The difference is that there is no government, separate from the oligarchs.
The situation will never arise, because it will never be either economic, or politic. If it looked as if it were going to arise, the masses (or someone acting or purporting to act on their behalf) would resort to violence, and either kill the oligarchs, or abridge their property rights, or drive them away.
Yes but some people don’t seem to understand that libertarianism is individual self-government, not ‘voluntary’ feudalism.
You’ll hear endless arguments trying to prove that any ‘voluntary’ arrangement is possible and makes sense, so things like ‘voluntary slavery’, theocracy and ‘voluntary monarchy’ are perfectly in line with libertarianism.
Pure sophistry if you ask me.
I don’t know about libertarianism in general (there are several conflicting models, for a start), and I do not speak of it. Rather, I speak of the system described at the top of this thread: it is an oligarchy, not anarchy, and it is an oligarchy of a particular kind, namely, feudalism. I have not said anything about it being voluntary. It might be the case that the first tenants have volunteered, but eventually, if the system survives, there will be people born into it. For such people, the system is not voluntary – it is feudalism, full stop.
What?
Very libertarian. How much the masses must hate those that provide goods for them.
Both of those are logically contradictory. So stop conflating them.
You clearly see that, at a minimum, this is a HORRIBLE pretext for a free society that is likely to constitute or devolve into a state. Unfortunately, Giles doesn’t see this, and romanticizes such an ideal.
You are correct, Giles is for fuedalism, not anarchism. He is either confused or is dedicated to such an agenda regaurdless of truth value. You clearly understand that, particularly intergenerationally, this is an apt pretext for tyranny over the individual.
No, I’m not. Now go away stop trolling. I am for manoralism, not feudalism. See above for the distinction.
Funny, I thought you weren’t a utilitarian. I hardly see how this arrangement would lead the development of a state given that it is subject to the market.
I have to agree that I was a bit too excited about this model. But what I meant in my message is that instead of renting a place own by a “king” company, one can buy his own place, and use some external companies to provide him with the services the “king” companies provide elsewhere.
The choice of renting a place with additionnal governmental-like services would be optional, like is today the choice of sleeping in a hotel instead of his own house. At least that’s how I see the thing Gilles exposed. The market would do the rest and let the best(s) formula(s) win.
The landlords do not “provide goods” for the tenants - they offer real estate (and possibly some related services) in exchange for money. The tenants, meanwhile, presumably also supply valuable goods and services in exchange for money, or they could not pay the rent, so the landlords are no more “providers” than are the tenants. The masses rebelling against those who take rent from them at the same time as depriving them of liberty is rather more libertarian than them acquiescing to this situation. Elsewhere, you say you are for manorialism, not feudalism. Of course, manorialism is an aspect of feudalism. It is absolute rule by lords over those who live on their land - their tenants. The part of feudalism that is missing is the part where the lords are subject to various “feudal” obligations to one another, and possibly to higher ranking lords, dukes and princes. Manorialism potentially turns tenants into slaves, and provides no effective checks against such abuse. In other words, you seem to be for absolute liberty for one group of people, and one group only, namely the lords, and are happy to see everyone else subjected to the loss of even such liberties as they now possess under the rule of states. How you manage to perceive such a scheme as libertarian quite amazes me.
It amazes me as well.
What, exactly, do you perceive real estate to be? It is a good. Moreover, they do not merely provide the good of the land itself they provide the good of the surrounding location, the public areas such as roads and parks. Indeed, it is this latter function of the entrepreurial that is most important. This is exactly what seperates manorialism from other sorts of land arrangements in which each individual owns their own land and lives off it. Not only does the latter lack any sufficient way to deal with free riders, the economic interests of each party will conflict with that of the other. In contrast to this the owner of the multi tenant land owning will have interest aligned with each of his tenants.
Entirely besides the point.
Nobody is depriving anybody of their liberty. Rather, they’re providing the good I have outlined above. In order for anybody to deprive another of their liberty, coercion would have to be involved. That is not what I am suggestion, coercion is not economically feasible. Should one entreprenuer wish to act in manner resembling that of the state they will be outcompeted. What is happening is two individuals are agreeing on a contract, in which one rents the land of another in order for them to build a house and be part of a community in exchange for money. It is an entirely voluntary deal.
Of course, the masses rebelling, will usually entail coercion.
It is the economic aspect. Just like labour is an aspect of slavery. Merely stating that slavery is coercive does not entail that there is anything wrong with wage labour. Likewise, feudalism is coercive, manorialism needn’t be. It is a land arrangement in which an entrepreuner provides a valuable good for his tenants. If, as you are entitled to, you may claim that it is not a viable enteprise. So be it, you have to argue that, but to say that it runs contrary to the principles of libertarianism is false.
I will reiterate what I’ve said numerous time: if the owner of a multi tenant land owning were to begin behaving in a manner similar to that of a state they would lose customers. Nobody will want to be subject to that sort of behaviour when there exist alternatives. You forget, these owners must compete for capital, as such if they were to begin charging extortionate rates for rents or begin to determine rules unilaterally they would not only lose customers but be liable to pay damages for a breach of contract.
There are no lords or subjects. Unless you would determine capitalists to be lords. But in order to do so you’d have to twist the definition substantially.
I’m glad to know I’m not alone in this view.
Yes, real estate is a good. What I was challenging was not the idea that real estate is a good, but rather the way you used the word “provide”, describing landlords as “those who provide goods for them” (them being the masses), as if all this “providing” was one-sided. Furthermore, let us remember that if the masses did kill or otherwise eliminate the landlord, the good that the landlord was “providing” would not cease to be “provided”. It would still be there, only the ownership would have changed.
Still land, and still the landlord is optional.
It is all very well you comparing this situation with one in which individuals own their own parcel of land, while the rest of the land is common, but that is not the only alternative. Many co-operative arrangements are possible, and it is very likely that most people will prefer such, instead of trusting a landlord who might become a tyrant. You say that the landlord will have interest aligned with each of his tenants, but looking at history, I am skeptical. Landlords with unchecked power often find that their interests and those of their tenants are violently at odds, and the landlord who becomes an abusive tyrant is far from a rare phenomenon.
You hope. Looking at history, I am not so optimistic.
Coercion is nearly always economically feasible, if it can be done with impunity. That’s why robbery, slavery and extortion are perennially popular forms of enterprise.
You are assuming that (a) there will always be competition, and (b) the competition will not do the same. I think neither of these assumptions is warranted. There’s nothing to prevent landlords buying each other out or forming cartels until competition has disappeared, and I also think it is likely that even if this does not happen, that state-like behaviour from landlords cannot evolve in creeping stages, wherein one landlord takes liberties in a small way, and the tenants do not protest, so the other landlords copy the same small abuse, until eventually, the tenants are shackled in the most oppressive of states.
…at first.
Of course. But if they’re rebelling against tryanny, that’s hardly an objection.
It is the economic aspect. Just like labour is an aspect of slavery. Merely stating that slavery is coercive does not entail that there is anything wrong with wage labour. Likewise, feudalism is coercive, manorialism needn’t be. It is a land arrangement in which an entrepreuner provides a valuable good for his tenants. If, as you are entitled to, you may claim that it is not a viable enteprise. So be it, you have to argue that, but to say that it runs contrary to the principles of libertarianism is false.
Not necessarily. Moving house is disruptive, stressful and expensive – much more so than going to the sweetshop next door, where the sweets are fractionally cheaper. Therefore, most people will not move for small reasons. They are only likely to move if they are confident that the place they are moving to is substantially, rather than merely slightly, better than where they are thinking of moving from. This gives the system the possibility of evolving by creeping stages into tyranny.
A landlord who owns a town-sized parcel of real estate, and has unchecked power of rule over his tenants, is a lord, regardless of formal title.
Absolutely ridiculous. A landlord who oppressed his tenants would soon be the only person left on his estate. By your reasoning, the Mongol Empire should still be going strong. The Confederacy should have had all the money it needed to conquer the Union. You can’t get productivity at gunpoint. What is bugging you is the prospect of inequality of outcomes.
Well, your understanding of my point was incorrect.
Of course it would cease to be provided, to begin with I do not get what you’re getting at. Besides that, yes, goods do have to be provided, that is what scarcity means. Humans have to employ scarce means to acheive their ends. Well, somebody has to own the land in order to provide it, otherwise rational calculation is impossible. Besides that we can also assume that the landlord was capable of providing the good.
Goods to not provide themselves. This is stuff that’s in the very first chapter of MES.
What’s your point?
I’ll address the historical aspect in response to the next quotation. As for now I merely wish to point out that nobody needs to trust a landlord to look out for the interest of his tenants, the same applies to any enterprise. One need only assume that the entrepreneur who rents out his land will work in his own self interest. There is no such thing as unchecked power in the free market, all actors are subject to the market and to demands of the consumer. If we can assume that the consumer wishes to live a life free of coercion the market will provide for this. Given this, if we assume that the landlord does begin imposing rules unilaterally then we can conclude that he was either be bought out or customers will move elsewhere. Which is a fair assumption. In fact, looking at the world now I see evidence supporting my view. Owners of malls, hotels and holiday resorts are function in the way I have described, and yet none of them could be considered tyrants.
When have we ever had a free market in land? The answer is simply never. Indeed, the feudal system was enforced by means of coercion and special priviledge. These people were tyrants long before they ever came to own land ownings as I have described. So your point misses the mark. Although, I will point out that since we have abandoned the feudal model the size of the state has increased, and likewise it has become more centralized. Since essentially fuedal landlords had interests opposed to those of the king.
Of course assumption a is warranted. We are talking about a free market. Keep in mind it needn’t merely be the case that there is competition between competing land holdings, competition for corporate control is also important and ignored by you.
As for assumption b, if you’re going to make this point you’d better be aware that it proves far too much. What stops the banks, the road owners, the courts, the defense agencies from doing the same? Nothing, in which case we’re back to tyranny. But unless you want to be guilty of special pleading you’re going to have to find a specific reason that makes land owning different to all of the above forms of business in regards to which your argument has been refuted over and over again.
And state like behaviour cannot “creep up”, either behaviour is coercive (indicative of the state) or it isn’t. The moment it is, assuming individuals value liberty, insurance agencies will demand money for compensation, individuals will move elsewhere and most important the value of the landlords land ownings would decrease.
No. Slavery was abandoned because it was not economically feasible. Drug laws and almost every law don’t worked because they’re backed by coercion.The state does not survive because of coercion but because of ideology.
That’s just an ad hoc assertion. You can suppose what you like, until you can back it up it’s not relevant.
You’re going to have to prove that it’s tyranny though.
That’s besides the point. The moment a landlord begins to engage in such practises the value of his land will decline. He will lose money, moreover it is possible for individuals to buy him out if they foresee potential profit. Moreover, he’d be liable to pay damages for breach of contract.
Moreover, you can’t merely assert that individuals will not move for a certain amount. By the way, you’ve still not defined what tyrannical behaviour is.
No he doesn’t. He is competing with insurance agencies and other entrepreneurs.
Indeed he is competing with other towns, he also has an interest in his tenants being productive, so they can continue to pay him. And, he is always competing against dissatisfaction by paying for security.
And that is really it in a nutshell.