Why private prisons are a bad idea. [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

amy31416

10-21-2011, 05:17 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7737093.stm

Cheney charged over jail 'abuses'

A Texas grand jury has charged US Vice-President Dick Cheney for "organised criminal activity" related to alleged abuse of private prison inmates.
The indictment says Mr Cheney - who has invested $85m (£56m) in a company that holds shares in for-profit prisons - conspired to block an investigation.
The indictment has not been seen by a judge, who could dismiss it.
Mr Cheney's spokeswoman declined to comment, saying his office had not yet received a copy of the charges.
One Texas lawyer said the charges were politically motivated.
'Conflict of interest'

The indictment was overseen by county District Attorney Juan Guerra, an outgoing prosecutor at the end of his term of office.
He cites the case of Gregorio De La Rosa, who died on 26 April, 2001 inside a private prison in Willacy County, Texas.
The grand jury in Willacy County, near the US-Mexico border, accuses Mr Cheney of committing "at least misdemeanour assaults" of inmates by allowing other inmates to assault them.

It said there was a "direct conflict of interest" because Mr Cheney had influence over federal contracts awarded to prison companies.
US grand juries weigh evidence to decide whether a case is worthy of being sent for a full trial, before issuing formal charges known as indictments.
The three-page indictment also alleges that former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "used his position...to stop the investigations as to the wrong doings."
The grand jury wrote that it made its decision "with great sadness," but said they had no other choice but to indict Mr Cheney and Mr Gonzales "because we love our country."

Several other related indictments were brought against a host of public officials in what one lawyer called a circus act by the outgoing prosecutor, Mr Guerra, who he said was seeking revenge in his final weeks in office.

Didn't get much (if any) mainstream media coverage here in the US.

A Son of Liberty

10-21-2011, 05:23 PM

How does this private business government make a profit if no one is being arrested?

http://rrbotello.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/speedtrap2_lg.jpg

Therein is the inherent problem.

A Son of Liberty

10-21-2011, 05:24 PM

A valid point as always, and don't let it be said that in a purely voluntary society that private alternatives to cops or prisons is not something I would support.

But to "privatize" now, in this way, as you point out, is a horrendous combination of the worst of both worlds, where there is profit motive, in addition to all the other perverse incentives, attached to keeping the government rape cages and slave workhouses full.

Agreed. The word we have for that is "fascism".

nbhadja

10-21-2011, 06:01 PM

Private prisons are very scary. Like with any private business, eventually they would lobby the politicians in their favor and they would try to make every action under the sun a crime so they could increase their profits by increase the number of inmates they have.

They would probably lobby the politicians to make chewing gum illegal, and we all know the politicians would do it.

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 06:08 PM

Agreed. The word we have for that is "fascism".

That is precisely what the Lew Rockwell Blog headline called it:

I Think This Is What They Call Fascism
Posted by Bill Anderson on October 21, 2011 09:52 AM

dannno

10-21-2011, 06:15 PM

Hey AF, what is your opinion on a private prison that doesn't receive govt. funding? It seems to me that the main problem is we use coercive funding sources for these private, for-profit prisons.

For example, how would a private prison be profitable if the people who paid for it voluntarily became scared that they might get locked up for unjust reasons, would they not de-fund it immediately and have it shut down?

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 06:18 PM

The system loves full prisons.

And Bubba sez, "That's right, make them scumbags work!"

Never stopping to think, why should Lockheed/Martin pay me $15 bucks an hour to assemble circuit boards, when it can have an unending supply of slave labor do it for 23 cents a day?

Prisoners Help Build Patriot Missiles

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/prisoners-help-build-patriot-missiles/

dannno

10-21-2011, 06:19 PM

How does this private business make a profit if no one is being arrested?

Therein is the inherent problem.

A private prison in an anarcho-capitalist society would not profit from more people being arrested, they would have lower costs from having less people incarcerated. However, if they weren't incarcerating criminals simply to save costs, then people would stop funding it and they would instead fund a prison who was doing a good job of incarcerating criminals without incarcerating innocent people, incarcerating innocent people is really just an undue burden at that point.

dannno

10-21-2011, 06:20 PM

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 06:24 PM

Hey AF, what is your opinion on a private prison that doesn't receive govt. funding? It seems to me that the main problem is we use coercive funding sources for these private, for-profit prisons.

That delves into just who has the authority to put people in prison in the first place.

For example, how would a private prison be profitable if the people who paid for it voluntarily became scared that they might get locked up for unjust reasons, would they not de-fund it immediately and have it shut down?

I don't think prison can work as a private enterprise, just for this reason.

The fact remains that there are some who do deserve to be in prison, that would be let out in this scenario.

I think a better alternative to prison altogether is fiduciary punishment along with exile or shaming.

Yes, bring back the stocks.

heavenlyboy34

10-21-2011, 06:25 PM

How does this private business make a profit if no one is being arrested?

Therein is the inherent problem.
A lot of possibilities. Sell advertising space on interior and exterior walls, set up billboards for advertisers to rents space on, etc. Marketers can be creative.

heavenlyboy34

10-21-2011, 06:26 PM

That delves into just who has the authority to put people in prison in the first place.

I don't think prison can work as a private enterprise, just for this reason.

The fact remains that there are some who do deserve to be in prison, that would be let out in this scenario.

I think a better alternative to prison altogether is fiduciary punishment along with exile or shaming.

Yes, bring back the stocks.
This is a much better idea, I should have thought of it. /facepalm. Having people recompensate victims makes a lot more sense than throwing them in cages.

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 06:27 PM

Hmm, though it would be pretty sweet if they were making Ipads and suddenly the price of Ipads went down to $80.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wAxDMfEGhoY/TJf0-DHPwVI/AAAAAAAAATk/iV1ugK9uHeQ/s320/Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg

dannno

10-21-2011, 06:47 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wAxDMfEGhoY/TJf0-DHPwVI/AAAAAAAAATk/iV1ugK9uHeQ/s320/Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg

If they are really criminals, and they are being treated reasonably well, I have no problem with them working to help pay for their incarceration, although I can see how it could also lead to some serious abuse..

I'm not an expert on anarcho-capitalism by any means, I do find it interesting though. Maybe someone can help clear that up.

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 06:49 PM

This is a much better idea, I should have thought of it. /facepalm. Having people recompensate victims makes a lot more sense than throwing them in cages.

Exactly.

And another thing, why is the state and the MIC reaping the rewards of this prison labor?

Why is that not being turned over to the victims?

Possibly because for the vast numbers of productive people that are in prison there is no identifiable victim?

SL89

10-21-2011, 06:49 PM

I am a bit torn. I agree with AF as things are but, and this is a BIG but, I think a truly private company could do the job with less fraud and abuse than government run facilities. A private company that is non-union and is not a "public" company could do well. While profit driven, the said company would not need exponential growth to appease share holders. There are successful privately held companies that do well in "non-growth" environments. All they need to be profitable is to do their jobs and make a wage. Keep their own little business in the black, so to speak. Not all CEO's want more, more, and more.

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 06:51 PM

If they are really criminals, and they are being treated reasonably well, I have no problem with them working to help pay for their incarceration, although I can see how it could also lead to some serious abuse..

I'm not an expert on anarcho-capitalism by any means, I do find it interesting though. Maybe someone can help clear that up.

Serious ain't a strong enough word.

pcosmar

10-21-2011, 06:53 PM

A private prison in an anarcho-capitalist society would not profit from more people being arrested, they would have lower costs from having less people incarcerated. However, if they weren't incarcerating criminals simply to save costs, then people would stop funding it and they would instead fund a prison who was doing a good job of incarcerating criminals without incarcerating innocent people, incarcerating innocent people is really just an undue burden at that point.

:confused:
That really makes no logical sense at all.
What point is there in having a business that doesn't make a profit?

What business invests in the necessary infrastructure will the hope that they have little or no business?

What kind of sick fuck individual would seek to profit of the misery of others?

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 06:56 PM

:confused:
That really makes no logical sense at all.
What point is there in having a business that doesn't make a profit?

What business invests in the necessary infrastructure will the hope that they have little or no business?

What kind of sick fuck individual would seek to profit of the misery of others?

I can't answer the first two.

I can sure as shit answer the last.

History is full of such people that made a fortune directly off human suffering and misery.

Early punch card data systems sold to the Nazi regime by IBM to keep track of concentration camp victims comes to mind.

pcosmar

10-21-2011, 07:05 PM

Serious ain't a strong enough word.

Serious abuse is the long and sordid history of imprisonment.

profiting from prisoners has just as long a history, Making it legal and "acceptable" will never make it morally right.

Prisons SHOULD be a burden on society.
They should be so very costly that only very few are ever imprisoned,, and only as necessary.

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 07:25 PM

Prisons SHOULD be a burden on society.
They should be so very costly that only very few are ever imprisoned,, and only as necessary.

That.

That is precisely why prisons, cops, laws and all the rest should be burdensome, and not "streamlined" and "made more efficient by market forces".

War as well, should never be "efficient", "painless", "surgical" or subject to market forces.

We are seeing right now what happens when it is.

heavenlyboy34

10-21-2011, 07:40 PM

Exactly.

And another thing, why is the state and the MIC reaping the rewards of this prison labor?

Why is that not being turned over to the victims?

Possibly because for the vast numbers of productive people that are in prison there is no identifiable victim?
That reminds me-does your sheriff have a "chain gang" program? Sheriff Joe has this program in which prisoners can volunteer to be part of chain gang a clean up litter along the highways and such. Although the prisoners volunteer for it, it seems an odd practice and exploitative. (not to mention more wasted money because of the manpower needed to supervise the operation-the overseers generally ride on horseback) I've heard rumors that there are other prison labor programs that aren't well known.

This probably doesn't surprise you, but Boobus has been cheering on Joe's antics since the beginning.

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 07:45 PM

That reminds me-does your sheriff have a "chain gang" program? Sheriff Joe has this program in which prisoners can volunteer to be part of chain gang a clean up litter along the highways and such. Although the prisoners volunteer for it, it seems an odd practice and exploitative. (not to mention more wasted money because of the manpower needed to supervise the operation-the overseers generally ride on horseback) I've heard rumors that there are other prison labor programs that aren't well known.

This probably doesn't surprise you, but Boobus has been cheering on Joe's antics since the beginning.

In NH they make them split firewood.

heavenlyboy34

10-21-2011, 07:50 PM

In NH they make them split firewood.Would you consider it exploitative? It seems so to me, even if people volunteer to do it just to get outdoors.

Anti Federalist

10-21-2011, 07:56 PM

Would you consider it exploitative? It seems so to me, even if people volunteer to do it just to get outdoors.

To a certain degree yes, although they make sure (and I think are required by NH law) to sell at prevailing market rates.

Exploitive certainly if you consider that none of that money is being used to compensate the victims.

I'm skeptical of "busy work" non profit projects like this.

I'm vehemently opposed to "for profit" prison labor.

pcosmar

10-21-2011, 08:03 PM

Would you consider it exploitative? It seems so to me, even if people volunteer to do it just to get outdoors.

I have no problem with voluntary work programs, Especially for added privileges or other payment.
It is an incentive for good behavior and and promotes a work ethic.

Involuntary work programs are by definition, slavery.

I personally think the entire legal system and "justice" system needs to be rethought. (scrapped and rebuilt)
From the laws (entirely too many) to law enforcement and punishment/restitution.

The very concept of police is wrong. Law enforcement is the duty of every citizen. And very few laws are really needed in a free society.

Of the few cases where imprisonment is necessary, it should be the responsibility and burden of local government.

Conza88

10-22-2011, 02:48 AM

"Private" prisons guys. Corporatist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzYJYSm-MfI

Revolution9

10-22-2011, 03:21 AM

I think this shows why having a monopoly on law, judicial services, etc. is a bad idea. Nothing wrong with market-prisons in the absence of the State.

Yeah..with free market warrants for the free market no show at the bogus jurisdictional free market court. Heh.. You guys are supposed to be smart and shit. You have apparently not thought this through or assume everybody is a bootlicker.

Rev9

Revolution9

10-22-2011, 03:32 AM

"Private" prisons guys. Corporatist.
<snip video I won't watch because I am not into watching videos right now..I am reading and writing>

Here ya go again. When are you going to write your own shit?

I will not go to any free market prison because I will refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the free market court and when they send their free market enforcement cadre I will bust a cap in their trespassing asses. And when they send a cadre to try to arrest me for capping the previous cadres asses I will cap their trespassing asses as well. To try to serve me with any type of summonsing papers would be to me a serious joke. It would be the equivalent of fancy bumfodder and worthy only of being framed for the rec room bar next to the taxidermied free market revenue collectors mounted head. I will debate any anarchist or hard core lib on this and kick their ass with alacrity and humor. And I won't make one single frakkin' appeal to the authority of another's thoughts having precedence over my own mental constructs.

Yer Pal
Rev9

Revolution9

10-22-2011, 03:35 AM

That.

That is precisely why prisons, cops, laws and all the rest should be burdensome, and not "streamlined" and "made more efficient by market forces".

War as well, should never be "efficient", "painless", "surgical" or subject to market forces.

We are seeing right now what happens when it is.

Precisely. The other side of this coin is bogus jurisdiction and where the real venue for remedies exists.

Best Regards
Rev9

Revolution9

10-22-2011, 03:37 AM

I can't answer the first two.

I can sure as shit answer the last.

History is full of such people that made a fortune directly off human suffering and misery.

Early punch card data systems sold to the Nazi regime by IBM to keep track of concentration camp victims comes to mind.

Bill Gates mommy was intimately involved. Bill is still into stealth eugenics. He would love to vaccinate Africa to death and is already on board that chew chew train..

Rev9

Travlyr

10-22-2011, 02:35 PM

Justice is not "For Sale" to the highest bidder.

Seraphim

10-22-2011, 02:50 PM

While I understand that point of view - how is it any different than what the State is doing right now?

I think the key is decentralization vs centralization rather than private or public. If localities and home grown "justice" is allowed to happen, I'm not sure it matters whether the smaller regions pick private of public...Let the Feds make the decisions and it will be a disaster for freedom regardless of the funding means.

Justice is not "For Sale" to the highest bidder.

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 02:59 PM

From LRC blog:

(a picture says a thousand words)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Corrections-CA-statement11.jpg

This is why the Corrections Corporation of America is dangerous. Just like any company they seek to make a profit. But they make that profit through the detention of human beings.

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 03:02 PM

You mean them lobbying for profits while screwing regular people? You could say that about a lot of privatized industries, albeit not to that extent, aside from the military industrial complex.

True. Which is why libertarians should be wary of big business as well as big government. And support smaller business just as they support smaller government.

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 03:06 PM

How does this private business make a profit if no one is being arrested?

Therein is the inherent problem.

Which is why the idea of a stateless society is ridiculous. Remove government as we know it and corporations like the CCA will fill the vacuum.

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2011, 03:07 PM

Yeah..with free market warrants for the free market no show at the bogus jurisdictional free market court. Heh.. You guys are supposed to be smart and shit. You have apparently not thought this through or assume everybody is a bootlicker.

Rev9
And who gives government courts jurisdiction? Just a piece of paper (that I certainly didn't sign). Why should I accept that as legitimate?

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2011, 03:08 PM

Which is why the idea of a stateless society is ridiculous. Remove government as we know it and corporations like the CCA will fill the vacuum.
I hate to break it to you, but corporations have taken over your state society without any help from anarchists.

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2011, 03:16 PM

Here ya go again. When are you going to write your own shit?

I will not go to any free market prison because I will refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the free market court and when they send their free market enforcement cadre I will bust a cap in their trespassing asses. And when they send a cadre to try to arrest me for capping the previous cadres asses I will cap their trespassing asses as well. To try to serve me with any type of summonsing papers would be to me a serious joke. It would be the equivalent of fancy bumfodder and worthy only of being framed for the rec room bar next to the taxidermied free market revenue collectors mounted head. I will debate any anarchist or hard core lib on this and kick their ass with alacrity and humor. And I won't make one single frakkin' appeal to the authority of another's thoughts having precedence over my own mental constructs.

Yer Pal
Rev9
First, make an argument for prisons in the first place. I dare you. Throwing people in cages does not recompensate victims, nor does it rehabilitate inmates (check out recidivism statistics sometime). I agree that private prisons are a bad idea. Justice is missing almost entirely from the government "justice" system.

Do you think private companies don't benefit from the current corrupt system? It's not so. The prisons and everything the "justice enforcers" (as it were) have to be built/paid for by someone. I assure you, corporations and big businesses benefit from every aspect of the government "justice" system.

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 03:17 PM

I hate to break it to you, but corporations have taken over your state society without any help from anarchists.

Yes, they have. Right now we have a sort of Fascism-light. In the absence of government without the proper reforms we will have feudalism. I prefer neither.

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2011, 03:20 PM

Which is why the idea of a stateless society is ridiculous. Remove government as we know it and corporations like the CCA will fill the vacuum.
Why didn't that happen in the 19th century American West (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803)? ;)

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 03:22 PM

Why didn't that happen in the 19th century American West (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803)? ;)

Are you asking why corporations didn't fill the vacuum of absent government in the West?

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2011, 03:25 PM

Yes, they have. Right now we have a sort of Fascism-light. In the absence of government without the proper reforms we will have feudalism. I prefer neither.
We're already getting a sort of feudalism. There's the government caste, the caste of corporations and special interests who benefit from and promote government tyranny, and the serf caste-everyone else. It's been around a long while, but it's becoming more apparent as time goes on.

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2011, 03:26 PM

Are you asking why corporations didn't fill the vacuum of absent government in the West?
Precisely.

ETA: I'm not saying that a sudden jump to statelessness now would work. I prefer Misesian micro-secession and libertarian gradualism..

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 03:32 PM

Precisely.

My point was that some entity would fill the vacuum for the role of government in the absence of government as we know it. In your article land clubs filled that vacuum. And those land clubs were indeed governments despite what the article initially states.

Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes—and violence.

^Its decentralized government but it is still government.

donnay

10-22-2011, 03:33 PM

Maine State Prison Showroom

http://s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/rQqGiXpmuRk5b8Hi8HN21w/l.jpg

http://s3-media1.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/x3RlOiTM9_ELcR0lQy63zg/l.jpg

http://sourcherryfarm.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lj082310prisonstore06.jpg

http://sourcherryfarm.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lj082310prisonstore19.jpg

http://sourcherryfarm.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lj082310prisonstore07.jpg

http://sourcherryfarm.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lj082310prisonstore09.jpg

http://sourcherryfarm.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lj082310prisonstore08.jpg

http://sourcherryfarm.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lj082310prisonstore10.jpg

http://maine.gov/corrections/industries/showroomT.htm

Maine has a nice niche in the Prison Industrial Complex. Not too far from the Bush Summer Compound either!

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." ~Ayn Rand

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 03:34 PM

We're already getting a sort of feudalism. There's the government caste, the caste of corporations and special interests who benefit from and promote government tyranny, and the serf caste-everyone else. It's been around a long while, but it's becoming more apparent as time goes on.

We do have a sort of feudalism right now, but the problem would get worse without certain tax reforms.

pcosmar

10-22-2011, 03:38 PM

Its decentralized government but it is still government.

Well,,I am not an anarchist,, but a "decentralized" government sounds like the limited government our founders intended.

redbluepill

10-22-2011, 03:43 PM

Well,,I am not an anarchist,, but a "decentralized" government sounds like the limited government our founders intended.

Well, some of the Founders. The others were known as Federalists and wanted centralized rather than decentralized govt. I personally favor decentralized govt. What I'm saying is that there would never be such a thing as a completely voluntary society at this point (at least without land reform.)

Wesker1982

10-22-2011, 07:29 PM

"private" prisons receive funding from the government. This is not private.

Wesker1982

10-22-2011, 07:47 PM

Which is why the idea of a stateless society is ridiculous. Remove government as we know it and corporations like the CCA will fill the vacuum.

This objection has been debunked, many times, for a long time. No one who is a Voluntaryist just ignores this apparent problematic scenario. It is the usually the very first problem that one figures out before they become Voluntaryists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spVl493wZUU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXS-Gzz_C9g

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? (http://mises.org/daily/1855)

The most important attempt in this century to rebut anarchism and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts. (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp)

Which is why libertarians should be wary of big business as well as big government.

Take away the government and the big businesses have no power. They gain power now because they influence the government to violently impose expenses that force smaller business out of the market. Without the government, big business can only dominate by satisfying consumer desires. Take away the ability to gain control of the violent monopoly, problem solved.

Is statism needed to protect against corporate monopolies? (http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25969/435140.aspx#435140)
Creating Monopolies That Control Us (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap7.html)
Tom Woods on Free Market Monopolies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqO7pKMxu0&feature=player_embedded)
But Won't Big Business will dominate the free market? (http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/24150/415382.aspx#415382)

ClayTrainor

10-22-2011, 07:53 PM

"private" prisons receive funding from the government. This is not private.

Not to mention, their "clientèle" (the prisoners) 100% consists of people who are guilty of breaking state created and enforced laws, and are convicted in state owned courts. These are not market entities.

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2011, 08:06 PM

Not to mention, their "clientèle" (the prisoners) 100% consists of people who are guilty of breaking state created and enforced laws, and are convicted in state owned courts. These are not market entities.
Important point. The conflict of interest there is obvious.

nayjevin

10-22-2011, 09:30 PM

How does this private business make a profit if no one is being arrested?

Therein is the inherent problem.

The problem in a free market would be vigilance in ensuring that arbitrators who sentence individuals to correctional facilities which do not correct them do not achieve an influential marketshare.

Throwing people in cages does not recompensate victims, nor does it rehabilitate inmates (check out recidivism statistics sometime). I agree that private prisons are a bad idea. Justice is missing almost entirely from the government "justice" system.

Indeed, as has been pointed out here, 'correctional' facilities which do not solve the problem are a problem in any political system.

redbluepill

10-24-2011, 06:59 PM

This objection has been debunked, many times, for a long time. No one who is a Voluntaryist just ignores this apparent problematic scenario. It is the usually the very first problem that one figures out before they become Voluntaryists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spVl493wZUU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXS-Gzz_C9g

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? (http://mises.org/daily/1855)

The most important attempt in this century to rebut anarchism and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts. (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp)

Take away the government and the big businesses have no power. They gain power now because they influence the government to violently impose expenses that force smaller business out of the market. Without the government, big business can only dominate by satisfying consumer desires. Take away the ability to gain control of the violent monopoly, problem solved.

Is statism needed to protect against corporate monopolies? (http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25969/435140.aspx#435140)
Creating Monopolies That Control Us (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap7.html)
Tom Woods on Free Market Monopolies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqO7pKMxu0&feature=player_embedded)
But Won't Big Business will dominate the free market? (http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/24150/415382.aspx#415382)

A landowner is a government. A landowner controls a territory. A landowner collects taxes (rent). Also, they establish laws on their land.

Libertarians in the classical libertarian tradition, such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and various others, recognized that liberty requires limiting the power of landlords, just as it requires limiting the power of government at all levels. There need to be limits on the power of the landlord level of government, as well as limits on the power of government at all other levels of government.

http://libertythinkers.com/education/a-landlord-is-a-government-the-libertarian-basis-for-land-rights/

kuckfeynes

10-24-2011, 07:40 PM

Landowners can also go bankrupt.

Don't confuse lack of government with lack of power structures, or lack of force with lack of monopoly on force.

How abundant do you think private prisons would really be in a voluntary society?

Personally if I were a victim of a crime, I would much rather try to extract economic restitution from the perpetrator than see him locked up. At least I stand to gain something with the former, even if I am unsuccessful in doing so. With a common jail, I gain nothing and in fact must pay to keep him alive.

Plus in such a system, most people would insure themselves via protection agencies who would compete and mediate with each other. Someone who has been convicted too many times would be unable to find reliable insurance. That would basically have the effect of sending the person into exile, or vulnerably risking life and limb remaining in society, to be aggressed upon himself without any hope of protection or restitution.

Conza88

10-24-2011, 11:37 PM

A landowner is a government. A landowner controls a territory. A landowner collects taxes (rent). Also, they establish laws on their land.

Libertarians in the classical libertarian tradition, such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and various others, recognized that liberty requires limiting the power of landlords, just as it requires limiting the power of government at all levels. There need to be limits on the power of the landlord level of government, as well as limits on the power of government at all other levels of government.

http://libertythinkers.com/education/a-landlord-is-a-government-the-libertarian-basis-for-land-rights/

Does the State Resolve or Create Conflict?

Further, of the state, defined as “the ultimate authority to which in a given territory no recourse to a higher authority exists,” Radnitzky states, “that coercion is not a characteristic that is implied in its definition. If (per impossibile) the contract theory were a tenable theory, then the institution would not be coercive and yet qualify as a state.” Certainly, one is free in one’s definitions, but not all definitions are fruitful.

According to Radnitzky’s definition, for instance, the founder-proprietor of a settlement - a gated community - would have to be considered a state, because he decides about membership (inclusion and exclusion) and is the ultimate authority in all settler-conflicts. However, the founder of a community does not exact taxes, but he collects fees, contributions or rents from his follow-settlers. And he does not pass laws (legislates) regarding the property of other, but all settler-property is from the outset subject to his ultimate jurisdiction.

Similarly, it is conceivable that all private land owners in a given territory transfer their land to one and the same person, for instance, in order to so establish the ultimate authority which according to Hobbes is necessary for peace. Thereby, they sink from the rank of an owner to that of a renter. Radnitzky would also term such a proprietor, established in this way, a state. But why? It is contrary to common terminology and hence confusing.

And which purpose would be served, to label something entirely different with the same name: namely an institution, which derives its status as ultimate authority neither from an act of original appropriation nor from a real estate transfer on the part of original appropriators? It is this difference in the genesis of the institution, that lets us speak of (coercive) taxes and tribute and of laws and legislation instead of voluntarily paid rents and accepted community standards and house rules. Why not, in accordance with conventional speech, reserve the term state exclusively for the former (compulsory) institution?

However, regarding this (compulsory) state, then, this must be kept in mind: that its institution is even then ‘unjust’, if (per impossible) it rested on unanimous agreement. Consensus does not guarantee truth. A state-agreement is invalid, because it contradicts the nature of things. At any given point in time (and absent any pre-stabilized harmony), a scarce good can only have one owner. Otherwise, contrary to the very purpose of norms, conflict is generated instead of avoided.

Yet multiple ownership regarding one and the same stock of goods is precisely what state-agreement implies. The consenting parties did not transfer all of their land to the state but consider themselves as free land owners (not renters). Yet at the same time they appoint the state as ultimate decision-maker concerning all territorial conflicts and thus make him the owner of all land. The price that must be paid for this ‘unjust’ - contrary to the nature of things - agreement is permanent conflict.

Conflict is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent.

redbluepill

10-25-2011, 05:27 PM

Does the State Resolve or Create Conflict?

Further, of the state, defined as “the ultimate authority to which in a given territory no recourse to a higher authority exists,” Radnitzky states, “that coercion is not a characteristic that is implied in its definition. If (per impossibile) the contract theory were a tenable theory, then the institution would not be coercive and yet qualify as a state.” Certainly, one is free in one’s definitions, but not all definitions are fruitful.

According to Radnitzky’s definition, for instance, the founder-proprietor of a settlement - a gated community - would have to be considered a state, because he decides about membership (inclusion and exclusion) and is the ultimate authority in all settler-conflicts. However, the founder of a community does not exact taxes, but he collects fees, contributions or rents from his follow-settlers. And he does not pass laws (legislates) regarding the property of other, but all settler-property is from the outset subject to his ultimate jurisdiction.

Similarly, it is conceivable that all private land owners in a given territory transfer their land to one and the same person, for instance, in order to so establish the ultimate authority which according to Hobbes is necessary for peace. Thereby, they sink from the rank of an owner to that of a renter. Radnitzky would also term such a proprietor, established in this way, a state. But why? It is contrary to common terminology and hence confusing.

And which purpose would be served, to label something entirely different with the same name: namely an institution, which derives its status as ultimate authority neither from an act of original appropriation nor from a real estate transfer on the part of original appropriators? It is this difference in the genesis of the institution, that lets us speak of (coercive) taxes and tribute and of laws and legislation instead of voluntarily paid rents and accepted community standards and house rules. Why not, in accordance with conventional speech, reserve the term state exclusively for the former (compulsory) institution?

However, regarding this (compulsory) state, then, this must be kept in mind: that its institution is even then ‘unjust’, if (per impossible) it rested on unanimous agreement. Consensus does not guarantee truth. A state-agreement is invalid, because it contradicts the nature of things. At any given point in time (and absent any pre-stabilized harmony), a scarce good can only have one owner. Otherwise, contrary to the very purpose of norms, conflict is generated instead of avoided.

Yet multiple ownership regarding one and the same stock of goods is precisely what state-agreement implies. The consenting parties did not transfer all of their land to the state but consider themselves as free land owners (not renters). Yet at the same time they appoint the state as ultimate decision-maker concerning all territorial conflicts and thus make him the owner of all land. The price that must be paid for this ‘unjust’ - contrary to the nature of things - agreement is permanent conflict.

Conflict is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent.

Curious how you would compare choosing between several different landlords to choosing between several different small states? Take this into consideration:

The great libertarian lawyer, Lysander Spooner, pointed out that if an individual did not agree to the conditions of a government’s constitution, and did not sign any contract agreeing to that constitution, then he is not obligated to abide by it. Spooner’s argument can be extended, as follows. Suppose an individual is forced to do the following: 1) He is forced to choose among several governments, and to pay taxes to one of them. By extending Spooner’s argument, it is clear that, if that individual did not agree to choose among those governments, then he is not obligated to choose among them, and is not obligated to pay taxes to any of them.

If he is forced to choose among governments, then it cannot be said that he voluntarily “agreed” to pay taxes to the government which claims jurisdiction over the territory he lives in. That “agreement” was made under duress, because he was not allowed the option of being free from paying taxes to any government. If a person has not agreed to be subject to a choice of tax-collecting governments, then he is not obligated to pay taxes to any government. A choice of slavemasters is still slavery.

The same is true if a landless person is forced to choose among landlords (which are really local governments). If he did not agree to be subject to a choice of rent-collecting landlords, then it cannot be said that he voluntarily “agreed” to pay rent (which is really a tax) to the landlord who claims jurisdiction over the territory he lives in. That “agreement” was made under duress, if he was not allowed the option of being free from paying rent to any landlord.

Conza88

10-25-2011, 06:30 PM

Curious how you would compare choosing between several different landlords to choosing between several different small states? Take this into consideration:

The great libertarian lawyer, Lysander Spooner, pointed out that if an individual did not agree to the conditions of a government’s constitution, and did not sign any contract agreeing to that constitution, then he is not obligated to abide by it. Spooner’s argument can be extended, as follows. Suppose an individual is forced to do the following: 1) He is forced to choose among several governments, and to pay taxes to one of them. By extending Spooner’s argument, it is clear that, if that individual did not agree to choose among those governments, then he is not obligated to choose among them, and is not obligated to pay taxes to any of them.

If he is forced to choose among governments, then it cannot be said that he voluntarily “agreed” to pay taxes to the government which claims jurisdiction over the territory he lives in. That “agreement” was made under duress, because he was not allowed the option of being free from paying taxes to any government. If a person has not agreed to be subject to a choice of tax-collecting governments, then he is not obligated to pay taxes to any government. A choice of slavemasters is still slavery.

The same is true if a landless person is forced to choose among landlords (which are really local governments). If he did not agree to be subject to a choice of rent-collecting landlords, then it cannot be said that he voluntarily “agreed” to pay rent (which is really a tax) to the landlord who claims jurisdiction over the territory he lives in. That “agreement” was made under duress, if he was not allowed the option of being free from paying rent to any landlord.

Again, no... they are not 'really local governments'. And you have failed to prove otherwise. Again, how has their institution come about - through original appropriation? Then they are legit, aggression - then no.

Regardless, for that to be the case, your assumption must be that the entire world is privately owned and all land / property has already been homesteaded, including the oceans?

Alright.....

"In fact, what strikes Conway as a counterintuitive implication of the homesteading ethic, and then leads him to reject it, can easily be interpreted quite differently. It is true, as Conway says, that this ethic would allow for the possibility of the entire world’s being homesteaded. What about newcomers in this situation, who own nothing but their physical bodies? Cannot the homesteaders restrict access to their property for these newcomers and would this not be intolerable? I fail to see why. (Empirically, of course, the problem does not exist: if it were not for governments’ restricting access to unowned land, there would still be plenty of empty land around!) These newcomers come into existence somewhere - normally one would think as children born to parents who are owners or renters of land (if they came from Mars, and no one wanted them here, so what?; they assumed a risk in coming, and if they now have to return, tough luck!). If the parents do not provide for the newcomers, they are free to search the world over for employers, sellers, or charitable contributors - and a society ruled by the homesteading ethic would be, as Conway admits, the most prosperous one possible! If they still could not find anyone willing to employ, support, or trade with them, why not ask “What’s wrong with them?” instead of Conway’s feeling sorry for them? Apparently they must be intolerably unpleasant fellows and had better shape up, or they deserve no other treatment. Such, in fact, would be my own intuitive reaction."

~ Hoppe ( http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/econ-ethics-appx.pdf)

nayjevin

10-25-2011, 06:34 PM

At some point a person must make a choice. To retain a high level of freedom of choice, it's the responsibility of individuals who recognize the problem to ensure conditions such that those who would not find traditional societal conditions tenable still have options.

In a free market, a wide variety of conditions would exist, from frontier lands to assisted living. To the extent people are free from state intervention, people are free to ensure those conditions. For instance, those who would wish to be free from property taxation are currently unable to do so.

redbluepill

10-27-2011, 06:44 PM

Again, no... they are not 'really local governments'. And you have failed to prove otherwise.

I have given several qualities of a landlord that are the exactly the same as a government. Maybe you just choose to overlook them.

Again, how has their institution come about - through original appropriation?

How much can one appropriate? Can I stand on a piece of land and claim everything from where I stand to as far as I can see? Is there some labor required? According to Rothbard, one cannot claim land with putting labor into the land first. And although I disagree with his conclusion that land can become property I am quite amazed by how many Paulites believe one can claim ownership of land with simply a piece of paper.

Then they are legit, aggression - then no.

Exclusion of others from the land is aggression.

And Hoppe's conclusion is simply false. If land is so plentiful then why are there land speculators? Why is there poverty? The land issue was such a problem in first world countries like England that Winston Churchill took it on as part of his platform before he became prime minister.

Conza88

10-27-2011, 08:49 PM

I have given several qualities of a landlord that are the exactly the same as a government. Maybe you just choose to overlook them.

You've given jack squat. I didn't overlook anything, you've simply chosen to ignore their differences.. aggression and monopoly being one of them.

How much can one appropriate? Can I stand on a piece of land and claim everything from where I stand to as far as I can see? Is there some labor required? According to Rothbard, one cannot claim land with putting labor into the land first. And although I disagree with his conclusion that land can become property I am quite amazed by how many Paulites believe one can claim ownership of land with simply a piece of paper.

The comparative, ordinal nature of the “better claim” test

Under the homesteading principle, it is not necessary to establish a first appropriation claim that lives up to any absolute standard of evidence of what is “sufficient” to be a valid claim. It is only necessary to establish that one party has the better or best claim when compared with conflicting claims.

This is analogous to Mises’s conception of ordinal valuation. The praxeologically defined act of choice means preferring “this” to “that” in a specific rank order, which carries no implication of any cardinal valuation scale. It is a criterion concerned with relative order only. Any alternative to this ordinal approach would require a claim to meet some devised standard of evidence showing some objectivistically defined degree of linkage. However, the legitimacy of an appropriation claim requires no such technocratic approach.

