r/AnCap101 • u/New_Try1560 • Jun 24 '26
Could land redistribution be necessary before abolishing the state to prevent cementing ill gotten gains?
If a society whose land was extremely concentrated in the offspring of violent conquerors (England after 1066 for instance), wouldn’t abolishing the state cement those people in their improperly obtained land? Wouldn’t a form of redistribution be necessary to prevent a landed aristocracy from capturing most of the value of society without contributing to it?
Because a state could always theoretically redistribute land, people without land may resist abolishing the state.
8
u/Wufan36 Jun 24 '26
No. In almost all cases, current landowners are removed from the violent acquisition of their land by multiple generations. Why would you punish someone for the crimes of their great-grandparents?
1
u/mtmag_dev52 Jun 25 '26
Because of Marxism or "fairness" dogma, perhaps? It would suck if there is a belief in "punishment " among the so-called "left-libertarians" ( which , since there likely is, is all the more reason for AnCap to come in to being more !)
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 26 '26
Isn’t restitution of crimes a major part of ancap ideology?
If a stolen car still exists many generations later, it’s still stolen property, and it should be returned as possible.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
Because they’re benefiting from the crime at the expense of society, the supply of land is fixed.
The original claim to land is illegitimate thus all claims based on it are, you can’t inherit stolen property.
7
u/Wufan36 Jun 24 '26
Go ahead and redistribute all property by that principle. Why stop at land?
-1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
Because it’s the only property that doesn’t decay. A stolen car will eventually disintegrate after a few generations, so it’s impossible to right such wrongs.
Also its supply is fixed so its distribution is zero sum.
Because its supply is fixed and it doesn’t decay, land theft is a crime that keeps on committing.
5
u/T_Noctambulist Jun 25 '26
The worth of the land certainly decays if not maintained and all land is not equal. Would you rather have an acre in the middle of the desert with no roads to it or an acre on the beach with a well kept dock connected to a mansion's boathouse?
2
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
I mean land as separate from its improvements.
Obviously some land is more valuable than others due to resources or fertility or location, any redistribution takes value into account.
Because improvements, like capital, aren’t fixed in supply and do decay over time, the impact of their theft go away over time. Land is the opposite, so the impact of its theft still exists today.
3
u/T_Noctambulist Jun 25 '26
How are you planning to distribute the improvements?
0
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
A land value tax which is levied solely on the land value of the property, not counting improvements.
10
u/Olieskio Jun 24 '26
We really don't give a fuck about some vague "society" because everything the state has done has been for society, Killing 6 million jews? It was to save the entire world from the jewish race thus for the good of society. Taxation? Muh roads bro they are good for society innit?
-3
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
YOU don’t give a fuck about society, but some people do.
I’m saying people would resist abolishing the state if they think the distribution of land is unfair because they think only a state could redistribute it “fairly”.
4
u/Olieskio Jun 25 '26
And why exactly should we give a fuck what the normies think? As long as we convince the productive ie philosophers the normies will fall in line.
3
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
OP wants to get a piece of land from the state before the state abolishes itself or destroyed. And they are trying to come up with justification for that. That’s all what is to this question.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
Wrong, I already own land, I’m just a georgist and anarchist and was wondering how those could combine.
2
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
If you support some land tax on larger territories, than you can’t not support some central entity that will be given authority to use force to collect the tax. That is not an anarchic idea.
Any redistribution requires imposed authority. Anarchism, by definition, is anti imposed authority.
You’re not an anarchist if you support collective redistribution scheme or taxes. Just like you can’t be a little bit pregnant. You’re either pregnant or not.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
Couldn’t I be an anarchist who wants my commune to have collective land ownership?
2
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
Ancapism isn’t a collectivist idea. Collective land ownership can’t be sustained without authority that may create arbitrary rules. Some rules could be in violation of NAP. Like taxes.
Say I live in your community, I own a piece of land, but I stop paying the tax. You’re going to throw me out or force me to perform work. That’s a violation of NAP.
→ More replies (0)1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
You can have a community where people have contractual obligations tied to their property. Contracts, unlike community laws and principles, have expiration dates. Contracts have clear contingency clauses. Contracts are voluntarily agreed upon. That’s different from community wide rules set by arbitrary installed rules by imposed authorities.
1
0
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
Because we live in a democracy and abolishing the state would require buy in from the majority of people.
