The "land monopoly" problem

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Just as an aside, the UK is subject to just such a land monopoly, most of the available landmass is owned by various state institutions and the remnants of the aristocracy. The situation is maintained by legislations the almost completely prohibits new developments. This inflates property prices (which property owners like) and is a significant economic problem in the long run.

[J-William]

Currently there are about 196 nations on earth... so 196 owners of all the land on earth, and this horrendous cartel of colluding landholders has all the guns and moral righteousness in the world. in this world of violence and crazy I can't cross imaginary lines called borders without risking getting shot.

 

Over in the world of voluntary interactions I can walk into Walmart, or Target or just do all my shopping online and if I'm not happy then there are plenty of people on staff to help, and not one of them carries a gun... I'm not real worried about voluntary interactions recreating the state. 

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")

 

....

 

 

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.

Wait.... why the left turn into irrational people, game theory, and nuclear war? There's no need for it.

I don't care how rich the guy is, he could never buy up all the land. His buying spree would naturally drive up the prices for land to a level that he could not afford to purchase a majority of it.

[dexy]

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.

 

I think you misunderstood the game theory terminology a bit: "rational" choice IS the selfish one - the one where player benefits most, not caring for the others. "Irrational" is the other one, sacrificing your reward for the benefit of others.

 

Leaving that aside, I see your point - people don't behave as game theory suggests to be optimal for all of them (landowners are "all of them" here). True. But what is the cause of that, and how do they behave? You say next:

 

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.

 

But this must be "robots that are programmed to play for the greater good (of all landowners)". It would be as easy to program robots to behave differently, taking into account self interest vs. common one differently, knowing that other robots are programmed the same way.

 

Now comes the killer: humans are almost as programmable as robots. How? Through culture. Latest research shows that the exact same game played in different cultures gives totally different outcomes. This comes as a shock to any westerner that is so sure about existence of human "free will" (built into his DNA) that he doesn't even consider where it originated from. Ironically, from the western culture, yes.

 

So what "The Empire" needs to do first is create a specific culture that makes landowners take choices that benefit other landowners together (but against the good of other citizens). Then proceed with cartel creation. Might seem very difficult to do when I put it this way, but then again, how did we end up in this society with states? Who created them? Big bang? God?