As I said, do your homework, what barriers to entry would these be, by the way?
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.
Which is completely off topic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read the literature anyway. And, show which barriers these are, by the way.
No, I’m not. Please, stop this nonsense about me “grasping at straws” and being “disingenous” and debate properly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No you didn’t. Free market == cheaper stuff, including land. This is VERY basic economics.
Nonsense. Without state restrictions land will be far more easier to homestead, buy and sell. Bigger market, lower prices. You FAIL.
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.
Cut the nonsense and debate me without turning this into drama and proclaiming superiority.
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.
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.
Then it won’t be difficult for you to counter the economic incentives I’ve provided, which as of yet, you haven’t done.
Not for the state because it can externalize its losses. Really, this isn’t difficult, it’s just an application of the calculation debate.
Do you mind clarifying what you meant here ? “stops the value of your property to decrease” is kinda garbled.
No, free association proves the former and economic analysis proves the latter.
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.
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.
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.
No, I haven’t, stop repeating this.
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).
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.
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.
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.
And yet mysteriously it isn’t applied to corporations and any other institution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why not?
It’s called the division of labour. Individuals don’t homestead the assets of an entire company, yet, they exist.
And why is this?
Drop the attitude stop the condescending tone and debate properly.
And what’s the incentive for this?
So now common sense beats economic theory?
Yes, that’s exactly it.
Yes and you can only classify what I advocate as a monopoly if you use the incorrect neoclassical definition.
Not really, since in this case the ownership of land would be a business.
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.
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.
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.
I’m going to ask again, stop the appeals to libertarianism and debate properly.
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.
Then disprove it. Or if you think my arguments are shoddy read the pieces I’ve suggested by Hoppe and Spencer MacCallum. Preferably both.
And? The point is that is essentially wouldn’t have any effect on the price.
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.
You are the very first person I have EVER met who would prefer to rent over own their home.
Really ? It’s not ‘necessarily true’ that a free-market economy is more efficient (i.e. produces cheaper things) than any other alternative ?
The 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.
Actually you can’t prove it would be more expensive.
So ‘perhaps’ your whole system is just a fantasy.
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.
Again, UNFOUNDED assertion.
Unfounded assertion. This is getting boring.
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.
Yes, I have.
First of all you’re incorrectly conflating feudalism and monarchism. Secondly I’ve not defended monarchism since I’ve advocated freedom of association.
Wonderful answer there BP.
You’re clearly not read his book then.
I have, you’ve just chosen to ignore it.
So you’ve just ignored what I’ve said? I’ve not advocated monarchism and I’ve not advocated feudalism as you see it.
I’d bet 5 cents that Giles would prefer to “own a community”…
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.
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.
Actually, I’ve substantiated my claims that it would be.
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.
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.