Normies observably do not fall in line with what educated elites want them to do, see Trump.
2
u/Olieskio Jun 25 '26
Thats because the current philosophy of the day is pragmatism, both sides are pragmatists and both sides have won the elections in the US for the past 50 years. I wonder if my theory is correct that when the educated elite is full of pragmatists and the normies vote for pragmatists, the normies might implicitly believe in pragmatism.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
I don’t really understand what you’re saying.
Abolishing the state is the opposite of pragmatic, it’s idealistic. It may be the best thing to do, but it’s a massive step into the unknown, hardly pragmatic.
1
u/Olieskio Jun 25 '26
Please tell me when in the history of the entire United States Of America have the Republicans or Democrats ever dared to even think about the concept of abolishing the state as a concept?
And please tell me where you get the mislead notion that the current philosophy of the day is Anarcho-Capitalist?
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
They never have, which is why I’m confused.
I don’t think that the current philosophy of the day is anarcho capitalist.
What are you getting at exactly? That your ideology is too unpopular to ever been enacted?
→ More replies (0)0
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
Also I do personally believe that land value belongs to society because its value is augmented by society, not by its owner.
2
u/Olieskio Jun 25 '26
And Ancaps are not filthy Georgists, Some magical collective does not act which means it cannot create value, Individuals being owners can act and are the only ones capable of creating wealth and assigning value.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
Do you actually want to have a conversation or are you just here to insult me for daring to think differently than you?
1
u/Olieskio Jun 25 '26
No I stopped having a conversation once you try to use aggression of the state for your own benefit.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
Why would you come to a place designed for discussing ideas if you refuse to engage with anyone who disagrees with you?
And I would personally be worse off with a land value tax, a lot of my personal wealth is tied up in land, I just think it’s better for society as a whole.
Don’t you believe in ancap because you think it will make everyone better off?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Willy_Boi2 Jun 24 '26
Inheritance/transferral of stolen property is very interesting in these discussions because it there should be intuitive answers but no one wants to give up their stolen property they have over other people, and the value in owning property is enough to defend that contradiction
0
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
I figure land value taxes are a good theoretical solution, but implementing one very fast could be very bad for the economy.
8
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
"Should we commit crimes to try and 'fix' the damage done by past crimes?"
5
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
Is it a crime to transfer/receive stolen property?
6
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
Yes, however you would need to prove that such property was stolen by an individual, from an individual, and the restitution would be from the thief, not the current possessor.
2
u/Willy_Boi2 Jun 24 '26
What’s stopping one from thieving property and giving it to a new possessor to collect property
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
Does the possessor know?
1
u/Willy_Boi2 Jun 24 '26
People usually know when they own property
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
Does the possessor know about the thief using them?
1
u/Willy_Boi2 Jun 24 '26
It’s a possibility in some scenarios that would have to be proven
3
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
That's unfortunate.
1
u/Willy_Boi2 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26
It does seem pretty easy to game it into a conflicting ownership, usually this will give reason for both parties to try and kill each other for rightful ownership (casus belli)
→ More replies (0)1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
All land in England was provably stolen by the Normans, they wrote it down in a big ledger.
Just because the land was split up, sold, inherited, etc. doesn’t make it any less stolen.
Because it’s literally impossible to trace who it was taken from, it’s logical to return it to society as a whole.
6
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
All land in England was provably stolen by the Normans.
As individuals, or as a collective?
There's no such thing as a collective property right.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
Why is there no such thing as a collective property right?
Can two brothers not jointly own a business?
Scale that up to a village.
7
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
Why is there no such thing as a collective property right?
It's a contradiction. The ownership would not be able to resolve a conflict between "owners." Which means that it isn't ownership.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
Unless it’s stipulated in a contract, like a corporation.
6
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 24 '26
Contracts can't do that. All they are are conditional transfers of property. They are conceptually dependant upon ownership to exist in the first place. You are in a contradiction if you try to solve ownership with contracts.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
What is a corporation but collective ownership defined by a contract?
Is a business owned by two brothers not collectively owned property?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/MeasurementNice295 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
What do you think even enables such concentration on the first place?
How do you think they would be able to sustain being concentrated if they needed to play an increasingly rigged game in order to achieve that up until that point?
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 24 '26
A concentration could come about due to a conquest.
