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
Evasion. You know that the kind of 'voluntary' monarchy you seem to envision can't exist
What the hell are you on about now? You're assuming you know people's preferences (including mine.) You don't. I don't and I refuse to pretend otherwise. But a privately owned city is certainly a possibility. Privately owned tourist villages, housing compounds &c. already exist. It is only a step further for a privately owned city. The only evasion here is of the fact that this in no way conflicts with the NAP.
Absent easements, what Stranger, you and others are describing is a jail, not a free society.
You said it's a monarchy. If it is consistent with the NAP, such a claim is void. That's all there is to it.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
JonIrenicus: What the hell are you on about now? You're assuming you know people's preferences (including mine.) You don't.
The only evasion here is of the fact that this in no way conflicts with the NAP.
You said it's a monarchy. If it is consistent with the NAP, such a claim is void.
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."
Parsidius: 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.
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.
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.
I think we're discussing what an actual free society would look like. I could say "in the future the majority of people will commit suicide" -- logically possible ? yes -- probable ? no.
Who said anything about majorities?
Really ?
I have not seen a demonstration yet as to how it is inconsistent with the NAP.
If the city owner owns the sidewalks and streets, can he prevent people from getting out of their houses ? Yes ? No ? If the answer is 'yes', is this consistent with the NAP ?
If they were too stupid to get easements, then sure. You could I guess assume that at common law easements will become automatically a feature of any property (as access to it is technically necessary for it to be homesteaded in the first place) absent a clause in the contract explicitly stating the opposite, but again absent easements there is nothing in contradiction with the NAP here.
Danno:HOA? In effect, a mini-government. Without a carefully written constitution, capable of even worse abuses of power than my current government.
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.
Jon Irenicus:Who said anything about majorities?
You could I guess assume that at common law easements will become automatically a feature of any property (as access to it is technically necessary for it to be homesteaded in the first place)
but again absent easements there is nothing in contradiction with the NAP
Juan:So, can the owner prevent people from using his streets ? Yes ? No ?
It depends which rights he has contracted out, so it is impossible to give a straight yes-or-no answer. If he contracted out control of the road to me in the form of accessing the road to go to the mall, he cannot turn around and unilaterally declare that I can no longer do so. If he did not contract out control of the road for the purpose of my neighbor's KKK Holocaust denial rally, then he can prevent them from using the road.
The difference between him and a city government is that, while the city government gets to decide what is going to the mall and organizing a hateful demonstration because it is its own judge, the city-owner does not. He owns the rights to the road that he has not transferred to other.
Again, are we talking about a free society or about a club for monarchists/nudists/whatever ?
We're talking about one where people are free to enter any agreements they wish, so long as they respect legitimate property rights.
You mean jailing people is consistent with the NAP ?
Jailing? Out of context nonsense. One does not have a right to trespass on other people's property.
In which case private cities are not possible.
Non sequitur and red herring. The owner of a city could easily grant easements so one can access the city's roads and yet still remain its overarching owner. Or they could explicitly rule it out in their contracts with tenants.
I guess not. People are free to remain locked in their houses. If they try to get out they might get killed, but that won't be aggression because the city owner is just protecting his property from trespassing. It makes a lot of sense..
Indeed. It does. There is no such thing as a "right" to free movement under libertarian doctrine. Easements or joint ownership over a road are the only guarantees to accessing it.
Jon Irenicus:We're talking about one where people are free to enter any agreements they wish, so long as they respect legitimate property rights.
The owner of a city could easily grant easements so one can access the city's roads and yet still remain its overarching owner.
Or they could explicitly rule it out in their contracts with tenants.
Jon Irenicus: Juan:People are free to remain locked in their houses. If they try to get out they might get killed, but that won't be aggression because the city owner is just protecting his property from trespassing. It makes a lot of sense.. Indeed. It does.
Juan:People are free to remain locked in their houses. If they try to get out they might get killed, but that won't be aggression because the city owner is just protecting his property from trespassing. It makes a lot of sense..
There is no such thing as a "right" to free movement under libertarian doctrine. Easements or joint ownership over a road are the only guarantees to accessing it.
If he did not contract out control of the road for the purpose of my neighbor's KKK Holocaust denial rally, then he can prevent them from using the road.
Juan: Danno:HOA? In effect, a mini-government. Without a carefully written constitution, capable of even worse abuses of power than my current government. Is that necessarily so ? We're supposedly talking about a system in which 'security' is provided by competing firms - that should rule out, by definition, the possibility of the HOA acting as a rogue government. If they tried to, all you'd need to do is call your security provider.
Depends entirely upon how your contract with the HOA is written. Later misuse of clauses in condominium HOA contracts that were originally well-intentioned became almost canonical. If they're written to include decision-making on a democratic basis, the minority is contractually obligated to cooperate with the majority. Could you really call in your hired guns to get you out of a contract that had unforseen consequences?
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. I'm not sure how that follows. Allegedly the purpose of government is to 'enforce' individual rights, not to pave the streets - so a proper HOA and a government are not the same thing, in my opinion.
Depending on which school of government you subscribe to, government can have many different roles - defining and enforcing individual rights, providing for common defense, regulation and maintainence of public common-use property such as roads, parks, etc., all the way up to providing education, food, housing, and regulating the monetary supply. If you know of a government that only seeks to enforce individual rights, I think several people here would like to hear of it.
It's that "provide for the common good" clause in so many HOA contracts, put there so that they are allowed to deal with unforseen problems that became such a danger point in the 1980's condominium boom. A contract that seeks to anticipate any potential issue and prescribe how it will be dealt with is, arguably, more dangerous than one that allows for some use of judgement in management issues - but that's an arguable point, not an obvious one.
This is, however, a side issue. What would make a HOA that administered the road in front of my house equivalent to a government is that my next-door neighbor would be required, by necessity, to deal with the HOA to have access to that road - they'd have an unavoidable monopoly on an essential function.
Danno - actually, more unhappy about the lack of solution now than I was last month.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Jon Irenicus: Indeed. It does. There is no such thing as a "right" to free movement under libertarian doctrine. Easements or joint ownership over a road are the only guarantees to accessing it. -Jon
This is the most amazing assertion I've seen on this thread - that the right to travel does not exist in libertarian doctrine.
Let me ask you - if you were running a company that wanted to provide road access for profit, and were considering the purchase of an urban thoroughfare, would you consider it wise to grant easements to people who would otherwise be customers?
Danno - enjoying life's parade of surprises.
Then read Rothbard. There is certainly no such "right" devoid of context.
There's really no choice in the matter for the company. If the land has been appropriated, the easement exists. If it is bought from a land developer, it's up to the land developer to secure one.
Evasion. You're talking about a theoretically possible system which has no bearing in reality.
Bullshiting. You're pretending to know people's preferences when you don't. You claimed a privately owned city is unlibertarian. I showed that this statement is sheer nonsense.
So people would own their houses and would be able to always access them ? If that's the case the city owner has no control over 'his' city.
Sure he would. He sells them the right. It's his to begin with. And when they leave it goes back to him.
Try to understand : an apartment building is not a free society.
Try to understand: it's a voluntary contract.
So, your vision of a free society is a jail - cool.
Troll.
Guarantees to access what ? A non existent right ?
To a road.
You really seem to know absolutely nothing on libertarian theory. Not in economics. Not in political philosophy. And you have the gall to suggest Stranger and I are the ones who are ignorant. I hope from this discussion it is clear to everyone who is really ignorant.
Strip malls and shopping malls are private, and you are allowed to freely walk through them. free of charge
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