The "land monopoly" problem

[Nemzeti]

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.

[Wesley]

Well if the press hears about the jerk rent cartel, then I (and everyone I know) would be perfectly fine boycotting them. No groceries, no roads to drive on, no water, etc.

 

I also would offer my couch for any friends in this situation for the short term.

 

The point is is that there is free association. I do not need to get business from assholes.

 

Anyone who breaks the deal and gives them stuff will probably be boycotted too.

 

This is why this doesn't happen in a free market. The business always lose because they are dependent on the customers to want to give them money.

 

The only time this happens is when you have a state enforced monopoly or state subsidized oligopoly.

[zippert]

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)

 

 

 

In present time there are places to go. Huge landscapes are not homesteaded yet and since population growth is declining wordwide it may never be.

 

Then there is still seasteading.

 

But imagine all places including the oceans are homesteaded. So you have a mass of owners, in europe even after hundred of years of feudalism, there are millions of property owners.

 

So to built a cartel you have to group all of this owners in your cartel. If you don't include some significant property in our cartel, your cartel doesn't work, because the other owners will make better offers.

 

Pretty unlikely that you can convince more than 95% of the owners to join, given the amount of cartel critics in the world + the extreme reputation costs when the cartel fails.

 

Imagine somehow a group managed to build that monopoly with contracts. In reality monopolies are build only with the government, but thats a thought experiment.

 

How many of the non-members of that cartel will accept property rights given that situation?

 

I guess you ll get a marxist revolution in weeks.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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.

Socialism is morally wrong and it would not follow that anarcho-socialism solves this problem. 

[dsayers]

say it was a contractual cartel

 

There is no such thing. Contracts are only helpful when they can be enforced. A cartel can only exist behind the protection of state interference.

[Nemzeti]

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? 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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? 

It's not troublesome for me. It's only people who insist it's a problem that are troublesome. I can't speak for other an-caps though.

Put a anti-cartel clause in your contracts. That solves it.

[Andrew79]

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...

 

And yet it does. Cartels and monopolies are features of government, not of free markets:

 

 

[TheRobin]

how would they get the land in the first place? It would literally billions of people to sell their land to those 3 cartel guys. Why would they sell at all? And if they do, how can they then legitimately complain later that they don't own their land anymore? And how would the remaining (still unowned) land be acquired by the cartelers?To me the land question (which seems to come up every now and then) is a good example of starting a problem in the middle and not careing about how the situation would arise in the first place, which seems practically impossible to occur, to me at least.

[zippert]

I think what we can learn from that thought experiment is that you should alwys have a piece of land to feed yourself and your family. Only one acre is needed for 4 persons.

[dsayers]

Only one acre is needed for 4 persons.

 

How do you know? I would need a lot less. A farmer would need a lot more. The market will sort it out.

 

The whole "everybody's going to claim the whole planet" is sensationalist nonsense.

[Nemzeti]

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...

[Andrew79]

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.

Engage then.In the Rothbard video I posted he explains why cartels and monopolies need the state. And as far as I'm concerned his theories have been completely backed up by reality.If he's wrong, explain why.It's easy but mindless to just tell people they're wrong and their rebuttals are weak. Especially when you're not providing any reasons at all as to why they're wrong and you're right.

[Nemzeti]

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.

[Mike Fleming]

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? 

 

The entire attitude towards land would be completely different in a free society to what you currently experience.

 

Currently the state lays claim to vast tracts of land and nobody is allowed to use it unless they pay the state for the right to do what they want on it.  Even then they don't really own it.  Most land is just rented from the government, but the government claims that you own it, making the current land ownership system basically one huge lie.  When you understand that the government is basically a criminal extortion racket, it's not really a surprise.

 

In a free society, there is no central ownership of land.  That sounds a bit freaky at first but you need to think it through.  I don't know exactly what will emerge, whether you will have some form of decentralized version, but all land, when it is being used, has a maintenance cost.  People won't be able to lay claim to vast tracts of unused land unless they have men with guns patrolling it.  Those men with guns will have a cost associated with them and if the land itself is not returning anything, then the situation becomes economically unviable very quickly.

 

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.  The land that they own has to return regular profits for them, or in the case of a house, they are happy to swallow the maintenance costs, including security costs, because, well, everybody wants somewhere to put their stuff and sleep at night.

 

People grabbing all the land?  it won't happen because the maintenance costs will be prohibitive.  Unlike in our current society where forced taxation pays the costs of stopping people from using land. 

[Nemzeti]

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).

[Mike Fleming]

But if he has the money to develop apartment complexes on all the land he owns then it must be because he thinks they will be profitable. ie.  useful to people.  Otherwise it's just a massive waste of money.  Why would anyone in a free society, where you can't forceably extract money from people via taxation, do that?

 

So this guy wants to build a bunch of apartment complexes for people to live in.  Meanwhile people are building homes for themselves on other land and the guy then has a bunch of empty apartments.  He can't just grab every acre of land, protect it, and construct on it at the same time.   This would be an incredible risk.  It's like taking your life savings and buying up lottery tickets.  Why would someone do that?

 

If there was a huge demand for rental apartments it would be a good idea.  Otherwise...

[zippert]

Just to make it clear: Ownership is defined as "create and be responsible"

 

Homesteding doesn't mean just to claim or mark land. It means usage, building a "home".

 

In the end it is a question of military power. If a man claims ownership over land he doesn't own, because he has not shaped it.

