No.76958
if a land lord in ancapistan owned land the same size of a country, would you pay rent for living in his property and to help pay for the mercenary defense contractors?
No.76960
How did he come into possession of that much land? Did he buy it? Where'd he get the money?
No.76966
>>76960
Aside from the fact he obtained it through the free market, that is irrelevant
No.76971
>>76966
Hardly. Already in today's society you have to pay absurd amounts of money for even a decent sized plot of land; another form of your argument is "What if one man owned a whole planet?"
Welp, first off, trade is made by consent- If you got everyone to trade all of the resources on earth somehow for all of the land minus ten flat acres, you're left with a barren earth with nothing to play with and the other guy is making a space ship.
If he got it by being first to the planet (built a space ship, then got there first and claims the whole lot) it's his provided he cultivates, defends and improves it.
No.76979
>>76958
Surely, it would be similar to living under a King, in the sense that the King claimed "divine right" to his country. Think about this: if many different land lords owned land the size of a country, what effect would that have? The landlord would be forced to upkeep his land and property, and that would benefit anyone with the cash to live there. If he failed to do so, or another landlord offered a better price, people would move. This would create a new benefit for both landlords and tenants in that land. In my opinion, one of the reasons that Kingdoms failed is because whites split hairs on ethnicity (i.e. Spaniard vs. Brit), and it was difficult to emigrate to new lands. If that was true, Kings could not have asked foe exorbitant tax fees while letting their Kingdoms fail.
>help pay for the mercenary defense contractors?
This is not much different from paying taxes for the military, except for the fact that privatization would be cheaper, and work out better in the long-run. Why? It doesn't make sense for John Doe, the rich business landlord, to continually start absurd conflicts in foreign countries. Foreign policy would essentially become protecting the landlords property; his people, his buildings, his land. Most AnCap thinkers are against interventionism, because it causes embargoes and loss of land; in essence, there is dead weight loss created during wars.
As always, please correct me if my thoughts have skewed too far from common AnCap thinking, or need improvement.
No.76982
>I own all this land
<Are you gonna pay a bajillion cops to watch everything I do here
>wtf no Id go bankrup
<Okay. These two acres are my two acres now
No.76983
>>76982
>pay a bajillion cops to watch everything I do here
Why not? Sounds good to me, I can fine you for violating my rules.
No.76984
>>76983
But I refuse to pay cause youre being a dick. In fact everyone on your land refuses to pay. Oh shit your cops arent being paid. That's fine cause they have guns and I have guns and we'll just divvy up all your land.
No.76999
>>76979
>In my opinion, one of the reasons that Kingdoms failed is because whites split hairs on ethnicity (i.e. Spaniard vs. Brit), and it was difficult to emigrate to new lands.
Is this actually true? I was under the impression that all the various restrictions on who can live where are a relatively modern invention.
No.77084
>>76984
Na the cops get paid, and extract rent out of you when you refuse to pay.
No.77085
>>77084
You're talking about an internal war. To attack your own source of industry and revenue would not work. You could kill a few people, enslave a few more, but before you pushed past the armed resistance your agricultural and industrial heart would have so turned against you you could not sustain your army. Your soldiers would turn rogue. It makes more economical sense to them to join the citizens with the food instead of fighting and dying for a madman.
No.77086
>>77085
I'm not going to rent to people that have military weaponry. Perhaps a few if I assume they are trust worthy. Weapons will be confiscated by the police on entry.
> It makes more economical sense to them to join the citizens with the food instead of fighting and dying for a madman.
Soldiers will obviously get a nice bonus after the war :)
No.77087
>>77085
>Every renter just ups and decides to steal my property because I collect rent despite every country ever having taxes and it not happening
No.77088
>>76960
early bitcoin miner
No.77092
>>77086
>im not going to rent to people with guns
Okay. I have no sympathy for people who voluntarily agree to that.
>>77087
The problem isnt the taxes, it's the exhorbitantly high taxes and the behaving like a warlord. People dont give a shit about a little bit of rent. When the government gets out of hand people righteously chimp out. There are precedents for this, namely the American and French and Mexican I guess revolutions.
I don't understand why an entire nation is paying rent anyways. Most people want to outright own their land. No one's going to rent your land when they can buy it elsewhere. And if it's not for sale elsewhere they could probably rent it cheaper than what youre charging. So youre not making any money off your land; suddenly it becomes economical to lower your prices or make your land available for complete purchase. Youre really outlining the criteria for a shitty, awful country. I assume this is ancap planet where everyone can leave your "country" for a better one. If it's not ancap planet and you own the only ancap state, well how did you come to aquire it? Nobody's going to sell you all the land. People like having their own stuff. Plus with every acre you buy the price of all remaining acres goes up. It's just not feasible. This hypothetical scenario is stupid. I mean, I know you set out with the intention to bait but surely you could come up with a better strawman than "what if i bought all the land?" You couldn't. You just cant. Back to >>>/pol/ have fun worshipping a failed liberal art student.
No.77094
>>77092
> it's the exhorbitantly high taxes and the behaving like a warlord
If you don't like the tax rate fuck off to someone elses property
>Most people want to outright own their land.
Outright owning land is going to be incredibly expensive
>Youre really outlining the criteria for a shitty, awful country.
No, i'm outlining a blueprint for a wonderful society. Who the fuck wants to live in a gulag? I can't extract many taxes from a gulag vs a wealthy society.
>You couldn't.
There are billionaires that have more money than the GDP of many small countries
No.77097
>>77094
>If you don't like the tax rate fuck off to someone elses property
That's exactly what I said would happen and then you wont have anyone to extract rent from
>Outright owning land is going to be incredibly expensive
And yet you think you can own all the land
>I can't extract many taxes from a gulag vs a wealthy society
But your country is a gulag police state
>There are billionaires that have more money than the GDP of many small countries
<Outright owning land is going to be incredibly expensive
No.77099
>>77097
>That's exactly what I said would happen and then you wont have anyone to extract rent from
If I offer them a good rate they wont move. Economies still exists lol. I don't want everyone to move away, and I want smart wealthy people in other countries to move to mine.
>And yet you think you can own all the land
Land owners will be the ricest. Random normies won't be able to afford it.
>But your country is a gulag police state
Only the minimum security to ensure taxes are collected and the land is secure from invasion / theft. The internal market would be very free and people would have more rights than the do in the USA.
>Outright owning land is going to be incredibly expensive
Yep and it will be owned by the ultra wealthy
No.77102
>>77099
>If I offer them a good rate they wont move. Economies still exists lol. I don't want everyone to move away
>Only the minimum security to ensure taxes are collected and the land is secure from invasion / theft. The internal market would be very free and people would have more rights than the do in the USA.
Then what is even the issue?
THEN WHAT IS EVEN THE ISSUE? IF YOURE SO BENEVOLENT THEN WHY ARE YOU SENDING DEATH SQUADS TO COLLECT RENT AND IF YOU SEND RENT DEATH SQUADS THEN HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF BENEVOLENT?
No.77105
>>77102
>THEN WHY ARE YOU SENDING DEATH SQUADS TO COLLECT RENT
Is your landlord a death squad? If people don't pay the police show up and deport you. No execution gangs going around doing anything. If you try to steal the land with force though you may end up being killed.
No.77114
>>77105
I thought this thread was bait attempting to draw parallels between a stateless society and a dictatorship by comparing "owning land the size of a country" to "owning an entire country". If it's not a dictatorship then I have no reason to be upset, and of course there would be no hypothetical revolt. I thought you were this guy >>77035 who made a thread to insinuate ancapistan could turn into Somalia. If it's a voluntary association then I really dont give a shit how much one man owns. I look forward to the day corporations form planet-sized space confederacies. That sounds metal as fuck. I still dont think it would be possible to own all the land. Some people wouldnt sell for any price and of course they would conglomerate with other individuals to protect or pay someone to protect what's theirs.
No.77116
>>77114
> If it's not a dictatorship then I have no reason to be upset
It might turn into one, no one could stop it. A gulag is not as profitable as a free country though and I expect most country owners to recognize this over time.
No.77118
>>77116
Okay but if it becomes a dictatorship the people will revolt. They always do. It's in everyone's best interest to play nice.
No.77124
>>77118
The people are going to have a hard time revolting when they have no weapons, no training, a military paid to suppress them, etc.
No.77125
>>77118
If the country owner decides to nuke his own country not much the citizens could do about it. Not in his own best interest though which is why he wont.
