How do you feel about being forced to participate in a market economy?

Input data: the team of Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau sent letters to 14 large property owners, threatening to forcibly buy out 194 vacant residential units owned by them if they do not put the apartments on the market.

Anonymous question

Of course, the provided input data is incomplete. Here, for example, is a little more information about rental market regulations in Barcelona, gathered from a quick Google search:

So, look at what is happening. First, the Olympic Games are held in the city; for this occasion, the state pours serious money into increasing the city’s tourist appeal. Tourists flood the city. Demand for short-term rentals spikes. Residents who rent housing themselves begin to grumble: rental prices have risen for them. Locals who are not tied to the tourism market also grumble: noisy tourists are wandering everywhere, and there is no room to move. The government listens to the voters’ opinion and begins to tighten the screws. Time and again, it demotivates property owners from renting to tourists—at high prices and for short terms—and instead demands they rent to locals—cheaply and for the long term.

What do property owners do when they realize that renting to anyone under the current rules is unprofitable? They freeze the business and wait for favorable conditions. Or they rent completely “under the table,” so that officially the housing stands empty. What does the government do? It begins to “force” them to the market, demanding that the housing be listed for long-term rental at regulated rates, threatening otherwise to forcibly buy out their property at prices set by the government itself.

With exactly the same success, one could talk about forcing peasants to the market who, for example, are forbidden from selling what they grew personally at the city market and are instead required to hand it over for pennies to wholesalers appointed from above.

How can I feel about this? Naturally, strongly negative. There is no need to call a state plan a “market”; it only introduces unnecessary confusion.

The Barcelona case shows very well how even a seemingly single benevolent government intervention (investments in infrastructure for the Olympic Games) leads to a market distortion, which causes public discontent and provokes further strengthening of government regulations. So, the best answer to the question of how the state can help you still remains the eternally relevant answer: Laissez faire et laissez passer.

Blitz 3

How will commercial real estate work under ancap?

Placeholder

An interesting question. People more often ask how things in the sphere of so-called public goods will work under ancap. Commercial real estate, however, is a private good. Under a state, the right of private property is to some extent conditional, because it depends on whether the state changes its mind about recognizing this right, or decides to nationalize a particular object. Under ancap, the right of private property is also conditional, and depends on how strong of a negative externality the property owner creates for those around them.

So, if I am to answer the question directly: commercial real estate under ancap will operate in such a way as to create minimum negative externalities and maximum income. Those entrepreneurs who solve this optimization problem better than others will prosper.

How will private detectives work under ancap? After all, it seems one cannot violate someone else’s property.

Anal Magician

As I already mentioned in the answer to the previous question, private property is a conditional concept. Well, this is my favorite mantra that rights are claims that are tolerated—you’ve probably already learned it by heart. Therefore, a private detective first conducts an investigation as far as possible without violating anyone’s property rights and without disturbing anyone—for example, using open data, recordings from public cameras, analysis of evidence provided by the client, and so on. If during the investigation he becomes interested in something located on someone’s property, he seeks ways to obtain the owner’s consent. If consent is not granted, he usually manages to find workarounds.

And in a situation where absolutely all leads point to a unique piece of evidence controlled by some owner who is unwilling to grant access, this becomes a strong suspicion that this owner is, in the worst case, the sought-after criminal, or their accomplice, or in the best case, a sympathizer. And here the owner may well be faced with a choice of what will bring them the lower cost: strong suspicions of complicity in a crime or granting the detective the right to investigate on their territory.

Let’s also add such a tool as a reward for assistance in the investigation—if the notorious owner understands that they will receive a reward for their inconvenience, then why not put up with it.

Suppose ancap has arrived, and on the street one person killed another. In the current system, the police would handle this case. But who will handle this case under ancap? Private detective agencies? But they must be paid, and what if the person had no relatives or friends?

anonymous question

Well, this is already an example of a traditional question about ancap: how public goods will be ensured. Fortunately, you specified the location of the murder: the street. The purpose of a street is to ensure the mass movement of people within a settlement. Exactly how the street owner monetizes the solution to this task is a separate question. In this case, we are interested in the fact that unpunished murders on the street hinder the task of mass unobstructed movement along it. If the street owner does not solve this problem, people will either have to invent ways to protect themselves on this street or stay away from this sinister place. In the second case, traffic drops, and this directly hits the owner’s income. In the first case, the costs for residents increase, they become less solvent, and the street owner’s income drops indirectly. So, he has economic incentives to solve this problem, even if he is not bound by an obligation to provide security on his street directly.

Of course, if the street owner manages to hide the incident, it will save costs. But you know these people: they are always sniffing something out, they are always suspicious… Once this episode surfaces, all sorts of speculations will begin that dozens of corpses are being hauled away every night and it’s time to flee this cesspool. To hell with that, transparency is more profitable.

A city known for the fact that security on the streets was provided by a volunteer. Well, that’s also a way, of course, but usually the heroism of one person only masks the failures of others.