is that I concede the theoretical problem.
In a free society the natural monopoly on real estate is possible.
The problem is that in a stateful society it's not only inevitable, the state is defined by monopoly of violence in a geographical area.
So again to crib Rothbard, it makes no sense to solve a potential future monopoly with a coercive one immediately.
Now if your buds say "But we are not proposing a state!" Then they have larger confusion than mere economics.
That particular distinction is distinctly utopian vs realistic. We do not believe in perfect humans creating a perfect society. We know a free society will not be perfect. But economics and history informs us that, while not perfect, it is better than any other possible society. In fact educated collectivists tacitly recognize this because they know their societies will always fail so long as a more free society exists.
IE capitalism must be not just shunned but wiped out.
Whereas we would be happy to let them have their hive, so long as they left us alone, they never can leave us alone.
They won't say this, but what they know is their system will fail because there is a more free society for people to escape to.
But that's a much longer conversation.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: