Owning land and conditional residence (for ACs)

[foal]

Thought experiment:

Say I buy up a bunch of farmland. I let people live on it as long as they agree to follow a set of rules or "laws" that I've come up with and pay me a certain percentage of their profits or "taxes". With the money I make off of this I hire a security force or "police force" to enforce my set of rules and to make sure people pay me what they owe me. Other rich individuals see this as a good idea and start doing similar things. A group of land owners and myself decide to pool together and join forces to create a single company and eventually we own a very large portion of land. If people don't like our rules they are free to not live on our land, but the utility of the land provides strong incentive. We provide further incentive by using our profits to try to make life pleasant for our residents. If we feel very generous we may even make all of our residents joint owners in our company and let them vote to decide who gets to fill our executive and rule making or "legislative" positions. It's quite unlikely that we'd be this generous, but it could happen.

My idea is of course that AC could result in something resembling a state or a group of states. I am being bogus? Basically I'm asking this, because I want to gain a sense of how ACists interpret land ownership.

[BCPVP]

If you're trying to compare this scenario with a state, you've missed the mark with the first sentence, assuming the money you used was legitimately yours and the land you bought was owned legitimately by the former owners. The state doesn't own (and for the most part doesn't even claim to own) the land it claims as its territory.

[foal]

Key word is "resembling".

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Thought experiment:

Say I buy up a bunch of farmland. I let people live on it as long as they agree to follow a set of rules or "laws" that I've come up with and pay me a certain percentage of their profits or "taxes". With the money I make off of this I hire a security force or "police force" to enforce my set of rules and to make sure people pay me what they owe me. Other rich individuals see this as a good idea and start doing similar things. A group of land owners and myself decide to pool together and join forces to create a single company and eventually we own a very large portion of land. If people don't like our rules they are free to not live on our land, but the utility of the land provides strong incentive. We provide further incentive by using our profits to try to make life pleasant for our residents. If we feel very generous we may even make all of our residents joint owners in our company and let them vote to decide who gets to fill our executive and rule making or "legislative" positions. It's quite unlikely that we'd be this generous, but it could happen.

My idea is of course that AC could result in something resembling a state or a group of states. I am being bogus? Basically I'm asking this, because I want to gain a sense of how ACists interpret land ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

The basic difference between this and a state is that you actually own the land, and can sell the land to someone else, and that someone else, and your set of rules applies only on land that you own for as long as you own it. The government "as is" does not own all the land, not does it even pretend to. If the government was recognized as legitimately owning the land in the first place, ACists would think of the government as being an ineffective owner, not a entity violating everyone's rights.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't own (and for the most part doesn't even claim to own) the land it claims as its territory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point, but what was the Louisiana purchase? It seems states treat their land as owned.

[foal]

So let's say we get rid of the state and go AC, then eventually wind up with what is effectively no different from a state. Where is the great improvement?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't own (and for the most part doesn't even claim to own) the land it claims as its territory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point, but what was the Louisiana purchase? It seems states treat their land as owned.

[/ QUOTE ]
The government used coercively taken funds to buy land from another government that itself wasn't the legitimate owner of that land.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state doesn't own (and for the most part doesn't even claim to own) the land it claims as its territory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point, but what was the Louisiana purchase? It seems states treat their land as owned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did people who owned plantations in Louisiana under the French regime in 1800 lose them when the US bought the LP?

Ask your city government agents if they own the land your house is built on. Then ask the state government agents. Then ask the Feds.

They will all say no.

The LP was simply governments trading "turf". Hell, most of Louisiana at that time had not even been seen by white men, it's pretty laughable to suggest that the French could have had any legitimate *ownership* of it.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So let's say we get rid of the state and go AC, then eventually wind up with what is effectively no different from a state. Where is the great improvement?

[/ QUOTE ]
This quite different from a government and your scenario seems pretty unlikely anyway.

[foal]

Alright. So your point is that a state-like system would be fine as long as the land was owned by the state?