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
Juan: 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. Fine. So you own the city but don't have absolute control over it. Which means you don't really own it ?
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.
What it means is that if you have a contract with the people of your city, you cannot unilaterally change the terms on them. A government can do that.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Private cities are not necessarily monarchies, but I do think the scenario in which a single person owns an entire city (of substantial size and population) is extremely unlikely to occur in a truly free market. Without some form of government (monarchy or otherwise) I just dont see it happening. But for those who do, do you think there will also be private nations; perhaps the entire planet will be owned by a single person or corporation? What would be the limit to the theoretically possible amount of land a single individual (or single corporation) could conceivably own?
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to discuss the ethics of such ownership.
majevska: Private cities are not necessarily monarchies, but I do think the scenario in which a single person owns an entire city (of substantial size and population) is extremely unlikely to occur in a truly free market. Without some form of government (monarchy or otherwise) I just dont see it happening. But for those who do, do you think there will also be private nations; perhaps the entire planet will be owned by a single person or corporation? What would be the limit to the theoretically possible amount of land a single individual (or single corporation) could conceivably own? Just to be clear, I'm not trying to discuss the ethics of such ownership.
The limit of an enterprise's size is the size of the biggest indivisible capital good it has to produce. For example, a city that builds a large public park benefits from having a property as large as the land value generated by the park. (The good produced, in this case, is land value, and the more land it can improve, the more the investment pays out.) If two adjacent cities see that they could make a large land improvement together and both benefit from it, they will merge into one enterprise. Beyond the biggest land improvement imaginable, there's not much point to concentration of property, although some managers may become so skilled at urban planning and operations that they buy out other cities and manage them as well.
Whether one could own a private 'nation' I think has more to do with security production than land production. A nation is a group of people that share a common language and culture, and from that it may be possible that they are more willing to help protect one another than other nations. From this it follows that a single nation would have lower security costs and that a business that makes a one-nation product could outcompete others.
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 it is transferred from government control to private ownership, what other sort of private enterprise could it be transferred to?
<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 it is transferred from government control to private ownership, what other sort of private enterprise could it be transferred to?
A HOA?
If you and all your neighbors collectively own the roads in your neighborhood and contract out the maintenance to some third party then is this an evil, monopolistic relationship?
Ignoring any anti-car strawmen because this could easily be written into the HOA charter that the road is intended for automobile access and not someone's political tool.
As it is in the best interest of all the neighbors to provide access to their homes for third parties such as friends and the UPS man it would seem likely that they wouldn't charge a fee for people to drive on the roads in the neighborhood. They could even limit access to keep people using it as a shortcut because they wish to avoid the major roads if they wished.
The major thoroughfares and local highways are a different matter but could be dealt with in much the same manner.
Since everyone has an incentive to be able to go to work or shopping and businesses also have an incentive to have their customers and employees be able to get there it would make just as much sense for the roads on the regional level to be collectively owned by the 'stakeholders' (home and business property owners) and contract out the maintenance to a third party.
Perhaps user fees on this level would make more sense so they could institute some high-tech RFID black box that tracked how much you use the roads or it may be that the incentive for free access to all is better for everyone since the more people can travel, the more they can spend at local restaurants and stores.
How could this all work you may ask, one way I can think of off hand is to have your portion of the ownership of the HOA and regional road authority be attached to the property as part of the property title. You buy the property and the ownership stake in the road system and if you are stupid enough to buy a home without both then that's your problem, I hope you enjoy your local monopolistic rent-seeking road monarch.
This is just one possible solution to the 'monopoly paradox' and the beauty of a free market system with competitive forces is that people who actually know what they're talking about (as opposed to me just pulling this out of my ass) will come up with even better solutions and the 'winner' will be the one that best fits the local conditions and circumstances.
You live in a beach town that lives off tourist dollars and you're going to do things differently than a sleepy little beach town who doesn't want the vulgar herd tearing up the place and causing problems.
There is no single solution just like there's no single way to successfully market soap.
PeterWellington: 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.
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.
I agree completely with Peter.
And to start the imagination process, consider something like the Golden Gate Bridge as a model. Even though it is currently controlled by a government, consider it privately owned. The toll cannot be TOO high or users would drive around and/or ferry services would be re-created for that route and the Bridge owner would lose business and eventually be unable to pay for upkeep of the Bridge and would certainly have lower return on his investment than with lower tolls.
Apply the same principles to a locked-in residence(s). If the tolls are too high, one likely alternative is an air taxi service, another might be a bridge over the offending roadway. At some point, the stupid road owner will either lower his fees or slide into bankruptcy.
DennisLeeWilson:Apply the same principles to a locked-in residence(s).
If the tolls are too high, one likely alternative is an air taxi service,
another might be a bridge over the offending roadway.
