I mean performing the same functions as a state but in a voluntary way.

Haven't I now laid claim to the air by making use of it? Or am I required to maintain some sort of building in the airspace to maintain my claim to it?


I need a minimum of 100 feet of vertical use of my land to build my office building.

In other words, the minimum dimensions I need to use my property depend on what I plan to use my property for.

But anyone is free to compete with this road owner if they can do a better job.

I don't think such monopolies would be broken by competitors, but by the people they serve or the inviability of their price policies, if they take it to the extreme.

Serving more people on their raods (more business, more traders, etc) is in the interest of road owners. Cost of transportatin is an important economic factor, if it is too high, a lot of economic activities would relocate, which is generally not in the interest of the road owner.

Which brings me back to my original point: how are they going to compete, if a competing road network would, by necessity, have to criss-cross the existing one, and that road network's owner could simply deny permission for the competing roads to cross his own.

Home made helicopter FTW

Well, first of all we have the whole debate over whether the state is legitimate or just one of those voluntary governments, but I don't want to turn the thread into that.

The second is the consequentialist argument, which is what I'm interested in here and is what the Wal-Mart analogy refers to. Suppose that in the event of the abolition of the state, people will join voluntary governments that run exactly like the state does, warts and all, or perhaps slightly better by most reasonable standards. However, there would be significant costs in establishing all these new voluntary governments. Thus, if you're a consequentialist who doesn't believe the state is that inefficient, you wouldn't support its abolition.

How am I going to compete with tiger woods when there's no way I could ever hit a 350 yard tee shot? Do you think you are entitled to cheap roads? Who is obligated to provide them for you?

Certainly the owner of a road monopoly would indeed hurt himself in the long run by charging too high a fee, I agree with you on this point. But suppose he charges only a slightly higher fee than would otherwise exist in the presence of competition: it is unlikely to cause an economic downturn that would adversely affect him in the long run, but at the same time, he is effectively exploiting his local monopoly to make more money than he would otherwise be able to make were free-market competition possible. Or, alternately, maybe he just price-gouges in the short term and retires after the town's economy dries up.

I'm not arguing that the roads in AC-land would degenerate into some sort of monopoly doomsday scenario, just that I don't see a way for the free market to correct for some degree of price-gouging or other economic exploitation.

Seriously? If he builds roads OVER my property he is going to be block out sunlight, I'm pretty sure this could have a serious detriment to my property in any given number of scenarios.

Sure, what's the problem?

It I would say it is probably wise to gain some sort of recognizable claim of title over it to avoid any potential disputes should the situation ever arise, but I don't think you have to build a building in the airspace to maintain it any more than you have to cover every square inch of your yard with a building to maintain proper claim.


Ok, and the problem is....?

I loled

You're still mis-using the definition of "monopoly". Tiger Woods is the number one golfer in the world because he is the most skilled, not because he has a monopoly. Again, if another golfer were to come along who were more skilled, they would be perfectly able to take the crown from Tiger. This isn't a difficult point; don't you guys always argue that Microsoft/Wal-Mart don't have monopolies for the exact reason that it's always possible for a better business to out-compete them and take their market share?

I think that, in the absence of a public road system, I'm entitled to a competitive free-market on private roads which will keep prices in check. What I'm arguing is that the nature of a road system makes local free-market competition impossible once a monopoly becomes established.

Anyway, I'm off to bed, I'll return to this thread tomorrow.

Umm if you can demonstrate how this causes damage to your property you have proper claim to recompensation.

It is the same sort of deal if I have a bunch of cows that get out and damage my neighbors property. He has the right to seek recompensation for damages incurred.

Okay, I lied, one more post.

The problem is that you're now building an overpass through airspace I have laid claim to.


There's a giant overpass going through where I want the third floor to be.

You missed the last part of my question. Who is obligated to provide you with this thing that you are entitled to? And why?

Ok, now prove that you laid claim to it. Were you the original homesteader of that airspace? Did you voluntarily acquire the title to that airspace through a previous legitimate owner?

Or by laid claim, do you really mean you just threw your hands in the air, pointed, and said "That shit is MINE!"

My neighbor's yard is where I want the east end of my giant pool to be....

Which definition?

Because homesteading is sooo much more than that.

Also, ban for circumventing censors imo.

Umm actually yes it is.

You must need to brush up on you Locke.

This whole argument is getting away from the fact that once an area is developed around an existing road system you can't just come in and put in new roads to compete with the existing ones.

Yeah but overpasses, jetpacks, helicopters, beam-me-up tech. All would be cheap and accessible without the state.

And once I build my grocery store, someone just can't come in a put in new grocery stores to compete with me wherever they want for the same reason, either.

There's an obvious difference in the crossing problem that does not apply to grocery stores. Now, you've provided specific responses to that problem which is good, but saying that these two are analogous is silly. A grocery store doesn't need to be built over the top of another grocery store in order to compete with it, with all the murky property rights issues that result.

People can't build overpasses? Seriously, I am failing to see the "crossing" problem as much of a problem.

As long as the overpass doesn't damage or interfere with the property rights of others there is absolutely no problem, unless you automatically assume something pretty silly like ad coelum rule.