Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're free to move wherever you own land, or wherever the owner of land wants to allow you, or wherever land is unowned.

There's no right of unfettered movement. There are property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I figured the answer would be. Doesn't that seem oppressive? What if I want to go somewhere else? In some discussions, people have trotted out the love-it-or-leave-it argument and you have refuted that. But it seems to me that at least under the current system, leaving it would be less of a problem than under AC...

Also, if people own a particular piece of land, do they own the sky above it? If so, what are the implications of the effects on things like air travel?

An semi-related question: can anyone "own" the ocean or space?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I figured the answer would be. Doesn't that seem oppressive?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
What if I want to go somewhere else?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I want to sleep in your basement?

[ QUOTE ]
In some discussions, people have trotted out the love-it-or-leave-it argument and you have refuted that. But it seems to me that at least under the current system, leaving it would be less of a problem than under AC...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if people own a particular piece of land, do they own the sky above it? If so, what are the implications of the effects on things like air travel?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are differing opinions on this (see "ad coelem"). Personally, I find that airspace is not a "resource" that can be owned. However, one's use of airspace may certainly cause damages to another. If my neighbor builds a structure that is anchored on his property but protrudes into my "airspace" he very well may be causing me damages, both by interference in my use of my own property and even possibly by things like causing my insurance premiums to increase. If my neighbor fires bullets accross my backyard, he probably is interfering with my use of my property.

An airplane over my property at 50,000 ft is unlikely to cause any interference with my use of my property. An airplane at 500 ft very well might cause me damages.

On the other hand, I'm willing to change my mind about ownership of airspace if one can demonstrate the ability to homestead airspace.

[ QUOTE ]
An semi-related question: can anyone "own" the ocean or space?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ocean is a resource. Certainly it can be owned. Space is not a resource. As far as I can tell, it can't be homesteaded.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

Apart from the minor problem that it doesn't, if it were so it would be because every living thing besides humans have no possessions.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

So I find someone who has a great deal of wealth. I purchase every sorrounding property to theirs (at a huge premium, every owner will sell), or I give them a lifetime free rent on the property. Now the rich guy has all his stuff (worth more than the premium I paid) stuck on the island inside of my property. I disallow him to cross my property to get to his. Now his property is worthless to him, so I can basically hold it ransom for him. Saying he can cross only if he gives me a huge amount of money.

Sounds like a great system.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

AC grants us one too many freedoms; that one is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I find someone who has a great deal of wealth. I purchase every sorrounding property to theirs (at a huge premium, every owner will sell), or I give them a lifetime free rent on the property. Now the rich guy has all his stuff (worth more than the premium I paid) stuck on the island inside of my property. I disallow him to cross my property to get to his. Now his property is worthless to him, so I can basically hold it ransom for him. Saying he can cross only if he gives me a huge amount of money.

Sounds like a great system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but what would be the point of doing this? There are no benefits for the owner. There is no way the person entrapped would ever pay the fee and yes he might have to move. The owner of the doughnut basically wasted a ton of his money buying things he didn't need in order to ruin someone's life. I don't see many people doing this personally.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
AC grants us one too many freedoms; that one is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but as I pointed out it is stupid to do so (given the unlikely case that someone is actually able to acquire ALL of the surrounding land).

I can make up a ton of hypothetical situations about statism but they don't prove or disprove anything.

"Imagine congress passes a law that makes it illegal to move to a new location without the consesnt of a certain federal bureau."

"Imagine congress passes a law that makes it illegal for people of a certain race to own land."

These situations are certainly possible... yet they don't prove anything.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]

For that to work, everyone would have to agree to not buy his product. How would that happen? What incentive would any individual have for not buying his products?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really that hard? The product does them damage, therefore they won't buy it. Their incentive is the $20 medical bill.



[ QUOTE ]
And what if instead of operating a chemical plant, the owner of the land is simply usimg it for his own personal enjoyment in a way that detrimentally affects others?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are methods other than economic justice. They can sue him. Read pvn's posts for more details.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is an extremely inadequate response. How do property rights prevent air pollution?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone aggresses against you, you sue them and extract damages. Currently, governments provide protection to polluters, often (but certainly not exclusively) by setting "standards" of acceptable pollution (acceptable to political committees, not to those actually affected by pollution).

[ QUOTE ]
The most economically efficient result would be for all of the residents of the island to pay the operator of the plant $10 for a total of $1,000 to stop operating the plant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?! That's basically reverse extortion - you're creating incentives to pollute. In that case, people would be lining up to create the cheapest possible pollution-creation device. Why not sue the guy for the $2000 in damages? He then goes out of business (i.e. he stops polluting) and others see that polluting is bad for business.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there would be a court system? I didn't realize that. Who enforces the orders of the court? How is that not like a government?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

I could just buy a piece of someones property 1 inch thick making a donut. How would be move his stuff? He can't. He is basically homeless and his property is worthless now. You don't think he'd pay? What if I wanted to buy his property with all on it at a huge discount? Wishful thinking isn't going to make your system work.

Would you sell 1 inch of your land to someone for $1000? I know I would, especially if I still had full access rights to it.