> But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the

> But concentration to this degree practically requires government force to survive. Presumably, there would be government (or equivalent force) to enforce the private property rights? So I am not sure how that addresses the problem I outlined. And how do you make sure this force doesn't become corrupt? > I don't believe deference to authority can ever bring them about. Authority always ends up corrupt. Here's the thing. I believe there is a third option that is outside the "capitalist" spectrum which I am talking about (the liberal society of freely trading men who each have plot of land vs authoritarian society of landed gentry as a result of capital accumulation). And that 3rd option is keeping wealth within certain limits by democratic control, through for example progressive taxes on either income or wealth, and redistribution of this to people who lost all (or most of) property, or just everybody in equal manner. Like a basic income that would be financed by the richest. See, this solution is different from both ends of the spectrum, and sidesteps the authoritarian problem (there is no decision to be made about where the money are going, there is a simple rule how they are redistributed, and this rule is agreed by consensus). The government that in libertarianism has to exist to enforce property rights could as well enforce this redistribution.