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."
That was, indeed, the original question - how this could be prevented under a free-market, non-government system. For a bit this morning, I was thinking that contractural easements would perhaps be the answer - but, upon reflection, I realized that a business intending to make money on their road would not be eager to contract with anyone to make them free riders.
Danno, who has re-established 'net access. One's day can be useful, and yet not profitable.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Juan: We're talking about streets in a city. Are you going to build a bridge to the grocery store, bridges to your friends' houses, and so on ?
What he said. Air taxi? I'm remembering the one-man jet units that seemed so futuristic and nifty in the 1960s. I'd like to be a rocket man, but I'm an Olde Phart, and doubt that my knees would take the landings well.
HOA? In effect, a mini-government. Without a carefully written constitution, capable of even worse abuses of power than my current government. With a carefully written, no-loophole constitution - it's become a government solution. Let's face it - my next-door neighbor, facing the same street, would not have the option of declining to do business with the HOA, would she?
It it matters at all, the street my property faces is a 4-lane (one bicycle, 3 auto), one-way major route. The difference in vision between this and a quiet residential street that is not often used as a thoroughfare may be some of the disconnect in this conversation.
Danno, who won't skateboard anymore, either.
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.
I agree, it is nonsense.
Stranger: 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.
Private ownership implies just one person, whether it is literally one person or virtually one person, as a corporation.
Yes, and there is no way that just one person can homestead or voluntarily exchange for literally every square inch and every utility of an entire city. Not only is it logistically impossible, but it's impossible to achieve without all of the pre-existing owners either agreeing to give it away or sell it to this single person or it being essentially robbed from the pre-existing owners. A city government selling itself off wholesale to a single individual is a transferance from a monopoly to a monopoly and would be a case of the theives peddling stolen goods, and the stolen goods are peddled off to whoever produces the best bribe. Hence why Juan is concerned about this being indistinguishable from a monarchal mini-state.
Danno:HOA? In effect, a mini-government. Without a carefully written constitution, capable of even worse abuses of power than my current government. With a carefully written, no-loophole constitution - it's become a government solution. Let's face it - my next-door neighbor, facing the same street, would not have the option of declining to do business with the HOA, would she?
So any solution that could possibly turn into a abusive monopoly is out and the only valid solution, to your thinking at least, is to institute a potentially abusive government monopoly?
WTF, dude?!?
I give up...
You acknowledge that people won't choose to live as tenants ?
Anyway, you say a private city is not a monarchy - I say it's not anarchy/a free society. What is it then ?
Is it consistent with the NAP? Then it is most certainly anarchist.
You mean legitimate claim to the land ? They don't but that's not the point anyway. Politicians believe they have a claim to the people they rule, not to the land.
But it is precisely why the edicts of states have no moral force. A monarch claims land that is not his and presumes to be able to rule over others without their consent. A privately owned city that does not violate the NAP does no such thing.
Well that could be a figure of speech. The point is, I don't think that in a free society private ownership of roads gives the road owner the right to dictate who can and who can't use the road.
Absent easements, it does. Private ownership implies total control over the resource under one's command.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Stranger: Juan: 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. Fine. So you own the city but don't have absolute control over it. Which means you don't really own it ? What it means is that if you have a contract with the people of your city, you cannot unilaterally change the terms on them. A government can do that.
Exactly. You still control that which you own, but do not control that which you have transferred control to others for.
Anonymous Coward: Danno:HOA? In effect, a mini-government. Without a carefully written constitution, capable of even worse abuses of power than my current government. With a carefully written, no-loophole constitution - it's become a government solution. Let's face it - my next-door neighbor, facing the same street, would not have the option of declining to do business with the HOA, would she? So any solution that could possibly turn into a abusive monopoly is out
So any solution that could possibly turn into a abusive monopoly is out
For one brief, shining moment, we're on the same page.
and the only valid solution, to your thinking at least, is to institute a potentially abusive government monopoly? WTF, dude?!? I give up...
That's not at all what I said. What I said was that it'd be potentially workable, with remarkable care in crafting the contract/constitution. I also said that any Home Owner's Association operates like a limited government - majority rule, the unpopular get eaten by the majority, looting is done where a loophole left it possible, etc. - so calling for a HOA solution was, philosophically, identical calling for a mini-state solution.
Where, in that quote or elsewhere, do you find me preferring such a solution over a free market solution? This is all assuming, of course, that someone can think of a free market solution that would work.
Jon Irenicus: Juan: You acknowledge that people won't choose to live as tenants ? No. I simply am not going to guess what people might or might not prefer.
Juan: You acknowledge that people won't choose to live as tenants ?
Jon Irenicus:Absent easements, it does. Private ownership implies total control over the resource under one's command.
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