Thoughts on elimination of the state and privatization of property

P

Pseudo Nym

Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
Mar 14, 2008
269
4
0
One of the tenets of Libertarianism (and to a lesser extent the political right-wing generally) is the reduction of the state to a bare minimum and the privatization of public property.

If one were to take this idea to its logical extreme, one might imagine a world in which:

-All property is private, and owned by a small number of people/entities.

-Said owners may demand a fee for entering, occupying, passing through, or using their property, or may deny access altogether.

-All owners may collude to charge for access to their land.


What then of someone who has no property themselves, nor money? They may not legally occupy any space without the consent of the owner, and if the owners refuse access without payment... what then?

Since the non-property owner cannot physically move to a place where he is not in violation of a land owner's property rights, he is entirely at the mercy of the land owners.

The owner may then be within his right to execute the trespasser, or he may offer him a chance to work for the owner, or the non-owner may be allowed to leave unharmed, to take his chances with another land-owner. Of course, the land owners may be in cooperation, so the non-owner may not find a better situation awaiting him elsewhere.

To take this further - imagine a scenario in which a land owner allows free passage into a ring of land he owns, but disallows or charges exorbitantly to pass out of it. He may then trap an unwitting passerby which he then makes an offer of work, for a bare minimum to survive (since the passerby is in no position to negotiate), or death by starvation (since the land owner has made it impossible to leave).


It probably seems far-fetch to imagine such a scenario, but this is close to what already occurs in places: the arable land is private and the property owners are the only game in town, and travel or emigration is unaffordable. The non-owner lacks any leverage to negotiate and will therefore accept whatever work is offered. The owners only offer room and board in return for the work, thereby keeping the worker in a perpetual state of servitude.


Sorry about the length. Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unarmed Gunman


This is a good question. It is basically asking, is it better to have the government own the land or private interests to own the land?

In my estimation this comes back to basic free market arguments which always champion privatization and choice. This is obviously a huge topic and there are so many side arguments like monopolies and on and on. Guerilla is the expert on these topics ;).

The hidden part people fail to realize with government is that it IS still a private group of people controlling things, the only difference is they have the law and military behind them.

I vote for private any day.
 
WTF is this nonsense? It's anarchy dude, shoot the bastard and take his land. Nobody is going to prosecute you.
 
slayerment said:
(...)
The hidden part people fail to realize with government is that it IS still a private group of people controlling things, the only difference is they have the law and military behind them.

I vote for private any day.
Click to expand...

So you would take away the part that is (partly, at least) obligated to serve the will of the people and leave only the private entities, which have no such obligation whatsoever? With no institution to stand in their way, private entities would be free to raise their own armies, make their own laws, and essentially disregard completely the population at large. A return to feudalism, essentially, and serfdom for (nearly) everyone.

I know it's popular in some corners to view the government as totally beholden to the interests of private corporations, and to some extent that's true, but we the people nevertheless have a great deal of freedom because of our government. The government is not a monolithic entity with a single agenda; there are many agendas - public and private.

Private entities/corporations, generally speaking, want less government because it results in more power for them. Absent that, they will attempt whatever they can get away with to influence government for their own interests. We should want a government, of the people, strong enough to stand up to private entities. It's our job, through our political system, to keep the government from becoming too corrupted by private interests.
 
Pseudo Nym said:
You do realize odds are you would be a part of the vast majority of indentured serfs in the above scenario, right?
Click to expand...

Weird, cause you just took your 'theoretical' scenario and are now stating it as fact. Your theory of how anarcho-capitalism would play out seems unrealistic, in my opinion.

The first matter in transitioning from a state-oriented system to an anarcho-capitalist system would be the matter of who gets what.

Secondly, there would be competition for labor. And not only that, but it would be a truly free market, which would mean great forces of competition would be stacked against each other. Short of colossal collusion on the part of 'all' the landowners, wages and treatment would find some sort of agreeable equilibrium. Also, because prices are always forced lower in a true market system, people would become richer through their labors.

Eventually they would become landowners themselves and business-owners themselves, creating more competition in the labor market. Your scenario assumes all men are evil and would naturally conspire to oppress others. While this is true of some, it is not true of all, and in a true labor market, the 'better' labor would naturally gravitate towards the kinder, better, less oppressive employers. The employers would essentially be competing among themselves for the best labor.

You also forget that people can choose who they work for. Your concept that every single square inch of land on the entire planet would be claimed is beyond ridiculous. People would always move away if they didn't like the conditions. That's the thing about a free market - it has to benefit both parties. The employers would be forced to be nice to their employees or see them leave and their business die.
 
ayzo said:
WTF is this nonsense? It's anarchy dude, shoot the bastard and take his land. Nobody is going to prosecute you.
Click to expand...

He has a private security force protecting his land (something only land owners can afford to have, obviously). If you're not a land owner, you are entirely dependent on the land owners for survival (since all land - you know, where food and water comes from - is occupied and defended).
 
Pseudo Nym said:
So you would take away the part that is (partly, at least) obligated to serve the will of the people and leave only the private entities, which have no such obligation whatsoever? With no institution to stand in their way, private entities would be free to raise their own armies, make their own laws, and essentially disregard completely the population at large. A return to feudalism, essentially, and serfdom for (nearly) everyone.

I know it's popular in some corners to view the government as totally beholden to the interests of private corporations, and to some extent that's true, but we the people nevertheless have a great deal of freedom because of our government. The government is not a monolithic entity with a single agenda; there are many agendas - public and private.

Private entities/corporations, generally speaking, want less government because it results in more power for them. Absent that, they will attempt whatever they can get away with to influence government for their own interests. We should want a government, of the people, strong enough to stand up to private entities. It's our job, through our political system, to keep the government from becoming too corrupted by private interests.
Click to expand...

You have your points and I don't disagree with you. I'm not an expert. What I would say is we should first get back to our Constitutional foundation and at that point figure out where to go from there.

Why do I have to pay taxes to the government for land in a "free" country? It's complete nonsense. They can make their money the way they used to make their money. And they can fire 95% of the useless government employees. I do agree we need some government - the amount as set forth in the Constitution... VERY LITTLE. :)
 
hellblazer said:
Weird, cause you just took your 'theoretical' scenario and are now stating it as fact. Your theory of how anarcho-capitalism would play out seems unrealistic, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Except it's essentialy feudalism, which isn't theoretical. What makes you think wealth wouldn't tend to concentrate in the hands of a few and we'd regress right back a feudalistic society in a few decades? We already see wealth concentrating (diminishing middle class, rich-poor divide), and it's capitalism that's the culprit. I should say I don't think capitalism is all bad, just that it needs to have something to act as a counter balance.
 
Pseudo Nym said:
We already see wealth concentrating (diminishing middle class, rich-poor divide), and it's capitalism that's the culprit. I should say I don't think capitalism is all bad, just that it needs to have something to act as a counter balance.
Click to expand...

It's not capitalism that is the culprit. This is the error of the age. We haven't had capitalism for at least 100 years. It's socialism that has and is failing. Banks WERE NOT allowed to fail, shitty companies were not trashed and as a result we have rewarded failure. That is the exact opposite of capitalism, and that is a big part of our problem - government intervention in economics. It has never and most likely will never work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LotsOfZeros
Pseudo Nym said:
So you would take away the part that is (partly, at least) obligated to serve the will of the people and leave only the private entities
Click to expand...

This is where your thinking is off. No government on the face of this planet is in service for the will of the people. You're jaded if you think they are.

I'll take my chances with privatization. Better to voluntarily work for someone who is greedy and wants more money than to become a slave to a government that lusts for more power.
 
Pseudo Nym said:
...and it's capitalism that's the culprit.
Click to expand...

Exactly what a tyrannical government establishment wants you to believe. How many times do you hear Obama bashing banks, oil companies, insurers, pharma companies and 'greedy' Wall Street types.


slayerment said:
It's not capitalism that is the culprit. This is the error of the age. We haven't had capitalism for at least 100 years. It's socialism that has and is failing. Banks WERE NOT allowed to fail, shitty companies were not trashed and as a result we have rewarded failure. That is the exact opposite of capitalism, and that is a big part of our problem - government intervention in economics. It has never and most likely will never work.
Click to expand...

Read it! +Rep
 
Pseudo Nym said:
He has a private security force protecting his land (something only land owners can afford to have, obviously). If you're not a land owner, you are entirely dependent on the land owners for survival (since all land - you know, where food and water comes from - is occupied and defended).
Click to expand...

I'd call the A Team
 
slayerment said:
You have your points and I don't disagree with you. I'm not an expert. What I would say is we should first get back to our Constitutional foundation and at that point figure out where to go from there.
Click to expand...

You know, I was actually a Ron Paul supporter a few years back. He seemed to be a genuinely honest politician with integrity (so rare it's an oxymoron). But over time I realized that Libertarianism just isn't the right way to move forward. I'm still a civil libertarian - I think people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone - but I also believe in social responsibility, i.e., we have a collective responsibility as a society to look after our own.


slayerment said:
Why do I have to pay taxes to the government for land in a "free" country? It's complete nonsense. They can make their money the way they used to make their money. And they can fire 95% of the useless government employees. I do agree we need some government - the amount as set forth in the Constitution... VERY LITTLE. :)
Click to expand...

You pay taxes on it because it really belongs to the government, which in turns belongs to the people (remember, we need to stay vigilant to keep it that way, and away from private interests (or balanced with)). Property taxes are a way to ensure that land is used productively or by someone that contributes productively to society. If you're not using it, and not earning its use through productivity, it eventually returns to the pool of available land to be put to use. There's a finite amount of land available, so it makes sense for ownership of it to be ultimately collective rather than private.

Personally I think that if you're the back-to-the-lander type, you should be able to set up some place out in the sticks and live there tax-free. And there may in fact be programs like that; I seem to recall having heard of the government giving out acres in the middle of nowhere for homesteaders to do just that (though I haven't looked into it).
 
Pseudo Nym said:
Personally I think that if you're the back-to-the-lander type, you should be able to set up some place out in the sticks and live there tax-free. And there may in fact be programs like that; I seem to recall having heard of the government giving out acres in the middle of nowhere for homesteaders to do just that (though I haven't looked into it).
Click to expand...

This is how much of the West was settled.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
And your scenario (well, Anarcho-Capitalism in general) assumes that few men are evil and would never conspire to oppress others.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but I'll take evil men in a completely free society over evil men with government power any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom