And yet you haven’t met the objection that there is no incentive for people to own their own land.
I really wish people would stop this silly notion that lack of a coercive state entails a lack of all rules entirely.
Nonsense, BP is an intellectually bankrupt fool. Who attempts to refute economic analysis with a silly appeal to voluntaryism.
And you have yet to posit how we know the difference. Except to be perhaps you do not like it.
Whether something can or cannot be property has nothing to do with whether something is a human or not.
Sure they can. The child has no rights until the child claims them.
It is nothing like a rented car. The rented car belongs to someone who has rational thought. A child does not have rational thought.
Such objection exists only in your mind. Not paying rent and not being bound to terms set by a landlord sound like incentives to NOT rent…
In an unlibertarian society in which land ownership is a state privilege, you’re right. But in a libertarian world those barriers to entry don’t exist, and it is simply common sense that it is more beneficial for me to own a home than to rent one. Why you seem to envision a libertarian society in which land ownership is even more restricted than it is now, or that this is in some way preferable, is beyond me, when the theory would seem to indicate a general increase in the availability of such things. The general trend of a free market over time is generally more resources available for more people, not the creation of an even more exclusive land monopoly than what we have now.
That’s a non-sequitor, it doesn’t follow from the arguments that anyone has made. The point is that you can’t make rules for people outside of your property boundaries, and the mere fact that you have property boundaries does not give you completely arbitrary authority over other people (I.E. a property right does not negate other people’s right to life and liberty). To my knowledge, you can’t dictate rules for non-violent social conduct on other people’s property according to any libertarian theory of rights that I am aware of. There is simply no way to reconcile a uniform law for an entire community requiring or banning a particular cultural practise in the absence of unanimous consent among the owners, which simply isn’t likely at all. The practical nature of the matter is that different owners have different standards, and free markets generally do not allow for the level of standardization in this regaurd that conservative-communitarianism advocates.
It’d be wise for you to drop the crude attitude and stop making wild claims. I have not attempted to refute economic analysis, you have not made a valid economic analysis, and simply brushing off libertarian social theory wholesale in the name of utilitarian economics is a mistake. This is a point I’ve butted heads with multiple people here over before: this akward tendency to act as if libertarian social theory is irrelevant and to reduce everything to a dry utilitarian economic analysis, without the context of a libertarian social theory. My point in this regaurd is merely an extension on Rothbard’s criticism of utilitarian free market economists, namely that they tend to ignore social theory and disingenous pretend to be making value-free arguments in the attempt to defend a value that they’ve assumed.
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.
Actually the state does everything to stop renting. See Spencer MacCallum on this.
Because in a free market a land would be far more expensive. Basic economic theory informs us that uncertainty about land (that results from eminent domain etc.) will lead to a decline in prices, as will the countless restrictions that the state imposes on the use of land. With an increase in the cost of land, ownership will become more difficult and renting will seem more attractive. Especially since feudal like land arrangements would lead to higher property prices.
If it’s my property. I can, if I rent out rooms in my house and forbid smoking in these rooms, that’s my right. If the owner of a mall bans shops that sell heroin, he’s very entitled and wise to do. Same applies for the situation I’ve described.
If you only said so from the beginning, we wouldn’t have had this long controversy. I agree, however you can’t speculate or imply that this would lead to a general, community-wide ban on the viewing of child pornography. Many don’t actually care who they sell their property to. Making such a ban reliable would only be possible if there was a state-like organisation that would enforce non-contractual rules.
IF I am renting, THEN I’m not a property owner SO there’s no such thing as the “value of my property”.
If Smith lives in a rented house and the value of the property Smith is renting goes up, the rent Smith has to pay goes up as well, so actually you’re providing an argument AGAINST your case.
a) wholly unfounded claim
b) granting for argument’s sake that land would be far more expensive it follows that rent would also be far more expensive, so at the end of the day the relative price of land is irrelevant.
To my knowledge, free market economics proves the exact opposite. There currently are massive barriers to entry. The ability of an individual to own land is restricted by law. The state law on land ownership artificially restricts supply, which artificially raises property values. I think what you really mean is that you DESIRE land to be more expensive.
Feudal like land arrangements don’t exist in a free society, as they are the result of arbitrary state privilege. Why are you confirming my accusations about conservative-libertarian’s tendency to slip into defenses of feudalism?
As I’ve pointed out to you ad nauseum, an entire community isn’t a single person’s property.
