The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Economics Questions
 »
Are HOAs (home owner's associations) unlibertarian?

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

Are HOAs (home owner's associations) unlibertarian?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 5 verified answers | 105 Replies | 8 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
233 Posts
Points 5,345
Ultima posted on Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:37 PM

Are HOAs (home owner's associations) unlibertarian?

Consider:

* They are voluntary in the sense that you can choose to move away or not purchase the property in the first place, but a statist can make the exact same argument about taxes and governments in general.

* They have the power to foreclose on your home and give it to a board member for pennies on the dollar, over a small infraction or debt. This seems to be punishment vastly disproportionate to the damages, as per the NAP or as per anyone's idea of common sense.

What do you guys think? Anyone willing to shed more light on these two items?

Thanks!

  • | Post Points: 140

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 500 Contributor
304 Posts
Points 4,800
Reply
Answered (Verified) cporter replied on Wed, Jul 21 2010 3:49 PM
Verified by Ultima

They are not unlibertarian because they are completely voluntary. To be analagous to the State the HOA would have to annex your property, or have done so to some owner of the property in the past, and then forever lay claim to it even if they make no further agreements with future owners.

Your second point contains very good reasons why I wouldn't advise anyone to join an HOA with broad power over your property or with the ability to change the rules of the HOA without giving you the ability to quit the association. Being unadvisable and being unlibertarian are two entirely different things, however.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
280 Posts
Points 5,590
Reply
Answered (Verified) Zavoi replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 2:18 AM
Verified by Ultima

Merlin (emphasis added):
2) condition after the sale: this is nonsensical. The moment I sign the contact the house is mine and no one can take it away anymore. It’s my property. Whatever conditions the HOA sought to impose cannot be enforced because property has now been transferred to me, and no conditions can apply to the usage of my property.

This (bolded statement) is tautologically true but does not entail that HOA-contracts are illegitimate. In order to get to this conclusion, you must also assume that property boundaries must be (metaphorically) smooth rather than jagged -- i.e., you must assume that certain rights, though logically disconnected, are not legally disconnectable.

For example, the right to eat an orange is logically dependent on the right to break its skin -- you cannot do the first without doing the second. Hence, possession of the first right must come with possession of the second.

On the other hand, the right to go fishing on a certain lake and the right to harvest ice from it are logically unconnected -- you can do one without doing the other, and vice-versa. There is therefore no basis to say that these rights cannot be held by two different people.

  • | Post Points: 45
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
Reply
Answered (Verified) z1235 replied on Fri, Jul 30 2010 8:50 AM
Verified by Ultima

shazam:
This seems to demonstrate that the HOA is essentially private socialism. While it would not violate the non-agression principle if entered into voluntarily, it is inherently economically inefficient.

Wouldn't this "private socialism critique" apply to every market entity comprised of more than one person, including a company with a single hot dog stand as its asset and ownership shared between three brothers? 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
Reply
Answered (Verified) z1235 replied on Fri, Jul 30 2010 2:41 PM
Verified by Ultima

Merlin:
A single owner HOA, on the other hand (or a shares HOA, for that matter) has both the means to calculate how well its doing, and the incentive to act. 

At least on my part, I'm talking about a shares-based HOA (a corporation, co-op, comprised of share ownership in the HOA accompanied with an exclusive property lease contract granted by the HOA to the shareholder). The value (desirability) of such shares on the open market would be directly affected by the quality of the management (bylaws, regulations, etc.) of the HOA. If the rules are bizarre, or over the top as judged by the market no one would want to partake in them, hence the value of the shares would go down as everyone tries to sell, with no buyers in sight.

The "mutual" case is somewhat of a strawman. Even the hot dog stand company has a clear share (equity) delineation among the three brothers.

Z.

 

  • | Post Points: 45
Top 500 Contributor
285 Posts
Points 4,140
Reply
Answered (Verified) Think Blue replied on Mon, Aug 2 2010 12:18 AM

Property Ownership:  Either Absolute Ownership or Nothing

There is something compelling about Merlin's argument that you "must be on someone else's property for him to impose his will on you." "Either," according to Maiku, it's "absolute ownership or nothing."

