80% of the people in this country don't even know what eminent domain is, and there's no way that it is factoring in to ANYONE's decision to purchase land.
That's an entirely arbitrary number. In any case that doesn't mean that entrepreneurs don't take it into account. The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down.
nibbler491:As has been said multiple times, but needs restating as you don't seem to understand it, even if it's true that property values would be higher in a free market, then rent would go up at the same amount. So your claim that rent would be more preferable in a free society is totally bunk
And? Rent might yes, but so would property values. Keep in mind, I'm talking about land, not "property" in the sense you're using it. So whilst the rent would go up, so would the value of my house.
nibbler491: In addition to that, that claim defies all common sense, and is absurd on its face.
So you're another person who thinks economic theory is inferior to common sense?
nibbler491:Paying rent is like throwing your money into a furnace, you keep paying and paying, and when you finally move out...you have nothing to show for it.
Yes, you have your house. Just, not the land it's built on. In any case, you're ignoring this slightly important thing called time preferance.
nibbler491:It is well known fact that the state created the housing bubble that just recently burst by limiting what land could be used to build houses on. This, of course, artificially limited the supply which in turn, artificially raised the price. Additionally, zoning codes obviously drives prices up as well.
It also made houses easier to purchase, so what?
Brainpolice:It's funny that you choose to unleash the anti-left rhetoric on Juan, who doesn't identify as a left-libertarian.
You'd be removed from the community too, don't worry.
Brainpolice:I've explained why to you in great detail already. It is physically, logically and practically impossible for an entire community to be homesteaded or voluntarily traded for by a single person, particularly given the pre-existance of a whole slew of individual occupants of the community who have their own homes and their own buisinesses.
You mean like all those resorts that currently exist that are privately owner, and are often as big as communities?
And why is it impossible? One individual merely has to raise enough capital to purchase large quantaties of land, it's not different from one individual raising large amounts of capital to start up any other type of buisness.
Brainpolice:In the absence of the unanimous consent of literally everyone in the community to uniformly yield (either sell or just give up) their property to this single person, this single person's claim to own the entire community is not legitimate according to any libertarian property rights theory.
And you've assumed the point in contention, that people wouldn't want to rent the land.
Brainpolice:In short, your idea blatantly rubs up against other people's property rights and inherently begs the question about how you intend to transfer property titles. To simply disregaurd everyone else's property rights in this way cannot be reconciled with any consistant application of property rights.
Since when have I? I've assumed voluntary transfer of property titles to one individual or group of individuals who have raised enough money to purchase it.
Brainpolice:The division of labor /= an individual homesteading an entire community. That's quite an absurd conflation.
Not unless you see an individual owning a whole company has nothing to do with the division of labour.
Brainpolice:Because not only is an entire community much larger, but it currently has individual occupants with their own property rights to take into consideration! You can't just disregaurd their property rights in favor of some monarch.
Only, I'm not. So what if it's bigger? Where's the arbitrary line drawn?
Brainpolice:Your own fundamental economic well-being and survival!
Yes and how does renting not accomodate for this?
Brainpolice:False equivocation. I'm not argueing against economic theory, and you're not presenting economic theory.
So what am I presenting?
Brainpolice:Actually what you advocate functionally would even match the Austrian definition of a monopoly.
No, the Austrian defintion is lack of free entry, which nowhere have I advocated (the opposite in fact, since I've used the word entreprenuer).
Brainpolice:Ownership of land, in libertarianism, has a specific criteria, it is not a free-for-all buisiness in and of itself.
Actually, land is no different to any other form of property in libertarianism.
Brainpolice:A city includes all of the infrastructure within it. A nuclear power plant or airline would exist WITHIN a city. Don't be dense.
And? The owner of the city wouldn't have to buy the entire airline. It costs considerably more to start an airline than it would to buy all the land within a community.
Actually, the solution of this "problem" is the same thing as the rest, that the airline would rent the space they use. That is assuming that they would operate within the communities that we're discussing, which I would doubt since the noise pollution they create would bring property prices down.
