How do libertarians solve this problem?
>buy land around a residential area
>shoot anyone who wants to get over your land unless they give you one million bux
>effectively block all traffic
Also as a related question, how high into airspace goes the libertarian definition of ''land''? It's not like we can just build bridges two feet above other people's land.
Despite the low effort of this thread, it's not actually a shill-thread. Serious responses only please.
everyone inside automatically becomes your economic class slave
If you buy land i the way in the picture you are obligated by law to provide entrance to the town inhabitants
The free market will fix it.
This sounds reasonable desu
Then you don't get into town faggot
Youu don't own streets
Okay I'll just charge them $10,000 a time for entry/exit and have my army of child soldiers shoot anyone who refuses to pay :^)
>law
Libertarians don't do that. As somebody would have to uphold the law, making them not really Libertarian.
Because libertarianism doesn't mean that there are no longer laws. What is stopping the government from doing that right now?
I would sell them helicopters
The town folks simply murder you you fucking moron.
It's not about where there are laws or not, it's about being able to enforce them.
>obligated by law
DO YOU WANT SHOT!?!?!!
we will put a bullet in the skulls of little pedantic fuckwits like you two before we implement our libertarianism. so little jew pooftas trying to gouge people for walking over dirt wont be an issue.
Kill him expand town
They shoot you for being a civilization fucking tyrant.
Solves itself again.
Not if I launch my ICBM at your house first fag
Dig underneath
>law
REEEEE DO YOU SUPPORT THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST ME?
>drool cup retards still think libertarianism is anarchy
I thought land was sold in cubic acres. I mean you could do that in a circular way but around a town? You need to be rich as fuck to afford that much land.
I'm not a lolbertarian, but doesn't doing that infringe on another'sr freedom by limiting them to a confined space, which basically breaks the NAP?
Why do retards always bring up the most retarded arguments or propositions ever? We will cross that bridge once we get to it. You don't seem to ask the same retarded questions of national socialism
>gas all Jews and non whites
>militarized populace must now transition from gas the kikes race war now to civilization
>gas all Jews and no whites
>yeah but Italians are not white
>gas all Italians
>Yeah but muh eternal anglo
>gas all anglos
>ad nauseum
>gas all Jews and no whites
>economy goes to shit because of socialism and no war to drive the people to a cause.
Entrance for a million dollars?
>a troll billionaire buys all land around Manhattan and makes travel shit expensive
>''oh doges we need to relocate everything from Manhattan now''
What if you do own a short section of all streets?
Laws would probably stop goverment from doing that. And ultimately violence. I don't know abut US laws, but around here you're not allowed to just kill people for trespassing, unlike in libertarian ideal states from what I've understood.
the people in the town are idiots for not contesting my land purchases
or to put it a more realistic way, the people in the town would undermine me before I complete my encirclement
They'd fucking lynch you. If you held an entire town hostage under the presumption that they would all hold true to the NAP you would last about a day before you got gunned down in your own house by an angry mob.
And a town would have money to pay for private police/protection/military who would have market pressure on them to defend the towns interests, or else their other clients would lose faith in their ability to adequately protect them.
So it would basically become a good old fashioned range war like the Hatfields and McCoys.
>paying a private gang of thugs to drown a homeless hobo who killed and ate a feral goat that wandered into your property.
Libertarians and land are like mad max. Sure you can demand money to cross your land or fight off a horde of angry towns people who are going to decapitate body parts off you, put them in a blender and force you to drink them
as you starve to death in a converted chook shed
Basically this. Libertarians think you should be free to do whatever you want unless it infringes on other people's liberties
Hovercrafts. You don't need to set foot on his land.
Libertarianism is for children and man-children.
>England launching anything other than drug fucked backpackers with no work ethic
well they wouldn't be able to go anywhere anyway because there wouldn't be any roads
>poisons the well by referring to an ancap problem as libertarian problem
t. jew
That's why we would grow food on the land. The child solders will be from Africa and they will be paid in watermelon
Libertarianism is a meme. Ethnonationalism is the true redpill. What have you done for your people today?
>but what if one man literally bought the entire world hahah libertarians btfo
Dig underneath it. But then is the question how deep goes the soil one can own?
Just break the nap and shoot the other guy
>who is rothschild?
I think 2 miles is fair
>libertarian
>land you bought
nigga you dumb
>neighbor fires off his howitzer at the land of someone whose child slave wandered onto his property, crushing grass underfoot and thus violating the NAP
>the shock-waves of his artillery fire softly shake a vase inside my home, thus violating the NAP
>in retaliation, I gun him down in a strafing run with the thunderbolt I bought from Target
>libertarians actually desire this
Cubes makes more sense than area, I guess. But you could still become a royal pain in the ass by buying a narrow but long line of cubes between two towns, without a massive price, I'd imagine.
Well what if you're just a low level asshole and leave a non-viable alternative for people, or buy land in the form of labyrinth to force people to take long routes? The line has to be drawn somewhere?
