To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[myrkul]

What about people/corporations who have large amounts of land already, and leverage that to acquire more over time by buying out the smaller players rather than by invasion? Couldn't a situation develop analagous to feudal Europe, where everyone not born into a select aristocratic class has virtually no chance of ever owning land? Libertarians seem to hate forcible redistribution of legitimately owned property which presumably rules out a peasant revolt, but on the other hand the feudal lord is more or less able to tax his subjects to his heart's content which also seems to be a libertarian no-no.

Tax implies that there's no choice in the matter. Without coercive force, and with open 'borders', there'd be no way to keep 'serfs' tied to the land, so the market would correct any excessive charges pretty quick.

[Fakeman]

Why assume open borders? If the surrounding properties are privately held then their respective owners are well within their rights to repel trespassers with physical barriers or force.

[myrkul]

But the one they're in can't keep them there. Do you really think these greedy businessmen would turn away people who want to give them money?

[Fakeman]

They might and they might not, but it's quite possible that the few land owners would choose to harmonize their policies on any number of policy decisions as a cartel would. You might find that none of the surrounding fiefdoms that will allow you entry offer any better of a deal. Competitive practices are of course possible too but there are no guarantees that the 'old boys club' would choose to undercut each other if they can profit more by fixing prices.

[myrkul]

They might and they might not, but it's quite possible that the few land owners would choose to harmonize their policies on any number of policy decisions as a cartel would. You might find that none of the surrounding fiefdoms that will allow you entry offer any better of a deal. Competitive practices are of course possible too but there are no guarantees that the 'old boys club' would choose to undercut each other if they can profit more by fixing prices.

Somebody will. They may be far away, but by undercutting even by a little, they could make a lot of money.

[Fakeman]

But how does that help you if nobody in between will allow you passage?

[myrkul]

Blocking off travel blocks off trade. Nobody's going to block off trade. That would be tantamount to committing suicide.

[Fakeman]

You seem to be arguing now that my hypothetical is unlikely, but you don't go so far as to say it's impossible. In any case I think it demonstrates that freedom of movement/self-determination can be severely limited if property rights are absolute.

[myrkul]

You seem to be arguing now that my hypothetical is unlikely, but you don't go so far as to say it's impossible. In any case I think it demonstrates that freedom of movement/self-determination can be severely limited if property rights are absolute.

Can be, in theory. Would not be, in practice. For purely self-interested reasons.

[Fakeman]

Predicting human behavior with certainty can be notoriously difficult.

It's been a fun debate but I'll move on for now. I do like some aspects of libertarianism from what I understand of it so far, notably an interest in commodity money, but as I say I have some strong reservations about the idea.

[TheGer]

Let me grab my Libertarian Tank and we'll see who wants to take it away from me.

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

[compro01]

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.

[Anonymous]

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.

Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

[compro01]

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.

Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

1. I fail to see how bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth, given that the existing distribution of bitcoins is overwhelmingly slanted towards early adopters (mined large amounts of bitcoin early on when the difficulty was low) and those with large quantities of existing currencies. (to purchase large arrays of mining equipment).

2. That assumes all weapons are of equal quality.  Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle is far outclassed by Tom's armoured vehicle with an M2, which he could get because he had more money.

money works with gravity the same way mass does.  it attracts.

[Hawker]

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.

Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

1. I fail to see how bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth, given that the existing distribution of bitcoins is overwhelmingly slanted towards early adopters (mined large amounts of bitcoin early on when the difficulty was low) and those with large quantities of existing currencies. (to purchase large arrays of mining equipment).

2. That assumes all weapons are of equal quality.  Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle is far outclassed by Tom's armoured vehicle with an M2, which he could get because he had more money.

money works with gravity the same way mass does.  it attracts.

+1

Atlas I'm puzzled by your post as well. 

How does Bitcoin do any wealth distribution?  Those that have wealth now would simply have it denominated in Bitcoin.  Or is there some middle step I missed?

[myrkul]

On the 'big gun' theory, it's not so much that the wealth will be evenly distributed, or even the guns. It the fact that without the legitimacy granted by the pretense of 'consent of the governed'. In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

[compro01]

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

that situation appears unlikely given the history of societies since the neolithic era.

[myrkul]

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

that situation appears unlikely given the history of societies since the neolithic era.

How well do you suppose the Mafia moving into an area would be received by the general populace? Hailed as liberators, or resisted?

[JA37]

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

I'll just leave this here for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

[Anonymous]

No man has the incentive to sit on a massive amount of wealth --while letting it drain itself-- without creating more for others.

The only time wealth is stagnant is when its in the hands of central banks and government, to where its use is reduced to irrational greed, violence and bureaucracy.