Brainpolice:Your ignorance and motivate to disagree is astounding. The state makes it harder for an individual to own a buisiness. That is a fact, backed up by free market economics. How you manage to conclude the opposite of what libertarians tend to conclude from the exact same principles is bizzare.
I've just said that the enterprise of the community is more difficult because of the state and that it is analogous to that of the private production of defense, perhaps you misread me.
Brainpolice:I don't give a shit about the price! Why do you keep returning to property VALUES when I'm talking about PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Because this is an economic discussion, perhaps? Stop shifting the goal posts.
Archduke of Stratton:The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down.
Juan the Libertine: Archduke of Stratton:The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down. Isn't eminent domain used by developers and other big business with political connections...? Just asking...
Yes, and?
GilesStratton: Yes, it's necessarily true that the free market is the most efficient means of satisying the demands of the consumers. But this doesn't mean it produces cheaper things, no.
GilesStratton: Juan: Actually you can't prove [land] would be more expensive Actually, I've substantiated my claims that it would be.
Juan: Actually you can't prove [land] would be more expensive
These terms set by the landlords are what stops the value of your property to decrease. Which is a danger that a renter isn't exposed to.
Juan:No ? You don't see that cheaper, more efficient, and customer satisfaction are all sides of the same coin, so to speak ?
Not necessarily no. I mean, yes, consumers will always prefer cheaper goods all other things being equal. But if the price of a good has been pushed below the free market price, then to say that doing so best meets consumer demand is wrong. It means that there's a poor allocation of resources. This is what I'm saying in regrds to houses.
Juan:There's no praxeological reason for land to be more expensive. There's no praxeological reason for the majority of people to become tenants.
We've been over this, even if you choose to ignore it.
Juan:You didn't even manage to write things that make sense. Again, please explain what you meant by this : These terms set by the landlords are what stops the value of your property to decrease. Which is a danger that a renter isn't exposed to.
How pedantic of you.
I mean that if you live in a community in which everybody owns their own land and nothing else you're exposed to a great deal of risk that you're not if a single entrepreneur owns all the land and rents it out. Since you and the entrepeneur have the same incentives. Consider this, you buy a house that is valued very highly. Then coke dealers move in on one side of the house, a very noise rock band moves in on the other and across the street a local gang moves in. What do you think will happen to the value of you house? On the other hand, if a single entrepeneur owns all the land he won't let these people into the community, since, they will bring the value of the community down.
Also, there's the free rider problem. Imagine that everybody in the community has insurance except one person. The price of your insurance goes up, this won't be the case in a community in which the owner can stipulate that all home owners must have some form of insurace.
GilesStratton, how exactly should a company compete for capital when an uniform law is already enforced in the same "jurisdiction"? I know, this is similar to what David Friedman said, but it sounds like a recipe for conflict or voluntarily-funded democracy. And we're not even sure this "voluntarily-funded" won't turn into "lets make an uniform law to tax everybody since we (a majority) pay anyway".
The nice thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it results in a minimal set of rules. That's what makes it a free society. I'm not sure why someone would strive for motion in the opposite direction. Of course, you may take two stances: advocate some rules (conservatism, communitarianism), or simply think that totally free societies are not possible. The latter is highly unlikely, since most anarcho-capitalism theories do posit or assume some sort of mechanism that prevents mob rule from taking over.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:GilesStratton, how exactly should a company compete for capital when an uniform law is already enforced in the same "jurisdiction"?
They compete for capital with other companies who own other feudal like land arrangements. I wish people would read some of the literature on this. In any case it's similar to malls.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:I know, this is similar to what David Friedman said, but it sounds like a recipe for conflict or voluntarily-funded democracy.
It would be more like monarchy, only, people would have a choice as to which "monarch" they would live under. And if one of these "monarchs" governed their territory badly, they'd go out of buisness. And this is exactly where the distinction lies. And the whole problem with democracy is that it isn't funded voluntary, so how you could object to this is beyond me.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:And we're not even sure this "voluntarily-funded" won't turn into "lets make an uniform law to tax everybody since we (a majority) pay anyway".
Well presumably, everybody would have to pay anyway. It's called rent.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:The nice thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it results in a minimal set of rules
Nonsense, this is a left libertarian fallacy.
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:That's what makes it a free society.
No, the lack of coercion does that.
Didn't you just side-step his objection, which is that the scenario is predicated on a uniform law already being there, and hence is NOT free competition.
The problem is that this is conceptually incoherant. A monarchy by definition is not something that is purely chosen. There is no such thing as a free choice between monarchs, the very fact that it is monarchs being chosen from means that the context is not fully free. We currently can also choose between democratic states, but that doesn't make us free. Furthermore, monarchy does not differ from democracy when it comes to the fundamentals of a state, I.E. it too is not funded purely voluntarily and it too is predicated on an illegitimate territorial monopoly. It is nonsensical to try to make the distinction you are making because switching to a libertarian theoretical context cannot logically lead us back to an authoritarian institution or framework. What people keep objecting to is the monarchy part, which inherently is predicated on a breach of the libertarian context.
The institutionalization of this rent as a uniform law for the entire community irrespective of the individual IS taxation. In this way, a feudal land arrangement is the perfect pretext for taxation and a state's territorial claim.
Are you really going to go there? His premise has nothing directly to do with left-libertarianism. It is hardly the case that his premise is exclusively left-libertarian. Even Walter Block seems to hold a similar view in many regaurds. Your understanding of left-libertarianism is so bad that you've ended up accusing people who are in fact not left-libertarians of being left-libertarians.
GilesStratton: Juan the Libertine: Archduke of Stratton:The fact is this: eminent domain increases uncertainty regarding property rights, hence value goes down. Isn't eminent domain used by developers and other big business with political connections...? Just asking... Yes, and?
And the point is that this indicates that the function of eminent domain is special privileges to a small group of people, I.E. it increases heirarchy. In turn, removing eminent domain has the function of lessening heirarchy. Why you can't see this or refuse to aknowlege it, that state laws of this sort buttress private concentrations of power and hence the removal of such laws implies a comparatively less concentrated structure, is beyond me.
GilesStratton:Consider this, you buy a house that is valued very highly. Then coke dealers move in on one side of the house, a very noise rock band moves in on the other and across the street a local gang moves in.
What do you think will happen to the value of you house ?
Also, there's the free rider problem.
Tough question, for one parents do sometimes do that stuff to their kids, but it is rare, although the media might seem to insinuate that it is not. Children are usually if not always tricked into performing these acts, but in a free society the people must be allowed to be free and in my mind a child is free to not get exploited.
Juan: GilesStratton:Consider this, you buy a house that is valued very highly. Then coke dealers move in on one side of the house, a very noise rock band moves in on the other and across the street a local gang moves in. In a free society there are no criminal coke dealers(drugs would be 'legal' anyway) or gangs, and noise would be dealt with by PDAs I hope. The idea that if you buy an expensive house you'll be living in a place that resembles a slum is outright silly and shows how far fetched your ideas are. What do you think will happen to the value of you house ? You got it backwards eh ? If in a given area houses are valued highly that means the place is 'exclusive'. I'll assume that in a free society people who have money to buy expensive houses made their money honestly which means they are good at business and generally successful. I don't see how successful entrepreneurs can be undesirable neighbors... Also, there's the free rider problem. I thought the myth of the free rider had been debunked ages ago ?
I created another topic about this discussion, I'll reply there.
Jon Irenicus: It won't be banned. Parents concerned by it will just have to monitor their kids.
It won't be banned. Parents concerned by it will just have to monitor their kids.
Oh great Jon, how pray tell can they do that without the state to guide and instruct them? Do you really believe the family came before the state?