individual rights? The minarcholibertarian answer is: because
effectively everyone wants there to be a guaranteed level of rights
protection, but the free-rider problem guarantees that such protection
will be under-funded. The geominarchist answer is: people don't have to
pay a share at all, unless they try to monopolize scarce land and
appropriate the geo-rent it receives because the surrounding community
provides a guaranteed level of rights protection. The geoist argues
that the latter sort of land value charge is not even force initiation,
but rather is a defensive reaction to the force initiation of
monopolizing land without leaving as much and as good.
Who determines what someone's fair share is? You do, by self-assessing
the value of the land you monopolize, thus setting both the basis of
your land value charge and the price at which someone can bid you off
your land if you don't pay the corresponding charge (or don't let it
accumulate as a lien against the eventual transfer of your land).
What if someone doesn't want the state to protect their rights? Much of
rights protection -- national defense, crime deterrence -- is not
something you can effectively opt out of, but I think you mean to ask:
what if someone doesn't want to pay their fair share? The geoist answer
is: don't try to capture geo-rent you didn't create (or pollute a
commons you don't own, etc.), and you won't be charged for it. If you
don't try to own any land (i.e. only be a tenant), or if you only try to
own land that has no geo-rent (because you've left as much and as good
for others), then you won't be charged anything at all.
Tom Blanton, I repeat my questions to you: If minarchism is absolutely
hopeless and minarchist rhetoric only validates "the hobgoblins of the
ruling elite", then why should the Libertarian Party tolerate minarchism
in its midst? Shouldn't the LP officially condemn all minarchist
heresies against anarcholibertarianism, and explicitly pronounce itself
an anarchist party?
