If the government ran all the supermarkets, you'd say the exact same thing about food. You would worry that all the grocery stores would close and you would starve. But, the thing is, in an AnCap world, there's money to be made by solving real problems. If the problem you've identified is a real one, then someone will find a way to solve it and charge you for that solution. And then someone else will find a better way to solve it and charge you less. And before you know it, the problem's gone. Problems are opportunities.
You might think it sucks to have to pay for everything. But the fact is, you're paying for everything now. It's just being done by an inherently inefficient government with little to no incentive to innovate and facing no competition.
you are always paying for everything, in any possible scenario. however i dont see any indication that companies solve every problem better than governments do. for many services, there is very little competition or incentive to provide the cheapest or best possible service. in some markets, there are so few players so that price agreements are very easy. in other markets its very hard for a layman to jugde the overall quality of the service, so the best marketing wins.
in the end, the assumption that companies solve all problems better is just a dogma. you will always find examples in which governments handled something ridiculously ineffecient. but that doesnt prove anything. or if it does, what does fukushiima say about the ability of companies to handle critical infrastructure? companies have scenarios where they fail really badly just as governments do. mostly those that require long term reliability and viability, minimizing risks, minimizing external costs. a company can always just cut their losses and run, or go broke.
As for the land ownership issue, there's a more specific response. Land ownership includes some bundle of rights. And society, if it's going to have property, has to work out what that bundle of rights is. It may be that preventing people from reasonably crossing your land to access other people's land isn't in that bundle of rights. It may be that shooting anyone who accidentally stumbles onto your land isn't in that bundle of rights. Just as, for example, taxing satellites that pass over your land likely wouldn't be.
i like the thought that absolute property rights might actually lead to having less rights regarding your property
in practice though, that might be impossible. for example, would you still be allowed to build very high walls around your property? or have dangerous stuff lie around in the open?
Also, covenants can run with land and can specifically exclude some rights for the benefit of nearby land owners. A society has to come up with rules for how those covenants can be enforced, whether they can be valid in perpetuity, and so on.
i agree that can solve many possible problems. but sometimes you just run into problems you coudnt foresee. or could but didnt. for example the necessity for land expropriation can be the result of bad planning. the property could have been aquired much earlier. or the infrastructure could have been built elsewhere. but when there really just one place left to build something or use property in a specific way, there is no existing contract and the owner is completely unreasonable, what do you do in ancap? yes, land expropriation sucks and should be kept to an absolute minimum. but you cant always avoid all situations in which honoring property rights of a single person will be to the detriment of a whole society.