Ancaps wont acept his claim and homestead on that land. So the claimer needs military power to protect his claim. His army then fights the DRO of the homesteader. If he wins he has sucessfully robbed the homesteder. Like the state, e.g. the US has taken the homesteaded villages of the natives americans und can enforce a claim for the whole country.

 

Its also a moral question: When is power over land legitimate? The ancap says, that power over unowned/owned by others land is immoral. Just like murder is immoral, people can still murder, people can still try to grab land instead of homestead it.

 

There are protection costs for owned land, therefore owned land has to be profitable = be useless to other people

 

If a man finds a profitable way to use land he gets copied by others. For example, if he builds a new factory and he makes it so big that he homesteads huge parts of the unowned land to build a cartel, another person at the same time builds a similar factory but much smaller. Because maintaining costs corelate to the area the second factory is more profitable and will outcompete the first in the market with lower prices. The cartel builder then needs constantly put money into that system to maintain the factory. If he cant, the factory closes and the land is unowned because he is not using it.

 

So hopefully you see, that to hold a huge part of the land you have to be profitable. There are billions of people you compete with, so can only be the best in a single field. In all other fields you cant homestead, because you are not profitable. And your field has a limited demand, e.g. if you are in the farming buisness, there is certain demand for food. So you are the leading farmer and therefore own huge part of the land. At one point there are no more crops needed, so you cant profitably homestead new land, so the new homesteaded land is homesteaded to fulfill another need.

[Andrew79]

 But how does this address a contractual limited resource cartel.? 

 

Again, because they don't work without the state.

 

The very nature of cartels means they can't work because the same incentives that create them, tear them apart: the quest for easy profits that leads to rivals joining forces, will then lead to these rivals undercutting each other for more profit.

 

But what if these rivals have signed a contract? Ok, so they've agreed a deal to cheat their customers... but they're definitely not going to cheat each other... they'll have no problem finding a judge/security agency/whatever that will take this contract seriously... and they'll be no public outcry...

 

And it doesn't matter that new land can't be created. If anything, that means it's more important to have a completely free market to ensure it's not wasted.

[LanceD]

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.

Um we already have a small cartel that owns all the land. In the US the federal government directly owns 30% of the land and they force us to pay rent in the form of property taxes to use any land We call our own. So I don't understand why this could possibly discourage you from a new system, since we already have something much much worse!

[Nemzeti]

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?

[LanceD]

The best way to pose a question to Stef is to call him.

[Nemzeti]

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.

[TheRobin]

If there would be 10'000 people having their own house, there would already be 10'000 people owning land in our village. How do you even get to a point where you have only 10'000 people owning a whole country (assuming the country is actually the size of an average and also assuming they own all the empty land as well (how would they get to own the empty land btw?))? 

[Nemzeti]

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.

[TheRobin]

I don't say this to piss you off, but I don't really care that much about sharing the same conclusion here. If the case is not made using reason and is not resolved using reason, then any shared conclusion is merely accidental and might as well vanish tomorrow. 

 

Also if you don't really reason your position through rigurously you defintely will shy away people who do use reason rigorously which is quite the opposite of what I'd prefer (not that you or anyone has to care about that ofc).

 

So now you have a supposed problem that you solve by saying people should behave irrationally, I mean, how bad a case can you make for an idea, if the solution to a problem is "behave irrationaly, cause if you behave rationaly, we'd hav a huge problem in our ideal society"? Which is why I still think it would serve you better to think through the origins of the supposed problem again (that imo you still haven't been able to show could even theoretically occur), before going off to other people and trying to talk with them about Anarcho-Capitalism, as imo it would just the rational people off if that's how you present the case.

[Nemzeti]

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.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

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.

They would work because the renters can have such clauses too. That solves this supposed problem. 

[TheRobin]

Well, I asked clarifying question at two points, I never got answers. You just repeatedly state that there are landowners who own all the land and buy up land. Nowhere do you explain how they become owners and who would sell it and why they would reasonably sell it.

 

To take my vilalge exmaple: Say there's an island with 1000 people, each has it's own small hut and some garden-area around it andd all the land is used that way. Assume one guy is a trillionaire (which is already an impossible occurence in that scenario, but anyway) and wants to buy up all the land. Who would sell it and why? If there's no other land to get a hut on the whole island, then no price is worth being homeless. Unless you then share a hut with another guy and enjoy the new richness that way, but then no problem occurs. At some point the space will become too small to share and be comfortable with, so people will stop selling their huts/land anway, cause they can't find any other living space. Like, even if I'm offered a billion dollar, if I have nowhere to live, there's no benefit to it. Unless the guy then wants to rent me the space, but then I can impose conditions on the rent beforehand if I'm worried about that. But in that case the guy just makes huge losses and every one else wins hugely, which also wouldn't be a problem and wouldn't lead to this quasi-state.

 

And neither of this requires people being irrational and acting against their own self-interest

[Nemzeti]

"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.

[zippert]

I dont understand, why it is against rational self interest to not form a cartel. Ok in terms of economic profit it is, but i.e. in terms of your relationships with non cartel members it is not. Game theory is very focused in quantifiable variables like money.

[Omegahero09]

I think the only "endgame player" who could actually realistically affect a free-society in the way you are describing would be an invading nation. And invading nations would have little chance against an an-cap society. 

Free men will not give up themselves or their property very easily.  

[Nemzeti]

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. 

[zippert]

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.

For example you are maried t o a non cartel member. So you form that cartel. Then your marriage is kind of unreal, because you got whole economic power, right?  So if you want a real relationship with your partner, it is rational to not form the cartel.

[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.