Nemzeti

I'm aware of what you are talking about, but it doesn't apply at all to ethical situations of absolute power. The egyptian royalty didn't care about real "relationships" with their slaves... any more than self-centered sadistic rapists would care about any of their victims... No amount of interpersonal relationship can overcome the incentive for absolute power, economic ostracism perhaps, but since the point of the cartel would be to control force/ the means of production, they would be invulnerable to this as well. Absolute power should be considered an irresistible economic incentive (as history has shown many times). Thankfully, as I have tried to explain my last several posts, the free-market would through it's nature protect against it's accumulation.

Omega, if you read my analysis, I agree with you entirely. Humans value individuality, freedom etc. in a way that is almost unquantifiable. But it empirically guides their actions, absolutely. It would be just as difficult to remove ancaps from a free society as it is to remove insurgency from the middle east. Total agreement. zippert, economic value is absolutely maximized by forming a land/force cartel. After the cartel is formed, one does not need "relationships" with those outside the cartel (as they are 100% dependent, and subject to indiscriminate force/manipulation). This is monopoly 101. A robot collective would see this, and act on it. Humans act irrationally, because time and time again, humans avoid the game theory optimal solution and pursue self-interest out of disproportionate greed, or fear, or pride, or one of the countless other traits that make us human. In large group settings human beings will by evolutionarily ingrained necessity, resort to self interest. And this acts as a hedge to the most threatening cartels especially.

"Unless you then share a hut with another guy and enjoy the new richness that way, but then no problem occurs." I feel this is the problem. What happens when there are more landholders than people in the country? Now if you truly think that land is not capable of being amassed unevenly in a free society I don't think we can continue. That is an assumption I think one just has to make. People will be more capable than others, richer than others, and will gain their land through economic success. At some point people will be forced to sell their land to finance unexpected hardship or to finance a business etc... some times etc. I think it is very, very reasonable that there will be many landless people (through voluntary contract of course) in a free society. And if even if 10% of the population is renting, the opportunity to take advantage of what I have deemed "the land monopoly" in the OP would certainly exist. Even one person renting vs. a country-wide cartel can result in the unethical use of force, so I don't think that my assumptions stretch premises in any way. Anyways since I feel this situation is obviously bound to arise in an area of limited land, it is the one I address. Because at that point it becomes game theory optimal to form a cartel. Robots would at that point form a cartel, as a group correctly pursuing the economic incentive of monopoly (land/force). Humans, through their predictably self interested, yet often economically irrational behavior, would not. Again, it seems to be our humanity, not our capacity for reason alone, that allows us to be capable of anarchy.

I dont think the problem is supposed. I call it "the land monopoly" but really this problem is at the core debate of almost all political philosophy. What happens when in some way, someone attempts to gain control of the system? I've shown exactly how it would occur. Step by step... I don't quite understand.? Which step do you disagree with? It is in my opinion, a perfect presentation of the progress of a land monopoly, and exactly which forces would stop it and why. As to the other concern of yours. I agree. It is shocking. Believe me I've been shocked all week. But I am solving it using reason: The predictable self interest (which in many cases is at the expense of economic rationality) that humans consistently exhibit, is a force that more than overcomes the incentives necessary to achieve a land/force cartel. I hope I have rephrased the answer in a rational manner this time around, and addressed the initial concern in reasonable terms. So in the above sense, human "irrationality" seems to be a positive trait in preventing coercive behavior. Our behavior in group situations is predictably such, that we most often avoid game theory optimal solutions that would cause society to succumb to coercive monopoly (a land/force cartel in this instance). It's (well, in a very essential way) why Palestine doesn't just join with Israel. Humans have an almost intangible sense of determination, of individuality, surival, identity... but I propose it's real, empirical. Humans behave this way time and time again. It's who we are. On that note...Robots cannot have an an-cap society! the robot-landholders would all, at the same time, theoretically understand it to be economically optimal to form a land/force cartel. I don't think this can be disputed, and it has strong implications for what it means to be.... alive! It is our humanity, not our capacity for reason, that makes us capable of living in anarchy. So perhaps irrationality is too vague a term, I hope I have cleared it up. Fundamentally, the struggle, the thirst for self, the evolutionary determination of human beings is what stops a free society from ultimately succumbing to many processes of forceful coercion. I think that is something we all should come to terms with.

