if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Stranger:But the point is that I love my country. Don't you?
I've traveled a wee bit. I like my country, but in many ways, it is inferior to others I have been to. I don't feel I particularly owe it anything in the way of allegiance or loyalty.
I could learn to love a free country, regardless of the climate or geography. Being free is more important to me than acknowledging my history and the history of my ancestors with a particular state.
@all, I second the Liberty Colony idea. It's possible that an exodus may at one point be the only option left to us. The world is certainly not getting less statist. Things are moving in the wrong direction, and while choosing to stand and fight might be honourable, it's wise to pick the battles you can win. If you can't beat the state, then change the game. Plus the entrepreneurial opportunities for a Liberty Colony could be tremendous.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Stranger: Danno, can you at least agree that private enterprise should have the right to buy land that is unincorporated and develop it as a city exempt of property taxes? This does not mean that you have to give up control of your current town, just that you have to give up control of the rest of the country's land.
Danno, can you at least agree that private enterprise should have the right to buy land that is unincorporated and develop it as a city exempt of property taxes? This does not mean that you have to give up control of your current town, just that you have to give up control of the rest of the country's land.
If private enterprise can buy land, they should have the right to do anything that they damned well please with it - plant soybeans, build towns and sell lots, operate a casino, grow marijuana, process cocaine, offer sexual services - anything. If the previous owners sell it, it's the buyer's business what they do with it. If they're selling residential and business lots to build a new city, I may well buy in - but I'll want to see their plans for road-use before I sign a contract.
Danno, amazed at how often I need to say these things.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
What's the difference between roads and restaurants?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan:The thing is, Stranger never answered the question and simply introduced a false analogy. And the idea that a city can be the private property of just one person who can do whatever he pleases with it is nonsense.
Private ownership implies just one person, whether it is literally one person or virtually one person, as a corporation.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Danno:<sigh> It is, by virtue of being the only possible road at the end of my driveway, necessarily a monopoly. Not a monopoly of merit, not a monopoly of force - a monopoly by virtue of there being only room for one.
If you are going to dispute Austrian economic theory, you should at least acquaint yourself with it.
The fact that a road is the only possible road that can exist in its place is not a monopoly, it is a physical fact of the universe. This applies to any other property. You cannot physically be at Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts at the same time. You can only be in one property or the other. They compete with each other by compelling you to move there to eat.
The same applies for roads. Roads compete with each other by compelling you to move to them.
Stranger: Danno:<sigh> It is, by virtue of being the only possible road at the end of my driveway, necessarily a monopoly. Not a monopoly of merit, not a monopoly of force - a monopoly by virtue of there being only room for one. If you are going to dispute Austrian economic theory, you should at least acquaint yourself with it.
Indeed I should - I'm reading as fast as I can.
The fact that a road is the only possible road that can exist in its place is not a monopoly, it is a physical fact of the universe. This applies to any other property. You cannot physically be at Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts at the same time. You can only be in one property or the other. They compete with each other by compelling you to move there to eat. The same applies for roads. Roads compete with each other by compelling you to move to them.
In other words, if the road that passes my house is poorly run, I'm just going to have to deal with it, or sell my property at a lower price to someone who is willing to deal with it, and buy another house elsewhere, hoping that the street there will continue to provide reasonable service at reasonable cost - there are folks who will lose, and I'll be one of them.
The entities who own residential streets will be able to markedly influence the value of the homes they serve, and some bright kid will buy the road, intentionally let services drop and user fees rise until the houses there are as devalued as they think possible, buy the houses, improve the road and make the rates competitive, then recoup his losses by selling the houses served at a tidy profit.
Under anarchy, there will be no law to prevent this. In a rational society, it'd be a short-term strategy - people would learn of the tactic and the market for houses with improved roads would become minimal. Then again, in a rational society, there'd be very few USAian congresscritters being re-elected after they voted to approve the bailout - I don't look for that to be much of a factor, either.
If we go to an anarchic system, I'm buyin' roads - they'll be a gold mine.
Danno, who actually does try to be ethical
Danno: In other words, if the road that passes my house is poorly run, I'm just going to have to deal with it, or sell my property at a lower price to someone who is willing to deal with it, and buy another house elsewhere, hoping that the street there will continue to provide reasonable service at reasonable cost - there are folks who will lose, and I'll be one of them.
The same applies for government ownership of roads. Just look at the abandoned housing of Detroit. Those used to be someone's mortgage.
What would you rather have? Government production of roads, or market production of roads?
Danno:The entities who own residential streets will be able to markedly influence the value of the homes they serve, and some bright kid will buy the road, intentionally let services drop and user fees rise until the houses there are as devalued as they think possible, buy the houses, improve the road and make the rates competitive, then recoup his losses by selling the houses served at a tidy profit.
So what you're saying is that someone will invest a considerable sum of capital to purchase a city, wreck the value of his investment in order to buy even more valueless property, then return to the status quo and somehow that is going to be a profitable business venture?
I already pointed out how ridiculous this is earlier. Imagine a movie theatre holding all their customers hostage in the movie theatre and asking for a thousand dollars each to et them leave. Why do you think movie theatres don't do that?
Danno,
If you truly prefer a free market approach over government, then the question you should be asking yourself is, knowing that those nightmare scenarios you describe are theoretically possible, what could be done about them under a free market framework? Don't stop at the problem, keep trying to find solutions. Use your imagination and I think you'll be able to come up with realistic ideas.
GilesStratton:What's the difference between roads and restaurants?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Danno:If we go to an anarchic system, I'm buyin' roads - they'll be a gold mine.
Again, why? If someone appropriates enough land, develops it then rents it out, how is it not anarchism? Nothing has taken place to violate the NAP.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Perhaps but it it isn't a monarchy. States have no legitimate claim to their holdings. Unless one wishes to hold all property owners are "monarchies" of a sort.
You can own a city but not be a state as long as you are not a monopolist on jurisdiction, i.e. you are not the third party in disputes involving you.
Jon Irenicus:Perhaps but it isn't a monarchy.
States have no legitimate claim to their holdings.
Unless one wishes to hold all property owners are "monarchies" of a sort.
Parsidius: You can own a city but not be a state as long as you are not a monopolist on jurisdiction, i.e. you are not the third party in disputes involving you.
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