I'm retard for asking a valid question? Strawmans are not arguments, mate. Libertarians seem to value logical consistencey a lot so these ''what if'' scenarios need to be answered.
it doesn't matter
breaking the NAP doesn't destroy a stateless society
>haha you have to break the NAP to do this!! libertarians btfo!!
isn't actually an argument, just like how "don't go and kill people in the street" is a principle that we ought to follow, but it's possible to come up with a scenario in which it's moral to kill someone in the street
>we will put a bullet in the skulls of little pedantic fuckwits like you
NAP VIOLATED
There isn't really an answer. The reply is "how could this possibly happen?". Libertarians and ancaps get blasted with so many "what if [x]?" questions that don't get asked with equal ridiculousness to NatSocs, Conservatives, Fascists, etc.
What if the government with ultimate power just lays siege to your house and then shoots you?
state btfo
You can't actually buy that land nor can you defend it, idiot.
The NAP permits peaceful movement of individuals.
This problem is not unknown in the law, and there are allowances for ingress and egress over private property.
There is also eminent domain. Sorry, Shlomo.
Honestly, these arguments are a bit hyperbole. I very much doubt we will ever see a fully libertarian society that's full on Mad Max/AnCap dream. Most libertarians just want to remove regulations and the government's involvement in stupid stuff because the government is very inefficient.
So there would be someone to uphold the law in a libertarian society, one end of the spectrum rarely completely overshadows the other's.
Explain roads. Checkmate
Townspeople would likely come to the conclusion that there must be at least two routes out of a town and not let you purchase the land like that in the first place, or do so under the condition you allow it to be bisected by roads.
Anyone that intentionally does this is clearly identifying themselves as a danger to society. In that case the townspeople would be obligated to remove that threat.
Your shitty ethical dilemma is trespassing on my computer screen thereby violating the NAP. Prepare to receive a salvo of recreational nukes.
t. unironic natsoc
I understand that the what if's need to be answered, but the problem is that most people disregard the whole ideology just because "muh roads" or "a leaf from a tree on your property fell on mine, so I'll use tactical nukes on yours"
These same standards are never applied to any other ideology.
Now, I'll give your argument a fair chance.
The town (is the town a legal nation state/city state? Why identify that as a town?) would agree to pay a fee for crossing your property lines, if the fee is too large or you refuse the people will simply ignore the "law" and trespass your stupid property lines, if you are willing to defend it and shoot at the people, the people will retaliate because at this point, they are all under the rule of a tyrannical ruler who will not allow them free passage into the outside of their own town. You will be either promptly removed or the people will succumb and you'll rule them, i guess...
>lolbertarians
completely retarded
>Libertarians and ancaps get blasted with so many "what if [x]?" questions that don't get asked with equal ridiculousness to NatSocs, Conservatives, Fascists, etc.
That's because those ideologies aren't retarded enough that it necessitates exploring hundreds of hypotheticals that are possible by libertarianism's autistic shoddiness.
A decent chunk of Roman built roads were actually built by private individuals.
b-but user what if literally everybody in the world colluded to not let you have food and then you died libertarians btfo
>What if you do own a short section of all streets
U don't because the city was there before it was yout land, else there would be no city
Streets are government property and if not they could of become it by laws
Sorry, if your land is the only/less burdensome means of access to another property, then you have to allow access..
So the NAP is allowed to be broken in some circumstances and it's only an ideal? When are we allowed to break the NAP?
Non-libertarians accept the use of force in certain scenarios though. Obviously not the same for everyone of them, so I can't argue for them. I also don't support a goverment having the right to break into my house and shoot me, so I don't have to defend that idea.
What if you just built a wall on your plot, sure you wouldn't be allowed to shoot people but regular people would soon get tired climbing over your wall with ladders.
what if the state gradually grows in power regardless of its restraints because its restraints are interpreted and applied by the state itself and then it acts based on contraints and incentives just like every other manned entity that has ever existed and then it sells out the functions of state coercion to the highest bidder and grows into a massive conglomeration of intertwined corporation-state power and subverts the native culture of its populace against their wills through their own tax money in a way that destroys resources and wouldn't occur in a market environment and does so in order to have more big-government votes and entry barriers into the protected industries that lobby the most
>what is right of easement
I don't support somebody's "right" to "buy" all of the atoms that surround my body and thus I just die unless I submit to his commands, either, so I don't have to defend that idea. Nobody defends this idea and thus wouldn't subscribe to court services of courts that did.
DELET THIS
Read everything Walter Block has ever written. You can build above or below the land. It's unreasonable to say that a landowner owns down to the core of the earth and up into the atmosphere.
where do you think this ends? obviously you can't build 1mm over the land, and can't build, for example, a bridge over a river in a way that would block the purpose of the property (as in, ships would no longer be able to go down the river as the bridge acts as obstruction).
i suppose all of these would be deliberated by the most respected arbiters of property rights in the most respected courts on a case-by-case basis
By trapping them you would be denying supplies into their town to sustain them. It could be considered violating the NAP and then they could shoot you and/or use the threat of force to negotiate a communal path. Of course the communal path would need to be upkept so they'd need to create some sort of committee in charge of collecting a small due from all the residents on some fixed time scale, then using it to hire contractors. And of course the path would need to be protected from marauders so there'd need to be some dues collected to pay for defense. And a committee of this size would need organization, so there would have to be some people who'd job it was to simply rule over the committee; dues would need to be collected to pay their salary.
At this point you'd realize lolbertardianism is a meme ideology that breaks down and the natural order of things is to have some sort of government or ruling body. Humans cannot be trusted to make the right decisions and the right decisions must be forced on them.
Private property is a spook, you can only control something you can defend
I'm assuming you're not a democratic individual, then?
How do humans know which totalitarian regime to support when they're so stupid?
How does the totalitarian know how stupid each individual is and therefore give people the correct amount of freedom?
if you can defend it with computer controlled gun turrets then is it still a spook?
you really don't get it. if a "statis" doesn't support something the government is doing he will actively try to do something to change it. That makes sense and it help us live in a world where fucked up things happen less because people try to stop it.
now what ancap people are say is if it does not violate the NAP than anything goes and we will not try to stop the actions of other people no matter what they do and the effect can can have.
What you get is millions of threads of people pointing out every loophole in the NAP system
that's just called "being a dick" and nobody will take it seriously
what a retarded thought experiment that will never ever be relevant in reality
if you claim it and you can defend it, it's yours.
So the goverment owns, builds and maintains roads? Not all libertarianists think that way what I know of.
That's just making an absurd strawman of the original question. Buying land is obviously a very real thing, while buying atoms is unheard of. You could also buy land and build on them in a labyrinth-pattern just to obstruct the way of others and make commuting etc. unbearable.
So you can build bridges over people's apartments? It'd be terrible having a giant motorway bridge built over your house. How far above and below does the ownership of land go? Is the sky-cubics no-man's-land?
Isn't this why we have eminent domain?
If I built a farm and then sold it and starved to death that would be my own fault. If you sell a person a ring around your property you are at fault.
>people wouldn't be dicks, right
...
do you own every property around your land?
that's stupid OP. town and city planning will prevent your plans to even buy such lands.
Calling something a spook isn't an argument. Anarcho-capitalism literally agrees that you can only hold on to what can be defended by your means.
That's not what ancaps say and that's not what statists do.
Anarcho-capitalists can see an bad action without demanding that it be outlawed, due to a mistrust of the state.
It doesn't matter if a "statist" attempts to vote everything better. It doesn't work. That's not how government works and fucked up things just happen more, not less.
Reply to my arbitrary "what if [x]" scenario so I can throw another one at you without any reason as to how or why my scenario could actually occur.
this guy has it close.
There are laws like this already for providing access to public areas and old cemeteries which are on private property.
You can't obstruct access to public area or cemeteries. Also there are a lot of houses which have shared driveway entrances.
>Nobody defends this idea and thus wouldn't subscribe to court services of courts that did.
If a bridge blocked ships then that would be a clear violation of what is the owner's legitimate property. The reason it's unreasonable to say a property owner owns up and down indefinitely is that they've in no way mixed their labor with the sky or ground, unless the OP's example is some sort of mining/rocket launching combo operation.
besiege the town
That's the cruel irony. Even with a monarchy you're hoping that the one person groomed from birth will be able to lead. They'll be better than any elected politician because they own the land and want it to prosper so they can pass it down to their children, but they're still human. There's no way to win until we get a benevolent AI.
>Not all libertarianists think that way what I know of.
That's because there's varying degrees of libertarianism just like there are varying degrees of authoritarianism and same applies to left and right. As much as I like AnCap I know it's never going to happen and the best we would ever get is Minarchism. But there are other people who think we should keep things like police/laws/government etc. But want less big government and for them to stop interfering in stupid crap.
shaping your property like that is a violation of the NAP
i forgot about Lockean mixing of labour as a barometer of homesteading, whoops. Thanks.
>Anarcho-capitalists can see an bad action without demanding that it be outlawed
and if is not outlawed then it is not stopped. Hence all threads about NAP loopholes such as buying land around a person and forcing them to starve.
The fact is ancaps actually support this type of behavior and would do nothing to stop it.
While reasonable people think it should be outlawed and that bringing together a consensus of law to stop atrocities is will improve the quality of life not reduce it.
straight up stupid, you wouldn't be able to enforce this unless you had some kind of mafia type shit set up to keep everyone in line, you alone would definitely get murdered by an angry mob or some hired mercenaries
How could this possible happen? Don't you know everybody is generally good at heart. Nobody would ever sell their property if they saw this happening because its ethical and never in the history of the world has anyone ever dropped their ethics for the purpose of profit.
>solve problem that doesn't exist in the real world
I'm fine for each city in the entire world having a hereditary monarch, if you are willing to settle there.
O N E
How do statist solve this problem?
>government claims a residential area
>imprison anyone who wants to live on your land unless they give you one million bux
>effectively block all traffic, unless you pay for a permit
What are you on about? It's bad if people use resources to make useless things. This is stopped by the market. We don't need to outlaw supermarkets that sell rotten food for this reason.