I think it has the potential to be worse in the context of a specific fiefdom.
I haven’t argued that they inherently would be more totalitarian than current nation-states. But the point is that this scheme is completely compatible with totalitarianism, and there is nothing about localism or small geographic regions that is inherently more free than larger ones. There is such thing as local tyranny that is just as bad as an nation-state. And the idea of competition for political power seems to miss the underlying issues with political power in the first place. I don’t want to make authoritarian control over people a “service” that different organizations compete to provide, as I take issue with authoritarian control as such.
No, the sovereign would still take their property in return for services they probably don’t want and regulate their behavior, so it wouldn’t be a real test of mutualism as an organizing principle of society.
I definitely see your point. Owning real estate doesn’t mean owning (in effect) the people who happen to live there. Any legal system that concludes otherwise is inherently totalitarian, as far as I can tell.
Presumably, rental agreements would be contractual, just like they are in most cases today. But you seem to be afraid of a situation where there’s an extreme imbalance between a (relatively) small elite who own all land and landless masses. If such a situation were to arise, then I’d say the cause is already lost, because it could easily turn into a situation where the world is once again ruled over by states. The question in my mind is how likely that situation can arise in the absence of the state. Furthermore, are there any aggravating or mitigating factors.
Unlike Stranger, I don’t think that cities or other political entities will be ownable in stateless societies. Such societies, being apolitical by definition, simply won’t have such entities.
The very fact that you recognize that this in and of itself is potentially dangerous sets you apart from many ancaps as far as I can tell. I’m not sure if people really realize how the land question relates to individual freedom.
To me, the real implied question is what a stateless society could possibly mean. In my view, a stateless society is politically aterritorial, which is why I find some of the less-nuanced positions about land that float around in these circles to be in tension with anarchism. Quite simply, I don’t think one can even sensibly talk about an “absence of the state” in a politically territorial situation. The state never went away, it just changes hands and some lines were redrawn.
No, but I do think that specific norms justifying private ownership of land, norms which I consider too absolutist or that place no restraints on the kind of power that can be excersized over other people within a land-chunk, implies political territoriality or otherwise legitimizes infringements on people’s personal autonomy, thereby being compatible with authoritarianism. To a certain extent, I think that what many neo-lockeans focus on (such as “just asquisition” via homesteading) is at best necessary but insufficient to actually produce or cohere with anything that could be called a “free society”.
No, but I do think that specific norms justifying private ownership of land, norms which I consider too absolutist or that place no restraints on the kind of power that can be excersized over other people within a land-chunk, implies political territoriality or otherwise legitimizes infringements on people’s personal autonomy, thereby being compatible with authoritarianism. To a certain extent, I think that what many neo-lockeans focus on (such as “just asquisition” via homesteading) is at best necessary but insufficient to actually produce or cohere with anything that could be called a “free society”.
If you understood economic marginalism, you would see that this fear is irrational. Landlords will compete for tenants at the margin, and thus rules will tend to become less restrictive and more attractive over time.
Economic marginalism has nothing to say pro or con about such ethical considerations, nor does it prove a priori that these scenarios cannot devolve into something very incompatible with libertarianism.
“Value-free” economics is insufficient to form a complete and fully coherant political theory.
From my POV, your statement translates to “archons will compete for citizens at the margin”, something I have no interest in. You just frame it in more economic terms.
Since I consider people to own themselves, following the Non-Aggression Principle would mean that I must not (threaten to) violate their self-ownership in the absence of any (threat of) violation of my own by them, even when they’re on the land that I own. However, this doesn’t seem to conflict with “just acquisition” via homesteading. What do you think?
)and live in a desired “mutualist world”? You know what I’m sayin’?