If someone can impose conditions on your own property, then you really don't own the property at all. This could be considered as Caley McKibbin aptly said "the same as the seller still owning the house."

However, a bank that grants a mortgage may place conditions on the mortgager to preserve the value of the collateral.  For example, a property owner may not bulldoze his own house.

If the bank has a superior claim to the property, because the bank can "evict" the mortgager upon default, then the bank should be considered the real property owner, and the mortgager considered as having mere possession of the said property.

If the mortgager has provided a deposit of 20%, on a 30 year mortgage, then every year the mortgager "buys" from the bank 1/30th of the claim remaining, on top of the 20% he already "owns."

The contract is completed when the mortgage is paid in full.  No more restricted by previous conditions, since all of these have been removed, the property owner comes into absolute ownership and may do as he wishes on his own property.

HOA Contracts As Leases

For a property within a Homeowners' Association (HOA), no matter how many payments are made, the claim by the HOA on the property can never be extinguished, unlike a mortgage.

There is no way for the property owner to "buy" the claim from the HOA, or bring the contract to a completion. [1] [2]

If the HOA has a superior claim on the property, because the HOA can "evict" a property owner, then the HOA should be considered the real property owner, and the property owner should be considered as having mere posession of the said property.

If the HOA is the real property owner, and the claim is perpetual, with conditions that can never be removed, no matter how many payments are made, then this arrangement is functionally equivalent to a lease.

For a lease, the landlord rents to the tenant a property. No matter how many payments a tenant makes, the landlord will never remove his claim on the property, as he has a perpetual claim on the property.

The landlord has a superior claim on the property, since the landlord can evict the tenant upon contract default.  The landlord is the real property owner.  The tenant merely possesses the property, as long as he abides by the contract.

Now if the HOA should be properly called a landlord, and the "property owner" a tenant, then the HOA can place whatever condition on the property it wants, within the contract, for a perpetual period of time.

Contract Enforcement on Leases

This brings about the problem of contract enforcement. If we accept Merlin's view, then mere promises on a contract can never be enforced, but property rights as security can be enforced. [3]

For example, let's say a landlord rents a property to a tenant for a 10 year lease, with monthly payments made in advance. But then when one year elapses, the tenant defaults, and is evicted.

If promises on a lease contract can be enforced, then the tenant still owes 9 years of lease payments to the landlord.

If promises on a lease contract cannot be enforced, then the tenant owes nothing, and the landlord has a vacant property he can lease to someone else.

Let's assume the latter is true.  If the landlord wishes to bind the tenant to a 10 year lease, then he may demand from the would be tenant a security deposit in advance, perhaps equivalent to one month for every one year of lease (or 10 months worth).

This security deposit is a pledge by the tenant to the landlord for future performance on the contract. If the tenant breaks the lease, the landlord keeps the security deposit, and the tenant does not owe anything more.

Lease Payments in Perpetuity

For a property within a HOA, the "buyer" is paying up front in advance the entire lease for an infinite period of time. However, why would anybody sign a lease for a commitment in perpetuity? [4]

If you think about it, signing a lease that lasts beyond your potential lifetime, while paying up front for it in advance, is really a bad deal for a tenant, and a good deal for the landlord. [5]

This is somewhat of a mystery why anybody would do that. Here I suspect this is an attempt to create a quasi-asset, such that lease contracts can be bought and sold on the open market.

If a lease contract is sold, the "buyer" is assuming the lease obligation, and the "seller" is compensated for the remaining value on the lease.

Contract Modification for HOA Fees

Normally, lease payments are fixed throughout the duration of the lease, since contracts cannot be unilaterally modified. In other words, lease payments cannot be raised, until the lease expires.

For a HOA, the same is true, but since everything is paid up in front, for a perpetual period of time, then there should be no additional charges beyond that.  However, the HOA charges fees for maintenance and services.

Not only that, the HOA may periodically raise the HOA fees should costs increase or the reserve fund is too low. Furthermore, the HOA may charge special assessments from time to time for unexpected expenses.

How can these HOA fees and special assessments be consistent with an unmodifiable contract? Remember, the HOA lease is for a perpetual period of time, and thus can never expire. [6]

If the HOA fees were treated like utility charges, then maybe those charges can be passed on from the HOA to the "property owners." The problem with this approach, is that unlike utilities, HOA fees are mandatory and can never be avoided.

For example, if a cable company raises its rates, the tenant can always unsubscribe from the service, but if a HOA raises its fees, and the "property owners" refuses to pay, then it means eviction.

If someone were to be evicted, then it should be for a contract violation on not paying the amount due. But can this be justified if the amount due is not fixed within a lease contract?

Maybe a possible solution would be how a HOA a structured. If a HOA is structured as a mutual, where the landlords and tenants are one and the same, then any expenses incurred by the HOA would, if left unpaid, would ultimately be a liability against the assets. [7]

If tenants cannot be charged the amount, then the landlord is responsible for the expense. But since in a HOA the tenants are also the landlords, the HOA fees are assessed on the "property owner", not as tenants, but as landlords.

Conclusion

In general, the HOA concept should be considered more consistent with a landlord-tenant relationship, than a property transfer rule, and to do otherwise would make it more complicated than it has to be.

 

  1. MacFall:
    Libertarian: The HOA recieves a property, and decides on a continual basis whether or not to maintain the restriction. Later occupants have the ability to buy the deed and own the property unencumbered.

    Unlibertarian: The HOA recieves a property with said restriction. A later occupant wishes to buy the deed unencumbered, but is not able to do so because the encumberments are considered to exist forever, even after the property has changed hands.
  2. Merlin:
    For a typical contract has no when clause, no time when the house is yours. At any time, if you fail to do something, they take it away. Hence, its not a transfer of property. At any time, you can claim you money back, as they can with the house. Its rent.
  3. Merlin:
    Now, if I pay you 100 buck to mown my lawn tomorrow, and you cancel in the afternoon, what has happened? Must you mow my lawn? No, its just a promise of your, and hence you can default. But that’s no the end of the story. For you do not own the 100 bucks I gave you. For our agreement was that I’d give you 100 buck to mown my lawn, hence those 100 buck become yours when my lawn is mowed, not now. You do not own them, hence I can easily call those back. Is this an acceptable outcome?
  4. Merlin:
    Now the HOA could give you single-rent contract: you pay the market value of the house upfront, and what you get is to rent the house. You keep it as long as you comply with the owners (the HOA) regulations.
  5. Caley McKibbin:
    If there was such as a thing as a value as rent contract and you were mentally retarded such that you would pay the value of a house as rent, the seller could take your money and instantly evict you for any invented reason, rinse and repeat.
  6. Caley McKibbin:
    A purchase with the stipulation that the seller can arbitrarily change the terms at will is not really a purchase at all. It is simply person A giving person B money for nothing. "You pay me x and I still own the house." That is not a valid contract to begin with.
  7. Merlin:
    My point is that most HOAs I know ff are mutuals, i.e. socialism incarnate. Otherwise I see no problem at all with their operation.
  • | Post Points: 35

All Replies

Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 9:33 AM

He still gets to keep all the premiums paid up until that point under your system, premiums that turned out to be worthless.

That’s not my system, this is insurance: in every contract, you (the client) hopes that all those premiums you paid will turn up to be for nothing: you don’t want the insured event to happen, and neither does the company.

When you pay me 365 dollars for insuring your health for a year, and I cancel three months form now, I’ve actually insured your health for 90 days, and those 90 dollars are mine. I’ve bared the risk for 90 days. Had you had an accident by now, I would have had to pay.  This is standard practice in insurance, not my idea.

Then you return whatever was "stolen". The customers are still shit out of luck cause they lost a lot more than that, because of you, and under your system, they're not entitled to anything, even if there was a contractual obligation.

 Sure, you can cause other people trouble without breaking the NAP. My girlfriend can break up with me and couse my more trouble than any burglar ever will. Yet, hardship is not synonymous with punishable act. Only those acts that break the NAP are punishable. The rest are accident, and you’ll have to pay for those yourself.

That's different. I never signed a 99.99% service level agreement with Yahoo mail or anything like that.

I know, I was just hoping to trick into saying that you still can hold yahoo accountable even if it provides for free :)

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
233 Posts
Points 5,345
Reply
Ultima replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 9:47 AM

That’s not my system, this is insurance: in every contract, you (the client) hopes that all those premiums you paid will turn up to be for nothing: you don’t want the insured event to happen, and neither does the company.

When you pay me 365 dollars for insuring your health for a year, and I cancel three months form now, I’ve actually insured your health for 90 days, and those 90 dollars are mine. I’ve bared the risk for 90 days. Had you had an accident by now, I would have had to pay.  This is standard practice in insurance, not my idea.

If an accident happens on the 90th day, I'll just return the premiums for that day, refuse to pay out because I don't feel like it, and keep the premiums from 1 - 89.

Sure, you can cause other people trouble without breaking the NAP. My girlfriend can break up with me and couse my more trouble than any burglar ever will. Yet, hardship is not synonymous with punishable act. Only those acts that break the NAP are punishable. The rest are accident, and you’ll have to pay for those yourself.

The NAP isn't some sort of absolute rule. We don't know if people will pay only for arbitators that follow the NAP and only the NAP. I also disagree that breaking a contractual obligation isn't a form of aggression/fraud, so it would fall under the NAP.

Your girlfriend on the other hand... I doubt you signed some form of agreement that she wasn't allowed to break up with you :P

That's different. I never signed a 99.99% service level agreement with Yahoo mail or anything like that.

I know, I was just hoping to trick into saying that you still can hold yahoo accountable even if it provides for free :)

Didn't work ;)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,289 Posts
Points 18,820
Reply
MaikU replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 10:32 AM

Ultima:

If contractual promises are null and void, then why would anyone ever contract to do anything? As an insurance company, I could just decide I don't feel like paying out anymore if hit with a big claim. I could take the money and run, and in your world, the clients couldn't do a thing against me.

If I were a data center, I could just turn all my servers off and call it a day. If my customers call me up screaming that I had a 99.99% level service agreement with them, I'll just laugh in their faces and keep their money.

Seriously, it seems like a rather absurd world that you're proposing. You're stating that all contracts are essentially null and void since anyone can change their mind at anytime. But again, we'll see who picks you as an arbitrator and who picks judges who recognize that contracts have more strength than a "simple promise". :)

 

 

I would say this: if the contract had a line, which says something like "if you don't keep promise, you must pay the other party X amount of money", then such contract would be legitimate, however, nobody has a right to enforce (I mean, force to pay) such payment, in my opinion.

I believe there are some other ways make a person (who broke the contract) pay - simple bad reviews would do the job pretty good or even ostracism, if that didn't help. :) So the person, who broke the contract would suffer a lot more.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 3:59 PM

If an accident happens on the 90th day, I'll just return the premiums for that day, refuse to pay out because I don't feel like it, and keep the premiums from 1 - 89.

The agreement, written or otherwise, is that  my premium becomes yours when either a) its allotted coverage time elapses without any accident or b) the accident happens.  The insured sum, on the other hand, becomes mine when the insured event happens.

Hence, if the accident happens of the 90thday, you earned your whole premium, and I earned my insured sum. The contract expires, there is nothing to cancel.

Your girlfriend on the other hand... I doubt you signed some form of agreement that she wasn't allowed to break up with you :P

The idea was that not everything that hurts you is punishable; hence saying that A would be terrible, therefore it should be forbidden is unfair.

 

 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
233 Posts
Points 5,345
Reply
Ultima replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 4:06 PM

The agreement, written or otherwise, is that  my premium becomes yours when either a) its allotted coverage time elapses without any accident or b) the accident happens.  The insured sum, on the other hand, becomes mine when the insured event happens.

Hence, if the accident happens of the 90thday, you earned your whole premium, and I earned my insured sum. The contract expires, there is nothing to cancel.

What "insured sum"? There's no such thing. You only have my promise to pay you some money in case something bad happens, and as you said, promises can be broken with no consequences. All I have to do is return your premium to you and decide not to pay you anything. It's not YOUR property, why should I be forced to give you what isn't yours? It's just a promise!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 4:21 PM

What "insured sum"? There's no such thing. You only have my promise to pay you some money in case something bad happens, and as you said, promises can be broken with no consequences. All I have to do is return your premium to you and decide not to pay you anything. It's not YOUR property, why should I be forced to give you what isn't yours? It's just a promise!

Now that I think of it more in detail, you’re perfectly right! I can indeed cancel, but I’ll have to retrain the whole premium, as it is now clear that I haven’t held risk a single day. So yes, I’ll only have to return the whole premium. Touché!

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
Reply
z1235 replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 7:08 PM

Merlin, what exactly is your problem with contracts -- a human institution thousands of years old? In your "system", are there no other legitimate (voluntary) human interactions apart from ones involving immediate property exchanges? If so, what is the basis for imposing your (subjective) standard of legitimacy onto others?

Z.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
233 Posts
Points 5,345
Reply
Ultima replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 11:13 PM

Now that I think of it more in detail, you’re perfectly right! I can indeed cancel, but I’ll have to retrain the whole premium, as it is now clear that I haven’t held risk a single day. So yes, I’ll only have to return the whole premium. Touché!

Psfff... not my fault you had nothing to claim from day 1 - 89. Sorry, but those premiums are mine. :)

I also want to know why it is you believe what you do. Do you not see obligations formally agreed to via contract as a valid form of property in and of themselves? Why not? Why is it that in your world, people can cause a significant amount of damage through non-performance of contract and yet not be liable? More importantly, who do you think is going to seek your business as an arbitrator, and why? Who won't?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
233 Posts
Points 5,345
Reply
Ultima replied on Wed, Jul 28 2010 11:21 PM

The idea was that not everything that hurts you is punishable; hence saying that A would be terrible, therefore it should be forbidden is unfair.

I don't think I ever made that point, though.

If something hurts you because you and another party have a contractual agreement, and that other party fails to live up to their end of the agreement, then yes, that should be punishable.

Otherwise...

You run a mission critical application hosted on my data center. We have a 99.99% SLA and specified penalties. One day, I decide that I want to use some of my servers to look for aliens, instead, and I shut down your app, without notice. On a very important day for you, when you were presenting the app at an important conference. The app stays down all day, you look like a joke and lose thousands of dollars every minute, and the worst part of it all, is that I tell you "oh well, a promise is worth less than the contract I bring to the bathroom with me to wipe myself with!" and I laugh at you, while you go look for an arbitrator who actually respects the validity of contracts and recognizes that a written contractual agreement carries more strength and weight than a simple promise. Sure, maybe I get ostracized, but I was getting ready to retire anyways, and maybe I just didn't like you all that much, and watching you fail was worth it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Thu, Jul 29 2010 1:29 AM

z1235:

Merlin, what exactly is your problem with contracts -- a human institution thousands of years old? In your "system", are there no other legitimate (voluntary) human interactions apart from ones involving immediate property exchanges? If so, what is the basis for imposing your (subjective) standard of legitimacy onto others?

Z.

I’m not pretending to force anyone into this. This Rothbardian stance is what I believe would come to be standard in a market of competing arbiters, that’s it. We’re just guessing here.

 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Thu, Jul 29 2010 1:40 AM

Psfff... not my fault you had nothing to claim from day 1 - 89. Sorry, but those premiums are mine. :)

Not at all, since now that I claim, you do not provide. So its clear that you never held any risk, thus you never earned any premium at all.

I also want to know why it is you believe what you do.

This is Rothbard’s stance, not mine. He makes a compelling point for I myself would do as aan arbiter in The Ethics of Liberty.

Why is it that in your world, people can cause a significant amount of damage through non-performance of contract and yet not be liable?

 

Because there is no stopping point. Once you agree to allow damages for non-NAP-breaking actions that cause damage, you can easily claim damages for libel, or not showing up at parties, or for your girlfriend breaking up. Why not claim damages from Yahoo! If it shuts down its mail  service? Taken to its proper extremes, it would paralyze society. Its a slippery slope with no end in sight.

 More importantly, who do you think is going to seek your business as an arbitrator, and why? Who won't?

Ah, the important question. Well, I certainly don’t know, but I believe that, especially  in business, people would come to see that having the possibility to act on your contracts as you see fit is immeasurably advantageous.

 

Who would agree to a 20 years contact in a world where you cannot get out of contracts?  These guys seeking to write long-term contracts would be the very first, I believe, to want arbitration that recognizes the right to leave. You can throw here all pension funds and life insurance, a massive fund! Otherwise no one will agree to the contract in the first place.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Thu, Jul 29 2010 1:45 AM

You run a mission critical application hosted on my data center. We have a 99.99% SLA and specified penalties. One day, I decide that I want to use some of my servers to look for aliens, instead, and I shut down your app, without notice. On a very important day for you, when you were presenting the app at an important conference. The app stays down all day, you look like a joke and lose thousands of dollars every minute, and the worst part of it all, is that I tell you "oh well, a promise is worth less than the contract I bring to the bathroom with me to wipe myself with!" and I laugh at you, while you go look for an arbitrator who actually respects the validity of contracts and recognizes that a written contractual agreement carries more strength and weight than a simple promise. Sure, maybe I get ostracized, but I was getting ready to retire anyways, and maybe I just didn't like you all that much, and watching you fail was worth it.

Then he has every right to do so, just as you have none to pretend service form other people. They provide only as long as they feel like doing that.  

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,360 Posts
Points 43,785
Reply
z1235 replied on Thu, Jul 29 2010 7:09 AM

Merlin:
Once you agree to allow damages for non-NAP-breaking actions that cause damage...

Why can't your contractual obligation to me (a limitation of your freedom, for sure) be considered my property, making your non-performance a NAP-breaking activity? People regularly sell/trade other people's obligations (loans, bonds, stocks, futures contracts, options contracts, service contracts, insurance contracts, etc) on the open market, after all. Is it because Rothbard only recognizes tangible objects as property? Just trying to get to the bottom of your stance.

Your "slippery slope" examples are all strawmen, and your fears baseless. And we don't have to wait for ancap to see how contracts would be treated by most arbitrators. Contracts have existed as essential economic tools through centuries and all across mankind -- their benefits obvious to all. The verdict has been long decided, I'm afraid.

Z.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Thu, Jul 29 2010 7:26 AM

z1235:
Why can't your contractual obligation to me (a limitation of your freedom, for sure) be considered my property, making your non-performance a NAP-breaking activity?

Because it smells of slavery. But of course, there are no theoretical arguments on my part against doing so. Its just my own point of view.

z1235:
People regularly sell/trade other people's obligations (loans, bonds, stocks, futures contracts, options contracts, service contracts, insurance contracts, etc) on the open market, after all.

The fact that obligations are sold on the market (and almost certainly will continue to be under ancap) does not mean that only violent action (forceful restitution in case of canceling) can keep this market together. There are other ways (ostracism, bad will) that function much more effectively in specialized markets.

 

z1235:
Your "slippery slope" examples are all strawmen, and your fears baseless.

 I hope so, but once we accept initially voluntary slavery as enforceable, the road ahead seems very turbulent to me. But let’s hope you are right, and my fear are indeed baseless.

z1235:
And we don't have to wait for ancap to see how contracts would be treated by most arbitrators. Contracts have existed as essential economic tools through centuries and all across mankind -- their benefits obvious to all. The verdict has been long decided, I'm afraid.

To repeat myself, even in ‘my’ world, there would indeed be contracts, and quite elaborate ones for that matter! The fact that contracts exist and thrive does not mean that they have to be enforced by violent action.

 

Now, I agree that almost very nation nowadays agrees that some promises are binding (the emplyer’s but not the employee’s). But I regard Civil Code tradition as a very poor guide into the end state of a competing legal market.

 

I’m not aware of how the original common law tradition dealt with such cases. What I can say is that I highly doubt (but correct me if I’m wrong!) that British or Dutch merchants confiscated each-other’s goods in cases of a contract cancellation, back when they where allowed to deal with one another by their own code.

 

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Reply
Merlin replied on Thu, Jul 29 2010 7:34 AM

Allow me to pose a question to the ‘contarcter’s’ (forgive the term, it’s but for a lack of a better one): if most contracts could be, in general, enforced without violent action, would you agree to forbid violent action as enforcement?

 If a human society could (I know it can't, but my point is another) function without the application of violence (involuntary violence, that is), would you agree to banish violence altogether?

 If you, along with me say 'yes’, than what you believe is that contacts cannot be enforced without violence? Or that, if even if they can, they should not? What is the point of contention here?  

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 5 of 8 (106 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last » | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap