Oftentimes, I find myself discussing the nature of an anarchist society in order to unravel some of its mysteries and reveal what might be possible within libertarian rule. Here's an interesting tidbit that was borne out of tonight's discussion:
For the sake of simplicity, let's imagine that there is an anarchocapitalist society whereby nearly all its citizens voluntarily subscribe to libertarian principles (i.e. non-aggression principle). In theory, it is conceivable that one or a small group of persons could eventually acquire large portions of land and property, all through legal and voluntary exchanges. Let's imagine an absurd scenario whereby all of the land is finally owned by one person. Since he owned all property, he would also own all of the capital in the society. Couldn't this single person dictate the terms to every other individual without negotiation? If somebody did not agree to his terms of land rental, the owner could request that person leave his property. Since he owns all property, that person would have nowhere to go. Since that person could not leave, he would be trespassing and the owner could forcefully defend his property, injuring or killing the trespasser.
But this situation is no different than a totalitarian government. So is it correct to argue that in theory a totalitarian dictator is consistent with libertarian law, so long as that "dictator" acquired all of his property through voluntary exchanges and did not violate any contractual agreements that were made previously? Would the libertarian principle of proportional justice somehow restrict the property owner from using lethal force or otherwise place limits of the measures used by the single property owner?
(Once again, let's ignore the enormous practical difficulties in acquiring all of this land in the first place. For the sake of this discussion, I'm just trying to discover whether it is, in principle, consistent with libertarian law.)
BTW, I am not seeking to argue against libertarianism. My goal is to explore the most difficult challenges against it in an attempt to understand and strengthen its foundation.
Your thoughts?
-Michael Hall
RockyRaccoon:Your thoughts?
Next time, try to include dragons and a killer meteor shower.
liberty student:Next time, try to include dragons and a killer meteor shower.
Haha! I've already admitted that the probability of attaining such a situation is exceedingly low to be negligible. But, in theory only, isn't it consistent with libertarian law?
A similar analogy would be that theoretically there is a finite probability of my body quantum tunneling through the wall -- extraordinarily low probability, such that it never occurs in practice, but non-zero. Or the probability that a monkey typing random keys on the keyboard will just happen to exactly reproduce Mises' "Human Action" -- it would take extraordinarily long for that to happen, but it is a finite probability nonetheless.
-Michael
RockyRaccoon:But, in theory only, isn't it consistent with libertarian law
You're trying to make libertarianism into a neat and tidy utopian package. It isn't. It promises you nothing. It is only a claim, that it is unjust to initiate the use of force. Period, end of story. What property system gets meshed with it, how people socially organize, how they handle disputes, what is considered law, and what is considered punishment, are all left to the market.
An even better response to your objection would be to imagine a small enough society (say, an isolated island) under which you could imagine this being realized. For example, what about 1000 people? 100 people? 10 people? At some point, this scenario becomes realistic.
If I might, there is a solution to this little problem.
While indeed a dictatorship could exist in practice under this extreme case of following libertarian principles, well we're assuming that a human can 'own' land. Private property derives its legitimacy from self ownership. Goods are owned by their manufacturers because they were produced by individuals. Land however was not created by individuals. The Iberian Peninsula does not owe its existence to individuals. Whether we exist or not the American landmasses exist all the same. As such we do not 'own' land. It'd be more correct to say that we are paying others for them not to use it. The land owner in your example is as such reliant on his fellow humans continuing to accept this payment. If they decide that they do not wish to then he has no claim to the land and the dictatorship in practice ends.
Does that suffice?
liberty student:You're trying to make libertarianism into a neat and tidy utopian package. It isn't. It promises you nothing. It is only a claim, that it is unjust to initiate the use of force. Period, end of story. What property system gets meshed with it, how people socially organize, how they handle disputes, what is considered law, and what is considered punishment, are all left to the market.
I actually agree with you. The intention of this post is not to challenge anarchocapitalism with a ridiculously unrealistic scenario, but rather to explore the fringes of the theory to see what are the boundaries of what can and cannot exist under libertarian law. Neither of us can say exactly how the market will define such a society, since one does not exist, but I find it fascinating to explore the potential parameter space.
Say you're a resident of this territory, and the wealthy landowner tries to buy your land. If it's really a libertarian society you can simply refuse to sell, thereby obviating the scenario you mention.
What factors determine whether a society will be anarchic or statist? Help advance my work: 13fX6FXUxLCNzLDtmHoh7SqSKciD6PETud
AJ: Say you're a resident of this territory, and the wealthy landowner tries to buy your land. If it's really a libertarian society you can simply refuse to sell, thereby obviating the scenario you mention.
Hold on a second. You mean people might not sell the land out from under their own feet, so the purchaser can kill them or drive them into the ocean?
The problem with these hypotheticals is that they're subjectively created, and do not account for all the factors that are unseen. Even preconfigured scenarios in videos games arise from something, as opposed to nothing.
AJ:Say you're a resident of this territory, and the wealthy landowner tries to buy your land. If it's really a libertarian society you can simply refuse to sell, thereby obviating the scenario you mention.
I completely agree. Moreover, I would expect the price of land to increase significantly as the majority land owner continued to purchase more and more. These are the practical limitations that I wanted to avoid for the sake of this discussion.
I see also that libertystudent is poking more fun at my premise. Fair enough. ;) But once again, my intent here is only to explore the boundaries of the theory. It's like taking a physics theory and subjecting it to the highest scrutiny to see how far it goes.
To make the scenario slightly less absurd, imagine instead that we are on an island with, say, 10 individuals. Over time, people decide to sell their land (for whatever reason) to a single individual in exchange for the services which he provides. Imagine that at the time of sale, they enter into a contract to rent the land for a period of time. In other words, at the moment the sale was made, the majority property owner was providing useful services and there was no need for alarm. Years later, after the rental agreements come up for renewal -- or perhaps after the monopoly owner passes and his heir inherits his property -- the monopoly owner is no different, in principle, from a totalitarian dictator. Except in libertarian theory, the monopoly owner would be within his rights to exercise his dictatorial powers, since all of his property was acquired legally and under voluntary exchange.
RockyRaccoon:But once again, my intent here is only to explore the boundaries of the theory. It's like taking a physics theory and subjecting it to the highest scrutiny to see how far it goes.
I think this is a good exercise.
RockyRaccoon:To make the scenario slightly less absurd, imagine instead that we are on an island with, say, 10 individuals. Over time, people decide to sell their land (for whatever reason) to a single individual in exchange for the services which he provides. Imagine that at the time of sale, they enter into a contract to rent the land for a period of time. In other words, at the moment the sale was made, the majority property owner was providing useful services and there was no need for alarm. Years later, after the rental agreements come up for renewal -- or perhaps after the monopoly owner passes and his heir inherits his property -- the monopoly owner is no different, in principle, from a totalitarian dictator. Except in libertarian theory, the monopoly owner would be within his rights to exercise his dictatorial powers, since all of his property was acquired legally and under voluntary exchange.
If you present this to absolutist objective ethicists, I think you will get a "DOES NOT COMPUTE." From what I can gather, they see a certain set of moral values as absolute objective truths that are impossible to logically dispute without falling into contradiction. When in fact, it seems fairly obvious and common-sense that when 90% of the population is being enslaved or dying at the hands of the remaining 10% solely based on adherence to a set of moral principles, it might be time to question whether those principles are really absolute objective truths that can never be logically disputed.
In fairness, the absolutist objective ethical stance makes good sense in the Statist context: give the State an inch and they'll take a mile. If we are to have a State, we want the State to be bound absolutely, with no room for subjective interpretation (performed by the State's own agents). Moreover, look at the terrible evils wrought under utilitarian principles, which enable the State to justify any atrocity as resulting in "the greatest good for the greatest number." All valid concerns under Statism, but is the situation really fundamentally the same under anarchy?
What I suspect has happened is that many libertarians who used to be minarchists - and are now anarchists - are still partially stuck in the old Statist paradigm, wherein what is right and wrong is decreed from on high, by the "authority" of the State. Somehow many libertarians seem to speak as if, in some aspect, the State is still with us even when discussing hypothetical Stateless societies.
Or alternatively, they think that if their view is just "their opinion" it won't have the persuasive power they want it to. Perhaps they have forgotten how powerful an individual, subjective view can be in a persuasive endeavor. Patrick Henry did not say, "It is absolutely objectively wrong to live as a slave." He instead chose to say,
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
RockyRaccoon: AJ:Say you're a resident of this territory, and the wealthy landowner tries to buy your land. If it's really a libertarian society you can simply refuse to sell, thereby obviating the scenario you mention. I completely agree. Moreover, I would expect the price of land to increase significantly as the majority land owner continued to purchase more and more. These are the practical limitations that I wanted to avoid for the sake of this discussion. I see also that libertystudent is poking more fun at my premise. Fair enough. ;) But once again, my intent here is only to explore the boundaries of the theory. It's like taking a physics theory and subjecting it to the highest scrutiny to see how far it goes. To make the scenario slightly less absurd, imagine instead that we are on an island with, say, 10 individuals. Over time, people decide to sell their land (for whatever reason) to a single individual in exchange for the services which he provides. Imagine that at the time of sale, they enter into a contract to rent the land for a period of time. In other words, at the moment the sale was made, the majority property owner was providing useful services and there was no need for alarm. Years later, after the rental agreements come up for renewal -- or perhaps after the monopoly owner passes and his heir inherits his property -- the monopoly owner is no different, in principle, from a totalitarian dictator. Except in libertarian theory, the monopoly owner would be within his rights to exercise his dictatorial powers, since all of his property was acquired legally and under voluntary exchange.
Where did the monopoly land owner get all of his money in this anarchist society? By definition, he could have only done it by providing a tremendous level of services and goods at fantastic prices to nearly everyone (if the prices weren't good enough, he would have some competition, who would have enough money to buy some property).
Your scenario assumes that your 'evil' monopolist first provides enormous benefits to nearly everyone in every industry in existence.
Sounds like a benevolent god providing everything that anyone could want, and then turning into a devil and killing them all.
Not to mention that anything evil he did would influence his customers views of him and maybe cause them to buy elsewhere, causing some competitors to spring up.
It's a very strange scenario, and dragons and wizards involved wouldn't make it much more unlikely. =0
WisR: Where did the monopoly land owner get all of his money in this anarchist society? By definition, he could have only done it by providing a tremendous level of services and goods at fantastic prices to nearly everyone (if the prices weren't good enough, he would have some competition, who would have enough money to buy some property). Your scenario assumes that your 'evil' monopolist first provides enormous benefits to nearly everyone in every industry in existence. Sounds like a benevolent god providing everything that anyone could want, and then turning into a devil and killing them all. Not to mention that anything evil he did would influence his customers views of him and maybe cause them to buy elsewhere, causing some competitors to spring up.
These are all fair points. But in an effort to probe the fringes of the theory, I'm trying to determine if it is theoretically possible under any condition. In my modified scenario (which is far less objectionable), there are only ~10 people. Imagine that some of them are lazy and are willing to sell their land over time in exchange for a monthly service (say, a barrel of fish). Or perhaps the monopoly land owner was a doctor and saved the lives of the other nine after a tropical storm or some other accident. At the time, those island dwellers were willing to give anything to sustain their life, even their portion of the island. Also, in my modified scenario, I've suggested such a situation could arise if the heir of the monopoly owner uses his property rights differently from the original owner. (The heir could be a young, 11th island dweller, or one of the other 9 island dwellers.)