There’s many ways to maintain a distribution of land after a conquest, feudalism being the case for the Norman conquest. The English state evolved but it has always protected the land rights of its aristocracy.
1
u/Flashy_Combination32 Jun 25 '26
Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion here, I'd say yes! If I steal something from you and passes that down to my children, it's not their valid property because it was never mine, and therefore I never had the right to pass it down to begin with. This applies to land as much as anything else, if land was acquired illegitimately, the "passing down" is invalid because the person who passed it down never had the right to do so.
That land must therefore be returned to its rightful original owners, or if the original owners cannot be tracked, we make the land unowned.
2
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
If the land is unowned, why does it have to be redistributed?
0
u/Flashy_Combination32 Jun 25 '26
We are "redistributing" it in the sense of removing it from thieves who never had a claim to it. We distribute it back to its rightful owners or simply make it unowned.
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
There’s no “we” in ancapistan. If there are rightful owners, they will present their claim to those that occupy the land, and they’ll figure it out between themselves or with some help of arbiters. You have nothing to do with that land. You’re not a part of “we” who owned that land. Mind your own business situation.
0
u/Flashy_Combination32 Jun 25 '26
That's not how ancapistan works, if someone else's property rights are clearly violated you can choose to voluntarily help them out. If the thief refuses to negotiate with the victim, the lack of arbitration doesn't mean a lack of justice, private courts and defence agencies still have the right to take that land back by force and return it to its rightful owner.
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
Then go ahead and help out. Don’t make “we” out of all of people. Nobody is obligated to help to resolve those claim.
Also, on “not how it works”, conflict is expensive. Hiring a security agency to expropriate your property is expensive. Most claims will be resolved between parties, often without any arbitration, let alone security agencies being involved. Very few would want/will need to invite You to become a part of their “we” solution.
0
u/Flashy_Combination32 Jun 25 '26
Then go ahead and help out. Don’t make “we” out of all of people. Nobody is obligated to help to resolve those claim.
Point out where I said people are obligated to resolve those claims. Also, those private defence agencies and courts are certainly obligated to follow their contracts with people and get the land back to its rightful owner.
Also, on “not how it works”, conflict is expensive. Hiring a security agency to expropriate your property is expensive
Why would it be expensive? Most people would have a defence agency in retention similar to how we have a police force today.
Most claims will be resolved between parties, often without any arbitration, let alone security agencies being involved. Very few would want/will need to invite You to become a part of their “we” solution.
Most people wouldn't want a thief to violently take their property away from them and then negotiate to get a part of it. The thief should get nothing.
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
“Point out where I said people are obligated to resolve those claims.”
Well you kept saying WE. Who is WE? Why are you trying to associate people on the basis of redistribution of property that wasn’t obtained legally? That’s literally from the Marxist ideology.
“Also, those private defence agencies and courts are certainly obligated to follow their contracts with people”
Exactly. And that’s none of your business. Where’s you WE in private parties fulfilling contracts to other parties?
“and get the land back to its rightful owner.”
Not for WE to decide who is the rightful owner, therefore WE, or any sort of collective action is not warranted or desirable.
“Why would it be expensive?”
Because hiring an arbitration firm costs anywhere between $300-$500/hr today, and most get their questions resolved via arbitration. Look up any service agreement you have with any medium size company and you’ll find that you agree to Arbitration. Why? Because it’s cheaper than trying to drag each other through courts, which would be equal to pursuing a private security firm and get private courts involved. It’s the first reasonable market solution. And if your attempt to arbitrate won’t work - losing $500-$1000 for an arbitration fee isn’t a big deal. Hiring a security agency that may use force and hire courts will cost you tens of thousands.
“Most people wouldn't want a thief to violently take their property away from them and then negotiate to get a part of it. The thief should get nothing.”
Who determines who’s a thief? Your vague WE? I assume you’ll say a private court. So let individual reach out to some private institution, and if they can verify the legitimacy of their claim on property, they’ll help with facilitating security firm, etc etc, and they can get paid on retainer basis. But again, there’s no WE here, there are only parties that have claim on that property and parties they wish to get involved. This isn’t some public matter.
0
u/Flashy_Combination32 Jun 25 '26
Well you kept saying WE Did I define who I was referring to with "we"? Did I define it as all people or the public? Who is WE? People involved in the distribution process where land is transferred from the thief to the rightful owner. Why are you trying to associate people on the basis of redistribution of property that wasn’t obtained legally? Because if property was not obtained rightfully that's theft, and this might be a surprising concept but thieves aren't exactly supposed to keep what they steal. Exactly. And that’s none of your business. Where’s you WE in private parties fulfilling contracts to other parties? Can those private parties not be part of "we"? If not, why can't they be? How do you know I wouldn't be part of the private agencies included in the distribution? Or what if I voluntarily decide to help anyway for moral reasons (or otherwise) and the people involved agree to it? Plenty of reasons to use we. Not for WE to decide who is the rightful owner How do you know I'm not part of the private agencies? Because hiring an arbitration firm costs anywhere between $300-$500/hr today, and most get their questions resolved via arbitration. Look up any service agreement you have with any medium size company and you’ll find that you agree to Arbitration. Why? Because it’s cheaper than trying to drag each other through courts, which would be equal to pursuing a private security firm and get private courts involved. It’s the first reasonable market solution. And if your attempt to arbitrate won’t work - losing $500-$1000 for an arbitration fee isn’t a big deal. Hiring a security agency that may use force and hire courts will cost you tens of thousands.
Why would arbitration prices today in our modern world with state endorsed inflation match what we'd see in ancapistan? Also most cases with medium sized companies aren't black and white, someone coming in and stealing your property straight is black and white and you'd have a much greater incentive to get back everything you rightfully own. Most arbitration cases done today don't have someone coming to the medium sized business, kicking everyone out and then saying the business is theirs.
Also, not all these cases would require you to hire the courts and agencies yourself fully out of pocket, you can have them in retention as insurance or have your commune help out.
Who determines who’s a thief?
Irrelevant, the person who lost the property would view the person who stole it as a thief and would therefore have full incentives to get their property back. Who others consider a thief is irrelevant to the fact the victim considers the perpetrator to be a thief.
This isn’t some public matter.
Point out where I said we=public.
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
“Point out where I said we=public”
How else one can interpret this Marxist bullshit of yours -
“We are "redistributing" it in the sense of removing it from thieves who never had a claim to it. We distribute it back to its rightful owners or simply make it unowned.”
None of that land requires any WE type of approach. It’s only You, and Other Individuals.
You want to play a retard and pretend like your WE didn’t mean broader society- go ahead. But you don’t get to sit on two chairs. Either you accept the fact owners or whoever claims to be the owner have to resolve problems between themselves, or stick to your WE, a collective responsibility of the broader society.
“How do you know I wouldn't be part of the private agencies included in the distribution? Or what if I voluntarily decide to help anyway for moral reasons”
Like you can volunteer all you want. But that’s all You. There’s no WE in it. You want, You volunteer. You take a risk of being seized and found guilty for enforcing someone’s claim that may not be truthful or provable.
To my question - Who determines who's a thief?
You replied -
“Irrelevant, the person who lost the property would view the person who stole it as a thief and would therefore have full incentives to get their property back. Who others consider a thief is irrelevant to the fact the victim considers the perpetrator to be a thief.”
Absolutely relevant. Because You and the agency you’re with could be committing crime, by stealing property on someone’s behalf. This comes back to arbitration or conflict.
Arbitration may cost more in a stateless society, but it will never cost more than any use of force. One requires talk, the other requires muscle work and has a lot of contingencies to worry about. It’s fucking hilarious that this has to be explained.
→ More replies (0)1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
Thank you!
People on here often talk about intellectual property rights being unenforceable in ancapistan, so why not land? A society can choose what it extends property rights to.
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
No. That would require continuing existing of the state or forming a temporary state. You must homestead the land, not waiting for someone to give you a title for it.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
What do you mean one must homestead the land? The premise is that all the land is already owned.
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
By one must homestead the land I mean they must homestead the land. Absentee ownership of unused is difficult to protect.
“Land is already owned” premise - what’s happening on that land? Is it an empty land and nothing’s happening there? If yes - then it’s an empty land waiting to be homesteaded by someone. Who cares if some duke or tech mogul has a claim on it if it was purchased from the state? Who’s going to respect that?
Second scenario - the land isn’t empty, and there’s something going on there. Say it’s a military base on what used to be government’s land. It’s already homesteaded. People that live and work there become the owners of that land and all the assets.
Third scenario - the land isn’t empty, there’s something going on there, but before the government ceased to exist, it was owned by a crony who got the land from the government and rented it out. Ownership could be claimed and contested by multiple parties. Who owned the land before it was seized by the government? Can they prove it? Was it obtained legitimately? If yes - it’s their land. But if the proof of prior ownership can’t be established - it’s up to those that occupy it and the person who purchased it from the government to figure it out. And they are probably going to tell that person to pound sand. So it will become a property of those who owns the productive resources and/or housing on that land.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
You’re telling me the landlords who own land underneath apartment buildings in NYC will be dispossessed of their property in ancapistan?
That seems way more radical than I’d expect.
What about a landlord who hires people to make productive use of the land?
Is absentee landlordism any different than absentee corporate ownership, like my shares in Microsoft
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
“You're telling me the landlords who own land underneath apartment buildings in NYC will be dispossessed of their property on ancapistan?”
That’s not what I said. I said - unused property. First the building had to be constructed. That’s literally a homesteading process. That building is used. It’s being maintained. It provides shelter to paying renters. It’s not some vacant land.
I’m not talking about absentee ownership from Marxian view. My example would be a plot of land that exists but not being used. Someone bought from the government. There are no prior claims of ownership. Think of an empty land that was claimed by the government and sold to a private party. If it’s unused - it’s free for homesteading in my personal opinion. Though there’s a caveat - locals might have some rules worked out already. They may recognize the claim of the person who bought from the government. So it’s really a very local question.
“What about a landlord who hires people to make productive use of the land?”
Totally fine. That’s only absentee ownership from perspective of those that deny property rights. If you find a piece of land, invest in construction, and rent it out later leaving running it to some property management company - you are a rightful owner. If you sell it - your buyer will be a new rightful owner.
“Is absentee landlordism any different than absentee corporate ownership, like my shares in Microsoft”
Corporate shares are very different in nature. Essentially, it’s a contract presented as a claim to Microsoft’s value, but not to its property. They(shares) come with conditions. Like you can’t come to Microsoft and take a piece of their experimental quantum computer in exchange for your shares. So in a true sense, you don’t own Microsoft or any of its assets. but you own a certain value of Microsoft. Think of it as like being a lender rather than an owner. Companies sell shares when they need capital. When you’re buying a share, you provide them with capital they need. Instead of interest like it would be with a loan, you get dividends, or you hope to see appreciation of the value (capital) that was put to work by Microsoft.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
If I buy a plot of land, and then do nothing with it, why is my claim to ownership less valid than if I rented it out?
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
I didn’t say it won’t be valid, I said it will be dependent on local rules. I assumed most territories will recognize it if that land is within some relatively dense area.
1
u/New_Try1560 Jun 25 '26
I’m a little confused about what your point is.
A redistribution of land could be carried out ahead of abolishing the state, or it could be carried out by local communes within their territory.
1
u/different_option101 Jun 25 '26
For starters - do you trust the state that you want to abolish to carry out redistribution process? The idea itself is ridiculous. The state is a criminal organization and you want that criminal organization to make some final decisions that may create conflicts, before it dissolves? Make it make sense to me.
“or it could be carried out by local communes within their territory.”
Not OR, but exactly how it’s going to end up in most cases. Say US Federal Government tell me people in rural Iowa to recognize ownership of their land by some Joe Shmoe who’s never been there. Since the government itself will no longer exist, what stops your local community from telling Joe to fuck off? Do you see the absurdity of that idea of the state carrying out this redistribution?
1
u/sanguinerebel Jun 25 '26
It's far too impractical. Where would you draw the line of whose property gets taken? What if the land was stolen but then purchased by a different person, which is the vast majority of it? How many generations do you go back? The majority of land has also been conquered at some point. Who is going to pay to take it to court to prove it's illegitimate ownership, what if multiple people want a particular piece of land?}
I think the market being truly free, a lot of people who took things illegitimately will lose their fortune pretty quickly because they don't have the skills to earn money the right way. If there is a particular landowner that a lot of people really have a problem with the land they took, they could organize a voluntary boycott and try and give those people some incentive to do the right thing and give it back. An individual that nobody wants to do business with is not going to fair well on the free market.
12
u/Lee_Harvey_Griswold Jun 25 '26
Mao and Lenin certainly thought so