Assuming a competition among claims, each of which are based on some objective links between claimant and resource (some act of appropriation), the first such claim in time is likely to be superior to any later claim. While it is categorically true that the first claim is superior to any later claim, exceptions are possible when an earlier claim is found to lack evidence of an applicable act of appropriation. A first claim may have been overstated in relation to the “relevant technological unit”[18] of the particular claimed resource. For example, perhaps I invented a radio transmitter and sold radios in a certain area. My device transmits only in a certain spectrum over a specified usable radius, but I thereby attempt to claim ownership of all radio waves in all possible spectra and in all places, even with regard to frequency bands and locations that in no way interfere with my radio operations.

Or say I have built a log cabin in one nook of a valley, and announce, “this entire valley is now mine,” expecting the valley to be socially recognized as mine. Clearly, my objective linkage to the use of the entire valley is probably too weak to hold up to any reasonable counterclaim that others might make to other parts of the valley on the basis of their respective activities. I have never put those areas to use in any way that others could possibly perceive.[19]

The clarification and elucidation of the homesteading principle which many would-be libertarians, and even solidly advanced ones can sometimes get perplexed about. You often see this when inevitably someone searches for an objective absolute standard by which they can suddenly proclaim: “If you homestead this land for X time or degree, you can then claim legitimate ownership of it”. Or if you have “mixed your labor with it in such a way you can now claim Y.” As has been shown, it is not necessary to establish a first appropriation claim that lives up to any absolute standard of evidence of what is “sufficient” to be a valid claim. The above is an excerpt from: “Action-Based Jurisprudence: Praxeological Legal Theory in Relation to Economic Theory, Ethics, and Legal Practice (http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-19.pdf)” by Konrad Graf.

Exclusion of others from the land is aggression.

And Hoppe's conclusion is simply false. If land is so plentiful then why are there land speculators? Why is there poverty? The land issue was such a problem in first world countries like England that Winston Churchill took it on as part of his platform before he became prime minister.

Non sequitur. What is wrong with speculation? Why is there poverty? LOL, a relative term. Define 'poverty' in a non arbitrary way. I dunno, maybe because there is a parasitic entity called the state.. with a monopoly on violence over a given territory. ... If it were not for governments’ restricting access to unowned land, there would still be plenty of empty land around! "Exclusion of others from the land is aggression." (And wtf do you think the previous sentence indicates?)

PaulConventionWV

10-27-2011, 09:56 PM

I think this shows why having a monopoly on law, judicial services, etc. is a bad idea. Nothing wrong with market-prisons in the absence of the State.

So, in other words we should have competing private lawmakers. Yeah, let's see how that works.

Are you kidding? We would have so many different laws that enforcement would be a nightmare, and nobody would agree with anything. I think having a monopoly on law is a good thing as long as everyone is subject to the law, not just citizens.

Private companies making laws is definitely a bad idea. Equally bad is people deciding what rules they want to live by regardless of the rules of others. If you leave law to private institutions, someone will win out, get a monopoly, and establish an authoritarian state. And that's not the only way it could happen.

The ancap dream is retarded.

heavenlyboy34

10-27-2011, 10:04 PM

So, in other words we should have competing private lawmakers. Yeah, let's see how that works.

Are you kidding? We would have so many different laws that enforcement would be a nightmare, and nobody would agree with anything. I think having a monopoly on law is a good thing as long as everyone is subject to the law, not just citizens.

Private companies making laws is definitely a bad idea. Equally bad is people deciding what rules they want to live by regardless of the rules of others. If you leave law to private institutions, someone will win out, get a monopoly, and establish an authoritarian state. And that's not the only way it could happen.

The ancap dream is retarded.
We already have a huge patchwork of "laws" in the form of the rules individual firms set. One firm may allow cell phones, another doesn't. One may allow smoking, another not. etc, ad infinitum. Human action requires discipline (humans cannot function without a certain amount of rational order), and only actors in a given scenario can rationally create rules.

The pure minarchist dream is retarded.

PaulConventionWV

10-27-2011, 10:06 PM

A private prison in an anarcho-capitalist society would not profit from more people being arrested, they would have lower costs from having less people incarcerated. However, if they weren't incarcerating criminals simply to save costs, then people would stop funding it and they would instead fund a prison who was doing a good job of incarcerating criminals without incarcerating innocent people, incarcerating innocent people is really just an undue burden at that point.

Lower costs? Costs for what, taking care of the prisoners? The lack of oversight in an ancap society would then create an incentive to NOT take care of the prisoners and probably treat them like shit.

Another problem is determining who is "innocent" in an ancap society. Who is making the laws? There are so many problems with law enforcement in an ancap society, it's not even funny.

heavenlyboy34

10-27-2011, 10:06 PM

heavenlyboy34

10-27-2011, 10:08 PM

Lower costs? Costs for what, taking care of the prisoners? The lack of oversight in an ancap society would then create an incentive to NOT take care of the prisoners and probably treat them like shit.

Another problem is determining who is "innocent" in an ancap society. Who is making the laws? There are so many problems with law enforcement in an ancap society, it's not even funny.
We have voluminous discussion on these forums about private law and jurisprudence. Your arguments have been thoroughly demolished before. I suspect you're trolling.

Don't feed the troll, y'all
http://www.troll-cave.org/files/nastytroll.jpg

PaulConventionWV

10-27-2011, 10:31 PM

First, make an argument for prisons in the first place. I dare you. Throwing people in cages does not recompensate victims, nor does it rehabilitate inmates (check out recidivism statistics sometime). I agree that private prisons are a bad idea. Justice is missing almost entirely from the government "justice" system.

Do you think private companies don't benefit from the current corrupt system? It's not so. The prisons and everything the "justice enforcers" (as it were) have to be built/paid for by someone. I assure you, corporations and big businesses benefit from every aspect of the government "justice" system.

You're missing one thing. Don't you think people would WANT the dangerous people to be locked up? I bet you're going to give me that bogus line about "people have to evolve" so that they can learn to live in the ancap utopia.

Chasing a unicorn, man.

PaulConventionWV

10-27-2011, 10:33 PM

Why didn't that happen in the 19th century American West (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803)? ;)

I literally lol'd. Is that a serious question? People were busy trying to survive on the new frontier. How many corporations do you think were around at that time?

PaulConventionWV

10-27-2011, 10:55 PM

We already have a huge patchwork of "laws" in the form of the rules individual firms set. One firm may allow cell phones, another doesn't. One may allow smoking, another not. etc, ad infinitum. Human action requires discipline (humans cannot function without a certain amount of rational order), and only actors in a given scenario can rationally create rules.

The pure minarchist dream is retarded.

That is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever seen. Private companies have rules, but this is nothing like the actual law which helps settle disputes. That is far different. I agree human action requires discipline. You said nothing of substance and concluded "the pure minarchist dream is retarded." That was basically just you having verbal diahrrea. I actually said something of substance before making my claim about ancap.

PaulConventionWV

10-27-2011, 10:59 PM

We have voluminous discussion on these forums about private law and jurisprudence. Your arguments have been thoroughly demolished before. I suspect you're trolling.

Don't feed the troll, y'all
http://www.troll-cave.org/files/nastytroll.jpg

You haven't demolished my arguments. It must be very easy for you to simply lie and then call me a troll to avoid serious discussion. As much as you believe in non-agression, do you also believe in not making accusations unless you have substantiation? What a hypocrite.

What do you call someone who makes claims about others in the hopes of discrediting them on grounds you know are doubtful? A liar, for one.

You're apparently not highly evolved enough to live in your perfect utopian, morally upright world.

redbluepill

10-28-2011, 05:21 PM

You've given jack squat. I didn't overlook anything, you've simply chosen to ignore their differences.. aggression and monopoly being one of them.

I’ll post the similarities again: “A landowner controls a territory. A landowner collects taxes (rent). Also, they establish laws on their land.”

As for your ‘differences’, there is indeed a land monopoly problem just as there is a government monopoly problem. Even the anti-Georgist Murray Rothbard acknowledged this in The Ethics of Liberty: “Land monopoly is far more widespread in the modern world than most people—especially most Americans—believe. In the undeveloped world, especially in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, feudal landholding is a crucial social and economic problem—with or without quasi-serf impositions on the persons of the peasantry.”

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eleven.asp

Libertarian Benjamin Tucker recognized land as one of the four monopolies that violate a true free market (the others being money, tariffs, and patents).

The comparative, ordinal nature of the “better claim” test

Under the homesteading principle, it is not necessary to establish a first appropriation claim that lives up to any absolute standard of evidence of what is “sufficient” to be a valid claim. It is only necessary to establish that one party has the better or best claim when compared with conflicting claims.

This is analogous to Mises’s conception of ordinal valuation. The praxeologically defined act of choice means preferring “this” to “that” in a specific rank order, which carries no implication of any cardinal valuation scale. It is a criterion concerned with relative order only. Any alternative to this ordinal approach would require a claim to meet some devised standard of evidence showing some objectivistically defined degree of linkage. However, the legitimacy of an appropriation claim requires no such technocratic approach.

Assuming a competition among claims, each of which are based on some objective links between claimant and resource (some act of appropriation), the first such claim in time is likely to be superior to any later claim. While it is categorically true that the first claim is superior to any later claim, exceptions are possible when an earlier claim is found to lack evidence of an applicable act of appropriation. A first claim may have been overstated in relation to the “relevant technological unit”[18] of the particular claimed resource. For example, perhaps I invented a radio transmitter and sold radios in a certain area. My device transmits only in a certain spectrum over a specified usable radius, but I thereby attempt to claim ownership of all radio waves in all possible spectra and in all places, even with regard to frequency bands and locations that in no way interfere with my radio operations.

Or say I have built a log cabin in one nook of a valley, and announce, “this entire valley is now mine,” expecting the valley to be socially recognized as mine. Clearly, my objective linkage to the use of the entire valley is probably too weak to hold up to any reasonable counterclaim that others might make to other parts of the valley on the basis of their respective activities. I have never put those areas to use in any way that others could possibly perceive.[19]

The clarification and elucidation of the homesteading principle which many would-be libertarians, and even solidly advanced ones can sometimes get perplexed about. You often see this when inevitably someone searches for an objective absolute standard by which they can suddenly proclaim: “If you homestead this land for X time or degree, you can then claim legitimate ownership of it”. Or if you have “mixed your labor with it in such a way you can now claim Y.” As has been shown, it is not necessary to establish a first appropriation claim that lives up to any absolute standard of evidence of what is “sufficient” to be a valid claim. The above is an excerpt from: “Action-Based Jurisprudence: Praxeological Legal Theory in Relation to Economic Theory, Ethics, and Legal Practice” by Konrad Graf.

Royal libertarians recognize land titles even if the owner has done nothing to work the land. And if that log cabin owner was wealthy enough to pay for some mercenaries to guard his valley they would say he’s just in protecting his ‘property’.

What is wrong with speculation?

Land speculators are a major cause of depressions http://www.progress.org/fold43.htm
Individuals who buy land with only the intent to watch the value go up are unproductive members of society.

Why is there poverty? LOL, a relative term.

You know what it is when it happens to you.

Define 'poverty' in a non arbitrary way.

A state where one cannot provide basic needs for themselves and/or their family. Needs like food, shelter, and clothing. My fiancé went through it. She ate butter to survive and went some winters without a coat. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, most people who care about poverty look to the wrong ‘solutions’ while most libertarians don’t address the problem often enough.

I dunno, maybe because there is a parasitic entity called the state.. with a monopoly on violence over a given territory. ..

Plus the government grants monopolies to the powerful.

If it were not for governments’ restricting access to unowned land, there would still be plenty of empty land around!

There certainly is enough land for everyone! Unfortunately, you get people who take more than enough. Why do you think people throughout history have worked for poor wages and under poor conditions? Nearly all the sustainable land is controlled by a government, a corporation, or an individual landlord.