No.77133
>>77124
The military is also the people. They wont be willing to fight and die because arbitrary reasons. And like I said, I have no sympathy for people who voluntarily disarm themselves.
No.77136
>>77133
No they will fight and die because they are paid well.
No.77138
>>77136
>I will die because Im being paid
Said no one ever. At some point the casualties arent worth it.
No.77139
>>77138
They have almost no chance of dying because they are suppressing unarmed revolts and get bonus pay for it.
No.77140
>>77139
>unarmed revolts
Let the unarmed populace die holy shit. That's what they deserve for consenting to a police state.
No.77141
>>77140
Enjoy living outside in the wasteland while all the capitalism happens inside secure commerce zones
No.77142
>>77140
Even if they were armed better for the owner to nuke his own population than have his property stolen.
No.77144
>>77141
Enjoy not having citizens because everyone went to the cool country with reasonable laws
>>77142
No it wouldnt. He'd have to start from square one and render himself vulnerable to outside forces.
No.77146
>>77144
>went to the cool country with reasonable laws
You mean my country that only has enough laws to maintain my property
>No it wouldnt. He'd have to start from square one and render himself vulnerable to outside forces.
Which is why he wont start a gulag, point is the people have no way to stop him.
No.77147
>>77146
>my country has reasonable laws
>there's no defense mechanism against a gulag
pick one and only one
No.77148
>>77147
A house owner can shoot you in your sleep.
A software company can steal all your data
A car company could engineer it accelerate into a mountain
A food company could poison a batch
The consumers have no way to stop these things they are the consumer. Every company can fuck with their customer and the customer can practically do nothing stop it.
Economic incentive over time is what prevents these things, not physical limitation,
No.77149
>>77148
An armed populace shortens the reaction times of economic incentives.
No.77151
No.77152
>>77151
Theft was never off the table. It's just that in an unarmed state one party has a monopoly on theft. You think there's an economic incentive to revolting against a peaceful regime? People gonna get shot. Nobody wants to get shot.
No.77154
>>77152
If a country is profitable then the population DOES have a individual and collective economic incentive to steal the land so as to eliminate their taxes. A property owner would not let in a large armed population that could take it from them. The property will only be damaged if he ends up having to nuke his own land.
No.77157
>>77154
First, the land would have to be really profitable in order for people to risk their lives to attain it. Second, if this sort of thing is an inevitability with an armed populace, it's an inevitability with foreign invaders remember, we've already established that incentive to attack is great enough to risk life and limb, and it really calls into question how one man could aquire all this land to begin with, it being so profitable and people wanting to have it and all. It's almost like your society is incapable of existing and there would be no such things as ultra-rich landlords who own nations.
No.77159
>>77157
>First, the land would have to be really profitable in order for people to risk their lives to attain it
It would be
>if this sort of thing is an inevitability with an armed populace, it's an inevitability with foreign invaders
You can nuke foreign invaders, you can nuke your own population. If you nuke your population nothing they can do to stop it.
> It's almost like your society is incapable of existing
It can exist, just not with armed populations capable of overthrowing the property owner
No.77161
>>77159
It couldnt exist. One couldnt aquire the land to begin with. Nobody would sell it because as you say it's so profitable. And if you nuke foreign invaders you get nuked yourself. Mutually assured destruction is a core tenet of ancap. Of course if you nuke yourself you're just as fuck. Your land is irradiated and worthless and not producing resources leaving what's left of your property crippled and vulnerable.
No.77162
>>77161
>Nobody would sell it because as you say it's so profitable
People sell shares of profitable things all the time. You are saying stock markets should never exist because why sell something making money? Purchasing something that is profitable is speculation on future profit, no reason this would not happen here.
> Of course if you nuke yourself you're just as fuck
The gulag process will start slowly, first just the Japanese, then x, then y, then z. Not like anyone will jump to a revolution and risk getting nuked over a small amount if rulership they don't like.
No.77167
>>77162
People only sell things when they think they can get better things elsewhere.If they sell you one land theyre just gonna buy more land elsewhere, or infrastructure for the rest of their land which will increase its value and make them even less willing to sell
>The gulag process will start slowly
Uh, no, you cant pull the same trick twice, Adolf. This is exaclty why your citizens will demand guns, and if you say no guns, theyll flat out refuse to comply. It will suddenly become more profitable to reclaim what little land you bought up and you're shit out of luch.