My point is that, in theory, a situation can arise which would lead to the establishment of something resembling a totalitarian dictator - one that is justified under libertarian principles. Again, I'll grant you that such a situation is unlikely and that it becomes increasingly unlikely the larger the island population becomes. But, I can't see anything that would theoretically contradict it.
To illustrate my point a little more clearly - allow me to offer something that would not be consistent with libertarian principles. Let's say 9 of the 10 island dwellers agreed to pool their land contractually. Each would get one share and they would vote democratically - one vote per share. So far, that system seems consistent with libertarian principle. Now let's say that they voted 9-0 to conquer the land of the 10th island dweller. That would NOT be consistent with libertarian principles.
So a democratic society founded through voluntary contract is consistent.
A democratic society that forces private property owners to associate is not consistent.
A totalitarian society founded entirely through voluntary exchange does seem to be consistent.
The reason that I find it fascinating is that its so counterintuitive.
I accept the unlikelihood of this scenario, particularly amongst large populations. But is there any reason why its not theoretically possible? If so, I'd love to hear it!
If they agree to there's really no issue with it. There's no libertarian mandate against people entering alternative arrangements with regard to how they handle their private property.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I asked a similar question here, although I was more referring to cases where the tyrannical dictatorship already owns the land. Under the current system of international law, they all do, and I'm not sure what the "libertarian" response would be. Can we take the land from its original homesteaders or not? If not, aren't we all just slaves of the state?
Honest John:aren't we all just slaves of the state
In so far as we do not have the capacity to resist their overwhelming force, yes. We are all slaves. Any one of us could be snuffed out 100 ways by our state within the next 2 hours. So there is no negotiation and there is no justice.
/libertarian rhetoric
Honest John:Under the current system of international law, they all do, and I'm not sure what the "libertarian" response would be.
The current system of international law is meaningless, if it doesn't conform to a libertarian conception of property rights. So you have a conflict. Either there is international law which is not libertarian, or you have libertarian property rights, conducted with no regard at all for "international law".
And as above, the journey from A to B may (probably will) involve the threat of violence.
RockyRaccoon:In theory, it is conceivable that one or a small group of persons could eventually acquire large portions of land and property, all through legal and voluntary exchanges.
Unlikely by voluntary means, likely through legal means. The law of a society will usually be written to favor a group who then set about "legally" acquiring all the resources of that society. If a group of people through voluntary exchange allowed one man you own something crazy like 99% of their property, then kind of astounding he is that good of a business man, my hat is off to him. In other words doesn't someone who has served the public so much deserve that kind of ownership?
I would say it could be consistent, because if you do not have total control of your property?, it is not property. Am I not the totalitarian dictator of my property?
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Andrew:Am I not the totalitarian dictator of my property?
100% correct. you are speaking metaphorically and thats spot on.
(though one of the characteristics of a real totalitarian dictator is that he immorally interferes with the property of others. that's why we don't like them so much)
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Byzantine: A question for everyone though, how does Robert Mugabe sustain his regime? What the hell is there left for the tax feeders to feed on?
A question for everyone though, how does Robert Mugabe sustain his regime? What the hell is there left for the tax feeders to feed on?
2 billion 2 billion Zimbabwe notes.
No, a totalitarian dictatorship cannot arise out of anarchy.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Foreign aid
Byzantine: Andrew:2 billion 2 billion Zimbabwe notes. Why do people still use them?
Andrew:2 billion 2 billion Zimbabwe notes.
Why do people still use them?
Byzantine:When money gets that worthless, the real economy goes underground
This is actually exactly what happened in Zimbabwe. As far as I've ready people there stopped paying with zimbabwe notes a few years ago. The gold and silver market there is doing quiet well. People moved on with their lives in the absence of government tender. This goes along with the lines of that we are already in anarchy. We just choose to participate in our own governments shenanigans.
This economist followed me on Twitter. It seems a marginal, but not unrepresented position that Africa needs less aid, and more capitalism.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap