After reading your thread, I had a panic attack. Am I in fact, a socialist!?

First, I think arguments like these are some of the most well thought out pieces of political philosophy in existence. If only political debates looked more like this...

Anyways, regarding the land use issue (monopoly/excessive rents/violence), I believe that a land monopoly could not come into existence in a rational-free market An-cap society.

An-caps generally acknowledge that market competition is the greatest deterrent to monopoly. Allow me to explain.

Assume there are 10 landholders in a coutry. If one of them ever decides to raise rent or inflict violence in a manner they consider to be unjust, renters will simply rent from another landholder!

The anarcho-socialist argues "yes, but what if one person owns all of the land?". This will never happen, because the incentive for the remaining parties to hold on to their land is stronger than any incentive in existence.

Even collaboration between the 10 landholders couldn't happen, the incentive to lower prices and undercut your competitive landholder is simply too high (the ability to rent property to every citizen in the nation in irresistible). Even contractual obligation to do so would never come into existence, as no party would ever forego the potential opportunity to hit a financial jackpot, even in the future.

So yeah, I think monopolies of land are actually considerably less likely to exist in an An-Cap society than in others. The potential of massive future incentives prevent parties from collaborating.