In a libertarian society what is there to stop someone from just buying ALL of the land in the country/continent/world...

In a libertarian society what is there to stop someone from just buying ALL of the land in the country/continent/world and charging rent (read; tax) on everyone?

Other urls found in this thread:

businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Weapons. Also, this is already how the world works.

A discontent population.

t
& humanities was a mistake

>muh weapons threatening to stop the legal transaction of purchased land

This is why lolbertarians are autistic and their imagined societies akin to nigger-tier savagery.

>>discontent population

This is even more retarded, the common populace would not care enough to rebel against a universal landlord owning everything.

This utopian vision is so retarded, even communists have an ideology that makes more sense.

Everyone except libertarians are communists, it's just a matter of degree. Libertarianism is the only ideology that places liberty first.

>libertarian society
Fuck you, blocking mergers isnt anarchic capitalist.

Dude. I just literally described how the world works.

People take possession of all of the land and make people pay to use it. Weapons sometimes get in the way of this. This is already how the world works you fucking doorknob. Look around you.

>libertarianism is the only ideology that places liberty first

Except humans cannot handle ultimate liberty, for there was never a country which was so free that no laws were needed.

So I really wouldn't call it "libertarianism" as it really isn't, but in fact, minimalism. And even with minimalism, you have laws and you aren't truly "free" howeve, this could devolve into anarchy..

Which I don't hate necessarily as that is ultimate liberty if it isn't contained. (and also b/c of the riches and loot I could gain from commandeering property).

You can have laws, but they should be enforced consensually and through the free market. Markets are free, states aren't.

>muh real world examples

You're not fooling anyone, Mr. Libertariard

>markets are free
>states aren't

Well that isn't really true libertarianism then. The state and market should both be free, if the state is enforced there's really not much you can do is there?

So no, not libertarianism, but rather minimalism.

Lack of resources and the willingness of people to sell the land.
Unlike governments which simply seize it, you would have to actually pay for the land, from willing sellers. It's a lot less likely to happen in a libertarian society than in a current one.

In theory, nothing
In practice, you're retarded

Nothing. A rent isn't a tax though it's completely and totally voluntary.

nigga who the fuck can afford to buy even all the land in one state?

and find me a place that you can live where you won't be subject to some form of a tax

Libertarianism means anti-capitalist!
The word came into use in politics when the French government banned anarchism, and it was first used by the communist Joseph Dejacque!
It's only used now to mean classical liberalism because Americans bastardise every political term and need to learn how to read!

This

buy a piece of land and claim sovereignty

it would be stupid to pay tax to yourself

>Libertarianism is the only ideology that places corporate power and profits first.

FTFY

>implying

>which means you should be able to buy my property and I should be able to kill you over it.

Shit I just wrote this out to make fun of you, but re-reading it makes me realize that Libertarianism really is the best ideology. Not even kidding, this would make life so much better in so many ways.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or legitimately stupid

>ALL the land is expensive
>ALL the land is not for sale

This is how the Ottoman Empire worked. I'm amazed that the Libertarians don't seem to want to pick up that as an example of a model libertarian society.

...

>Civil laws can be enforced through an economic system

This is what they actually BELIEVE

Funny picture considering Moly is the biggest statist going now.

>places liberty first
the liberty of a privileged minority that is

source?

I'm not going to sell my land
checkmate Mr. Strawman Moneybags

Veeky Forums was a mistake

>the common populace would not care enough
yes they would
but then liberalism failed because of counterrevolution

Common sense

in a statist society, what would stop an extremely rich pedophile from kidnapping and raping underaged girls, then using money and blackmail to get a much looser sentence than normal when you're found out?

Because that's illegal

>you're
are you projecting?

>somebody is legally buying land
>let's kill him
Sounds like anarchy to me

>Because that's illegal
and? it's not illegal if the judicial system says it's not
>are you projecting?
d-don't worry about it

I don't think anyone is that wealthy.
Also I doubt most people would be willing to sell.

People don't want to sell?

you are both wrong
on a long enough timescale a monopoly will arise, because people are not the same

Realistically, how could this happen? How would they pay off all the holdouts and price gougers? They would have to have an enormous amount of wealth and power and the ability to manipulate people to do things out of their self-interest, in which case no system could survive.

Libertarianism is not a utopia, it is a set of ideas that present an obstacle to tyranny and corruption as well as crime. In a libertarian society there would be no eminent domain laws and it would be much more difficult for some ridiculously wealthy person to accomplish this.

This reminds me of another double standard. The socialist Somali government collapsed after the cold war ended and the US government with all its military power could not restore order, yet ironically memesters claim that it is an example of the failure of libertarianism (despite Islamist warlords having zero knowledge of libertarianism).

You really don't know the difference between Libertarianism and anarcho-Capitalism do you? I suppose you also believe that all Christians are members of West Borrow, that every Socialist is a Communist, and that all Conservatives want to reintroduce a Feudalistic society..

>how could this happen?
It's a biased random walk really. The chances that you stay in a position of balance is really small.

Slowly centers of wealth will accumulate.

It will happen.

>All the land is bought up
>Well ya don't HAVE to pay rent to live on my land, you could always just kill yourself!

Then why hasn't it happened?

Oh it has, almost all major companies can be traced back to a few overlord groups, except it doesn't matter because they exert no real influence or power, they just take a cut of the profit.

Isn't that how England works? The royal family owns almost all the land and the government rents it from them?

This.

We can plainly see from today's society that wealthy special interests exert no real influence or power.

>what is there to stop someone from just buying ALL of the land
A bullet.

Not everybody will sell.

Eventually someone will kill them.

It already happened desu.
Just try to set up a camp somewhere and see how long it takes for someone to come knocking saying you are trespassing.

>They exert no real influence or power
My sarcasm detector is broken today. Have a link.
TL;DR is the public opinion doesn't matter when lobbyists are involved.

businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

>It's okay. Someone will just murder them for legally purchasing land from consenting sellers.

Didn't some american businessman try to buy a state?

medieval peasant riots ringing a bell?

Peasant revolts almost always ended with the peasants getting curb stomped by mercenaries.

>almost
that's the keyword
if the riot is backed by the opposing team, it has less chance to fail.
That's why today we have oligarch instead of kangz

Er, what? What makes you think that's any different from the middle ages? Lords were always squabbling with each other.
How is that a good thing anyway? people just ended up trading one master for another.

But it wouldn't be legal to purchase land already owned by someone in a libertarian society.

What? If the land is being purchased then the property owner would be accepting money or goods in exchange for their land.

OP's question implies someone buying land against the consent of land owners in a libertarian society.

No it doesn't. How the hell did you get that from the question?

bingo.

Iirc that study was debunked

Cite your sources.

>people just ended up trading one master for another
they dont neccessarily need to kill others and their masters to accomplish societal change.

There isn't any mention of legal consent in buying land in OP's question. You just used a strawman to attack my answer to the question: a bullet, because it's no legal to buy land without the consent of the owner.

Where did you get the idea that OP's question implied legal land trade? He clearly implied a hypothetical situation where someone is given the ability to buy large amounts of land and charging tax which goes against laws of an idealistic libertarian society.

Cost, mostly.

If it became that much of an issue, say with 90% of arable land being owned by one person, then anti-trust laws woud likely be put in place.

If the idealogues bark about lack of idealogical purity, I ask how to balance smaller competitors' freedom to buy land and start crops balances out against one corporation's freedom to own it all.

Human nature.

Because we have an inborn common sense of "justice" and "balance" so one man owning a lot of X or all X rings a bell in everybody.

Who are they buying it from? This would imply someone already decided they own the land.
Also
>"I own this land! It says so right here on this piece of paper!"

>There isn't any mention of legal consent in buying land in OP's question
Generally when you discuss purchasing things one assumes that the owner is consenting in the deal. You are an idiot.

I bought a hamburger today
>omg so ambiguous. how do we know the person selling the burger consented?!?!
Because the word "bought" was used instead of "stole", and there was no explicit mention of coercion.

>using "human nature" as an argument
when will this meme end

There's no possible, verifiable way to construct a pure conceptualization of human nature, therefore it's analitically useless as an explanation.

If some property owner became the defacto government, then libertarians would have a problem with that unless he gurenteed certain things, and even then some would have a problem in principle with a dictator, even a benevolent one.

Whats to stop him depends on the type of libertarian your talking about

>then libertarians would have a problem with that
so what? are you saying they would violate the NAP to take him down?

>Yes, not all libertarians are anarchists or subscribe to the NAP.

Some would argue that the landlord, by virtue of being a defacto government and enforcing his edicts was in violation of the NAP.

So why doesn't it ring that bell already? The people r getting fucked over dawg

Consider suicide

>humans don't need land to exist
Ancaps, not even once

So how do you decide land ownership?

