In a libertarian paradise what;s to stop me from buying a large piece of land and taxing people on it to fund public...

In a libertarian paradise what;s to stop me from buying a large piece of land and taxing people on it to fund public services such as health and education, plumbing, roads police and a military?

Well you would have no way of enforcing the tax. Assuming you follow the NAP, then you won't be able to tax people. If you don't follow the NAP, then someone just assassinates you and takes your shit.

Anarchy is fucking retarded. Become a constitutionalist.

It's your land and if they enter into a free agreement with you I see no issue with this.

>NAP
Well technically you could kill every damn asshole who doesn't pay taxes by reason that they are trespassing on private property and therefore violating the NAP.

Nothing would stop you. But nothing would stop the people who now have to pay taxes from leaving and renting elsewhere for cheaper costs because their landlords aren't fucking retards.

Well no not if your agreement is framed in much the way user agreements of online games/software have these days.

That is to say upon entry you sign away your rights which are subject to change as they please.

If such an agreement existed and people willingly agreed to it then what is the problem? It wouldn't be profitable since competition would offer the same service cheaper and without some slave agreement.

Are jeep wranglers objectively the shittiest vehicle, on road and off road?

What's to stop me from amassing a 20 million man army and enslaving hundreds of millions of people and the passing of my genes onto millions of people forcibly?

Checkmate statists.

The government.

What you're talking about is ancap

My father has one. It's pretty smooth on the road and comfy 2bh but that flat windshield may as well be a giant fly swatter.

>libertarian
>non-relevant

Literally everything.

First off, yourself. Not even 20 people would follow you in anything, let alone 20 million.

Second, the 20 million.

Third, the billions of people elsewhere.

The difference would be that
(It would be called rent)

Our constitution sucks for being constitutionalist.

He said there was military and police so he does have a means of enforcing it, if they dont pay the rent he can use his funded personal army to kick them out.

You don't know me, prepare for the new plebeian class.

I don't have a reason to own a gun and I don't need one.

Well, if you bought the land those people live on, presumably you could do this.

Literaily, a meme car.

Every 17-25 year old has one and dosen't even go off road.
>muh childhood dream car

You are retarded. Would you move into a gated community that just kills people? Nobody would, you imbecile. The idea is competing private communities is better than a centralized state. The best communities would grow, the retarded ones that geniuses like you envision would disappear. Localization was the entire point of America's system of government. Localization is the path to individual rights. Ancap takes it one step further and eliminates the (((middle man))).

You're the retard, he's basically building a socialist state in a libertarian world which would be perfectly allowed. There is plenty of people who can't survive in a dog eat dog world and need to depend on big brother.

The problem is that, what do you do with the people born on the land years later? And don't say "it doesn't apply" because doing so would invalidate the concept of easement rights, and make society impossible.

This guy gets it, but is slightly wrong. Localization was the entire point of America's system of government. And look how it turned out. The answer to his question is "approximately 1 million people move to the U.S. per year"

See, that's the problem with anarchy. It falls apart at a touch.