It is misleading for you to make analogies to small-scale individual ownership to justify a conservative communitarian law for an entire community. These are bunk arguments. The situation you describe, in which an individual has arbitrary decision-making power over an entire community that they clearly do not own according to any libertarian property theory, isn’t consistant with a libertarian society to begin with. For all intents and purposes, that is a monarchal state, as a single person claims arbitary authority over a land monopoly that they did not homestead or voluntarily exchange for.
You seem to have this hippy-dippy vision of anarchy where individuals will all live on their own one acre plots, enjoying complete freedom of movement of course. It is easy to foresee businesses buying whole cities in order to generate economies of scale for the infrastructure that supports high living standards. Such communities will naturally have various covenants with which you’ll have to abide or you’ll just have to shop for a place more in line with your personal ethics. This is a model that is followed everywhere government withdraws from dictating public access. If you don’t like that sort of outcome, then you should work to strengthen the central state, which is the only entity willing to protect highly marginal activities.
My vision of anarchy is not “hippy dippy” (actually, my position is much more consistant with individualism than yours is, as you selectively lapse into communitarianism), but I certainly know that a vision of feudalism isn’t a vision of anarchy to begin with and that communitarianism and libertarianism are not reconconcilable as social theories. I also know that it makes no sense to nominally oppose the state and then have a vision of anarchy that is identical to a state, in which a single person claims absolute authority over an entire region of people. Hence, you don’t even seem to have a vision of anarchy, and only appear to oppose the current state because it’s in competition with the authorities that you would prefer to be the new state.
This notion you have of buisinesses buying whole cities makes no practical sense and doesn’t follow from libertarianism. Who currently owns the city to buy it from? Currently, the city is occupied by a whole bunch of different people, most of whom either own or rent homes, and the state claims dejure ownership over the entire thing. And your solution is to transfer dejure ownership over the whole thing to some individual who clearly is incapable of voluntarily aquiring the entire thing by themself? How does this differ from the state, and what advantage is there in transfering from a monopoly to a monopoly? How would this not consititute a gigantic coercive property redistribution scheme? The logical implication of what you’re advocating is that this individual becomes the defacto monarch, and their monopoly becomes the defacto state.
The idea that the state actually protects marginal activities (wtf is prohibition then?) and the actual best interest of minority groups is absurd. Throughout most of history, the state has had laws against them. The state has been used to create and enforce plenty of culturally conservative laws that compel or prohibit a particular non-violent behavior. The state did not invent or cause “alternative lifestyles”. Your entire theory is blatantly tainted by your traditionalist cultural preferances. It does not follow from the disestablishment of the state that your cultural preferances become the law of the land, and there is no libertarian basis for justifying making your cultural preferances the law of the land.
What’s amusing is that I’ve already debunked these claims of yours and others months ago, and yet you still repeat the same bunk arguments trying to justify authoritarianism, despite the fact that it blatantly contradicts fudamental libertarian principles. In the case of you and a few others, I have no problem claiming that you’re just using libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism as sugar-coating for a conservative ideology and as a rationale for the establishment of your own prefered forms of authoritarianism, because it’s become blatantly obvious given a consistant attempt to defend authoritarianism in a libertarian context. This is instructive of the fact that a mere nominal opposition to the current state is not sufficient enough for libertarianism.
Not really, seeing as I supported it. As I said, without state restrictions on property use it will be far more valuable. The lack of eminent domain etc. will also mean less uncertainty regarding the future of the land, ergo it is more expensive.
Now, what does economics teach us about time preference? 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.
Notice, I’m talking about land, not property.
The above point applies here also, the house of the owner goes up in value.
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. 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. 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. The effect of removing monopoly and opening up competition is more choices for people, not less choices.
The idea of eminent domain has a negligble impact on the value of property in the U.S. since it is applicable to all property.
How about you tell us where you are going with this? Otherwise, his answer seems far superior to yours, given that as property values go up, so will rent.
Yes, free market economics does prove that things will, as a result of decreasing time preference, all things being equal, become less expensive. And yet, you ignore the uncertainty that the state creates in regard to land ownership. A quick look at Africa will prove this. Why do you think land is so much more expensive in Switzerland than it is in say, Kenya?
And as I stated, the state restricts the use of land in many ways. Which once again depresses the price.
Furthermore, if you’d done your homework and read the piece I suggested you to, you’d know that the state does everything to discourage renting in various forms such as outright promoting ownership, taxes on rentings and various other restrictions.
Really? I don’t see too many feudal land arrangements now.
That’s the point, the difference is as Byzantine said they have to compete capital as opposed to stealing it.
The income tax is applicable to all tax, ergo it is neglible. Right?
I’ve said where I’m going.