Sure, I chose 10,000 as an arbitrary "high" number. In any considerably populated society, the number of landholders would be higher, and my example even more potent. But that one serves my purpose. I hope you read the rest of my post, as I now fundamentally disagree with my initial claim. I am in fact, not an anarcho-socialist The forces of an an-cap society would NOT result in a market misallocation resulting in land monopoly. Another point for black and yellow, job well done.

After a long and careful evaluation of everyones replies (thanks guys!) I think I have an adequate explanation to this very problematic endgame. Basically, the land monopoly can never come into existence, because the free market wouldn't misallocate land on a problematic scale (as land is the most uniquely understood, and crucially important resource in a free society). I will explain this using a game-theory based approach. Now first, an assumption. In any an-cap society, land must start out or at least resemble a fair (or ideally nonexistent) distribution. You cannot start "An-capia" with a single or even a tiny oligopoly of landholders. I think this is reasonable, but it's important. It fails otherwise. However, assuming a reasonable land distribution (again, essential), the free market succeeds in flying colors. I'll give a theoretical, principled scenario and it's outcomes. Say there are 10,000 landholders in our country. Landholder #1 (Referred to from now on as "The Empire"), who through wild entrepreneurial success providing him essentially unlimited capital, decides he wants to acquire all of the land in the nation. This is of course, for purpose of creating a monopoly of force (our dillema, as stated in my OP). At first, he succeeds, purchasing #2-#3,000. The remaining 70% of the nation takes notice, but remains more or less unbothered ("we still have most of the land! He can't force us to do anything!"). Then the Empire buys more. Only 5,000 landholders remain. Smart money begins to grow wary of motivations. ("Why would he buy more than half of the country? Profitable and enjoyable life is not his goal, therefore all that is left is the power motive! We should stay alert") Of course, property will continue to sell. (Desperate landholders, high prices tempting owners). Now only 3,000 landholders remain. At this, or some arbitrary, yet always significant number, the market will understand the endgame, and NEVER sell it's land. The economic incentive of avoiding the violence of the Empire is simply too high. It is at this point, that the empire encounters the beautiful, willful spirit of human salvation: Competition. Now here is the important part: From "The Empire's" perspective, the ONLY solution is to approach the remaining landowners with a contractual cartel. This is the only way to achieve the stated monopoly (of land, and ultimately force). The game theory solution for the remaining landholders, is to agree. *GASP!!!!! Now, It is important to understand this, as it is a source of tremendous worry for the deep thinking an-cap, and a problem he will be asked again and again in debate. However, people do not, by default, behave game theory optimally. Game theory proposes mathematically optimal SOLUTIONS for economic problems. However, it cannot and does not successfully predict the actions of free human beings. As a few people start to agree to the cartel, the benefits of holding out reach seemingly asymptotic heights. As a result, there will always be at least a few parties willing to behave in irrational self interest as a hedge to the cartel. And since this is the case, it cannot form. When not under duress, much of the market will behave selfishly even if it is not game theory optimal to do so. History has shown this time and again that when efforts are un-coerced, participants behave selfishly, against the greater good of the "collective". Prisoners inform on each other all of the time. Soviet Russia and the U.S. escalated their arms race to absurd heights against equilibrium before it became obvious how pointless the efforts ultimately were. I propose it is this self interested, and fundamentally irrational nature of the free market that prevents a land monopoly from being established. Nothing else. What perfect beauty. For me, this has been a profound realization. I had always been trying to defend capitalism as being perfect, but now I realize that it's beauty lies in what is at instances, irrationality. The diverse, thousand pronged response to adversity is what gives the free market it's power. I hope others have benefited from this as much as I have. Thanks again.

Stef uses this logic and I don't like it. You need to prove that this system is ethically better than statism. By admitting that it will result in the same unethical endgame you instantly cede the argument. Homesteading etc, all of that is really just totally out of the question. The first ancap nation is likely to be so small that it runs into a limited space monopoly almost immediately. Again, Mises himself acknowledges that geographical monopolies can occur in the unhampered market. He brushes it off after this admittance, and that was when I began to deeply question austrian/ancap philosophy. This needs to be addressed better in order for us to have a sound philosophy. what is the best way to pose a question to stef?

So full disclosure, I am well versed in an-cap and believe in NAP etc. deeply. The state is a violent monster, and it needs to go, central ownership of anything is morally abysmal to me. But take your example. If a person wants to buy up all the land he will have to pay for it's protection via armed guards etc. (sure, still profitable to own land of course, I don't see this as a counter-argument). He would also have to develop mantain it (still of course, a minor roadblack in staying profitable, say this man owns half of the nation, he must service his multitiude of apartment complexes etc.... very normal and a standard part of ensuring profitablility) So, I disagree with : "When you consider the situation you realise it's only economically viable for people to maintain the land that they are actively making use of. " It is certainly viable to own all of the land. Assuming there is demand for land/land use (there is constant sky high demand), it is always profitable to own it. I still feel the most valid argument is that the free market would prevent concentrated ownership. But how does this address a contractual limited resource cartel.? The end result is basically a "state" with a monopoly on violence (their land, with no where else to go).

The Rothbard argument doesn't adequately explain natural resource monopolies. That entire video addresses monopolies and cartels in the businesses environment. Where the potential for competition is unlimited (you can always start a rival business to undercut, barring government intervention, sure I agree with that too) Land is a uniquely limited natural resource that historically has fallen into the hands of the few ( you can't always start a rival "land") Hence the problem. I actually am aware of a lot of the virtues of an-cap. I just think i see a potential break down in this very important issue re: land ownership. Hopefully it can be addressed. I'd love to continue hearing counter arguments, I know one of them is going to make sense to me, I just haven't heard it so far. Consider me a devil's advocate keeping you guys sharp, even though I agree with stef re: the perfection standard, this is a reasonable endgame that needs to be considered. Is there a way we can bat-signal stefan? or do you need to just call into the show... I've donated (in the past) and listened for a while now.

I will accept the idea that it is unlikely to arise however it is clearly a potentially problematic situation in the semi-probable situation that it could occur. The free market is based upon the idea of constant fluctuation, imperfection to near perfection, back and forth. If a checkmate "endgame" situation exists in regards to land ownership, which is really the ultimate property right (also the single one allowing its possessor the use of force), then the free market would fail to perform it's function. I think most of the rebuttals so far are pretty weak. I'm not saying there isn't an answer, I just don't think it's been given yet. I still am convinced it is "within reason" to see a situation occurring where a small ancap nation would have a highly concentrated ownership of land capable of cartel and ultimately, the use of force. Mises himself acknowledged the possibility of geographical and limited resource monopolies. I think this claim should be taken far more seriously. P.S. Anti-cartel clauses couldn't work because as a renter, the land is never yours to begin with.. you cannot affect the formation of the cartel. Socialism is clearly wrong, anarcho-socialism also seems inherently wrong to me, the OP was sensationalist. However if what I am proposing is true, an-cap and an-soc both have a similar property rights issues, ancap at least as semi-probable hypothetical...

A cartel doesnt require any government interference. That's why this situation is so troublesome for ancaps. Contracts are of course, still enforceable (DRO's etc) in an an-cap society, as contractual obligations are the medium of exchange in a free society. Landowner A, B and C (holding all the land in the nation) simply make an agreement not to compete. Homesteading and seasteading aren't reasonable solutions. Land would be appropriated ultimately, and likely very quickly (remember, the first ancap society is likely to be small, like the first anarcho-syndaclist/socialist "state" in spain in the 30's) So far the best rebuttal is that competition would prevent a single party from acquiring all of the land (as demand for "non-manipulative" landowners would eliminate them as a monopoly, sure , I buy it) But i still don't think it prevents cartel... Any other ideas?

At a moment late last night, I found myself panicking... "Am I, in reality, a socialist?" Allow me to explain: Anarcho-capitalism, in comparison to anarcho-socialism, enforces ALL property rights, including land. What is to happen, when a small cartel of landholders collaborate to charge higher rent (or inflict violence in case of non-cooperation) on the population? There is no where else for people to go, and as a result, they are subject to force at whim (to "force" them to leave what is essentially a prison) Assuming market competition couldn't overcome this incentive for cartel (and there is good argument that it couldn't-say it was a contractual cartel)... What we would have left here is a series of small pseudo-"nations", and many of the problems associated with statism come right back to the forefront. If you have a good answer to this question please let me know. I know perfectionism is not attainable, but I personally think the ramifications are potentially very grave for An-Cap philosophy if this specific issue cannot be addressed.