No.77169
>>77167
>theyll flat out refuse to comply.
they will live in countries that ban guns, they know they probably wont get gulag-ed, they will live their lives with less security oppression around them as the ruler won't worry about revolution. People buy products that could turn out shitty all the time because they offer some greater functionality
No.77171
>>77169
>they will live in countries thst ban guns
Now youre just making shit up. The one country that doesnt ban guns would steal everyone's business and buy all your land. Or the one "country" that has perfect competition of security services, the Rothbardian ancap state, would slowly expand and eat up your country and you couldnt do anything because you cant afford an army because you have no citizens producing GDP
No.77173
>>77171
>The one country that doesnt ban guns would steal everyone's business and buy all your land.
Microsoft supports X, apple supports Y, what is the value of having guns vs having x y z
No.77174
>>77171
> because you have no citizens producing GDP
You don't have to compete better on literally every subject to out compete other companies
No.77180
>>77173
>>77174
Force is the universal currency with which all other rights and services are purchased. Nobody will give them up. Guns are harder than bitcoin.
No.77183
>>77180
Nobody will give up their guns like…
- australia
- liberals
- almost every other group / country
No.77186
>>77183
>almost every other group / country
You mean all those police states where civil unrest is growing daily? Britian already left. EU is on the verge of collapse. Arabs are parasitizing their lands and Ill be glad when all the disarmed soyboys are consumed.
No.77187
>>77186
It is stupid to think that people value weapons over everything else. They clearly don't, and won't under ancap. Those who value weapons too highly will be out competed by those that don't.
No.77188
>>77187
It's stupid to think people dont value freedom. It's not about owning guns it's about defending freedom. You think in an ancap society of all places people would trust the government to defend their rights? They'd be the most distrustful and the most concerned with having an insurance policy. Besides people without guns would just get genocided by people with guns.
No.77189
>>77188
>would trust the government to defend their rights
They would factor in the risk with the gains just like everything else they do. Under Ancap you hire a physical insurance company, a nuclear missile company, etc. This is standard ancap. You outsource these things. The people that you outsource anything you to do can fuck you over but you cant do them yourself.
>Besides people without guns would just get genocided by people with guns.
No they would be defended by their contracted defense corporation / military
No.77190
>>77189
Of course you hire these companies in ancap but in that scenario the company is not also your landlord so they dont care if you own guns.
>No they would be defended by their contracted defense corporation / military
Yeah but who defends you from the defenders? Why, you do! With your guns! Don't try to tell me what is standard ancap. I know what is standard ancap.
No.77191
>>77190
>company is not also your landlord so they dont care if you own guns.
The security companies would all prefer unarmed populations as it would make enforcement easier.
>Yeah but who defends you from the defenders? Why, you do! With your guns!
At best other defense contractors, you have no chance against the professional armies. If you dedicate a great deal of your time and money to personal defense you will be outcompeted by people that don't.
No.77192
>>77190
Purchasing from a good defense contractor is a better market strategy than purchasing from a defense contractor and buying a shit ton of stuff yourself. You take the low risk of the contractor going crazy into that calculation.
No.77193
>>77191
>The security companies would all prefer unarmed populations as it would make enforcement easier.
No they wouldnt. Armed populaces and local militias would make their job easier.
>At best other defense contractors
Other defense contractors is the equivalent to a local militia/armed populace. It's the insurance against gulags which would be possible if you decided to stick to your previous argument of a single state where the rentier also owns the one and only police. Really, you've dismantled your entire hypothetical system by abolishing the monopoly of force.
No.77216
>>77193
>No they wouldnt. Armed populaces and local militias would make their job easier.
Not when they go and arrest NAP violators who shoot their agent.
>Other defense contractors is the equivalent to a local militia/armed populace.
An armed populate that will either
A) be shit because they don't put enough time and money into equipment
B) wasted no money and time on training / equipement, picked good security contractors
C) got out competed because they did not outsource it to someone who was more efficient
Most people will not be armed in an ancap society, protection like almost everything else will be outsourced to other people.
>Really, you've dismantled your entire hypothetical system by abolishing the monopoly of force.
If you rent the land you accept the monopoly of force.
No.77217
>>77216
>not be armed
*meaningfully armed / trained. would be more like some euro states where plenty of people have shotguns for rando things