>Suppose I walk on to some piece of ground that a libertarian claims ownership over. Suppose I contend that people cannot own pieces of ground because nobody makes them. In my walking on the ground, I do not touch the libertarian or threaten to touch him in any way. Nonetheless, the libertarian proceeds to initiate force against me or calls the police to get them to initiate force against me. Libertarians are fine doing this and therefore libertarians are huge fans of initiating force. The initiation of force or the threat to initiate force is the mechanism that underlies all private property claims.

Now a libertarian will see this and object. They will say that, in fact, violently attacking me for wandering on to some piece of ground is not the initiation of force. It is defensive force. Aimlessly wandering on to ground is actually the initiation of force. I am the force initator because, despite touching and threatening nobody, I set foot on some piece of the world that the libertarian believes belongs to him.

But at this point, it's clear that when the libertarians talk about not initiating force, they are using the word "initiation" in a very idiosyncratic way. They have packed into the word "initiation" their entire theory of who is entitled to what. What they actually mean by "initiation of force" is not some neutral notion of hauling off and physically attacking someone. Instead, the phrase "initiation of force" simply means "acting in a way that is inconsistent with the libertarian theory of entitlement, whether using force or not." And then "defensive force" simply means "violently attacking people in a way that is consistent with the libertarian theory of entitlement."

How do Deontological Libertarians respond to arguments like this?

Whoops, I screwed up the greentexting, oh well

Armed conflict

Well if you're not initiating force then the libertarian would defiantly be in the wrong. I don't think just standing on someone's property is a violation of the NAP, unless you have malicious intent.

In theory, nothing. But how is that a problem ? I prefer paying rent to a landlord than a government.

Paying taxes means my money gets wasted on tons of shit I don't benefit from. Paying rent, I can make money off the land, possibly buying it, and eventually me or my descendants will be able to buy more land, becoming the landlord.

Sure, that means there will be an class of working poors, those that don't manage to have enough money to have their own land or business, that work for small landowners. But again, I don't see how that's a problem.

Yes, I do realise it sounds kind of like early feudalism. That's because it is. And that's a good thing. However, this utopic stateless, lawless, agrarian society is at risk of stagnating, of states forming. I have no solution to this.

>/pol/ logic

In the board game monopoly what is there to stop someone from just buying ALL of the land in the country/continent/world and charging rent (read; tax) on everyone?

because it all goes back in the box

Actually, I stand pretty much on the total opposite of /pol/ and most libertarians.

I advocate for an entirely stateless, entirely lawless society, where morality, religion, ethnicity, culture, or any other artifical constructs plays little role, where the pursuit of happiness by any means, for yourself and only yourself, is the only guideline. While /pol/ advocate for a very strong state, and cares about morals, their country, the future of their civilisation, etc.

And most libertarians delude themselves it not thinking that such a society would be beneficial to the common man, while I believe that such a society would only be beneficial to only the absolute best men, those that rise to the top though hard work, while the majority stagnate at the bottom, becoming slaves of their own lack of drive and general incompetence.

Doesn't that just benefit whomever can form the most powerful military, and endanger technological advances?

Why do people keep thinking libertarian means anarchist?

Because anarchists often describe themselves as libertarians.

That being said, libertarian is really more of an umbrella term for a range of freedom-centric ideologies.

>Doesn't that just benefit whomever can form the most powerful military

In the end, yes, absolutely. But the men who will be able to assemble an army strong enough to protect their land and conquer the land of others will be the men who worked hard to get ressources to pay, feed, and arm that army, or those with enough charisma and strength to convince men to fight for them. As such, the best men end up on top, which I consider a good thing. Then when these men die, if their descendants are strong they will be able to hold on to the land, get more territory, and make it fructify. But if they are weak, then better men will take over.

>endanger technological advances?

Wel, I think people would have a renewed drive to develop new technologies: if they can invent a weapon better than any other, they will be able to take over land themselves, if they develop new ways to better exploit the land, they will get more resources in a more peaceful way, if they invent some new item that other people want, they will be able to sell it.

But as I've said, I think these kind of abstract notions like progress matter very little in the end. I see technological advance as purely neutral, I don't care if it happens, or if technology stagnate or regress.

So basically you saw The Road Warrior and played Fallout and thought "Hey, that's the society I want to live in".

What the fuck, man.

>dogbro
>cool cars
>qt twink bfs
>great fashion

Road Warrior world doesn't sound too bad 2bh