Suppose I accept that government must be limited because it is inherently coercive. Private enterprises and voluntary contracts are always to be preferred to the involuntary force of government.
Now I look at my local neighborhood and wonder: Are homeowner associations OK? A homeowner assocation typically does things that outrage all opponents of "big government:" It compels owners or residents to do things they don't want (e.g., maintain certain appearances), forbids them from doing things they do want with their own property, it assesses taxes for non-essential purposes, and it uses the force of law to coerce its members into compliance.
But wouldn't any libertarian say that homeowner associations are acceptable? After all, they are private contracts entered into voluntarily. If somebody doesn't want to participate in an association they simply don't buy property there or sign its contract.
Now, if "big government" homeowner associations are acceptable, aren't municipalities just big homeowner associations? So don't they also have the same justification in maintaining "big government" levels of intrusiveness on individual rights and property? And so on up counties, states, federations?
Presumably at some point a government loses its right to be "big." For example, we don't have the ability to opt out of a world government -- we can't choose to leave the planet. So world government must be limited.
At what level does "big government" become unjustifiable, and why?
The answer relies on voluntarism. You can choose to belong to a homeowner association or not.
You cannot do the same with government. Government rules you with or without your consent.
The problem isn't big government per se. There is no specific too big size we are talking about.
One must be able to choose self-government. If they cannot, and have to resort to changing municipalities and countries, that isn't the same as opting out and choosing self-government (or starting your own government).
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Let's look more closely at the homeowner association. Typically it encompasses an entire neighborhood. You simply can't live in that neighborhood without signing onto the homeowner association. If you want to choose to not belong you have to live someplace else.
The assocation can look a lot like a small municipality: It can levy annual fees, provide services and security, pass rules, impose fines. Is there some obvious line delineating "association" from "municipal government?" I don't think so. Isn't a municipal government is just a large and burdensome homeowner association?
Big municipalities have powers that HOAs do not have, such as the power to raise taxes or to expropriate. As well big municipalities are not private property - you cannot buy and sell them on the market like you can with a HOA. That means that big municipalities are a government monopoly like the Post Office or school system.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
dbooksta: Let's look more closely at the homeowner association. Typically it encompasses an entire neighborhood. You simply can't live in that neighborhood without signing onto the homeowner association. If you want to choose to not belong you have to live someplace else. The assocation can look a lot like a small municipality: It can levy annual fees, provide services and security, pass rules, impose fines. Is there some obvious line delineating "association" from "municipal government?" I don't think so. Isn't a municipal government is just a large and burdensome homeowner association?
Who owns a municipal government?
HOAs can raise taxes ("fees") to cover services, including new services, in accordance with their by-laws. They can file liens against properties to recover unpaid fees.
Nobody "owns" an HOA -- it's a contract agreed to by owners of property within the association, and perpetuated upon future owners also by contract. You can no more buy or sell an HOA than you can a municipality. (Presumably if you were to buy ALL of the property in the HOA or municipality you could eject any tenants and control it.)
So I still see no difference between property associations and government.
dbooksta: So I still see no difference between property associations and government.
Can you voluntarily withdraw from government? Can you voluntarily withdraw from a HOA?
It's as simple as consent. Please go read some Lysander Spooner.
The only way to withdraw from an HOA is to abandon or sell your property and move someplace else. Which I guess only goes to show that libertarians should be as opposed to HOAs and other community contracts as they are to government. But that strikes me as somewhat odd....
liberty student:Can you voluntarily withdraw from government?
Yes, you can, just leave the country.
Therefore, if government does not prevent you from leaving, you can leave the country. By staying in the country, you have implicitly consented.
Sorry for my statist rhetoric, but this is a good counterargument to what you just said. I would ask if the government legitimately owns the properity, and if this isn't so, if all of the owners of the properity allow the government, voluntary, to control various aspects of the properity. It is not as simple as consent.
Schools are labour camps.
dbooksta: The only way to withdraw from an HOA is to abandon or sell your property and move someplace else. Which I guess only goes to show that libertarians should be as opposed to HOAs and other community contracts as they are to government. But that strikes me as somewhat odd....
I just want to ask, how is it criminal to withdraw from that contract? Does the HOA somehow have ownership over your properity?
CONSENT. You aren't born into a HOA. You have to buy in. There is no buy-in with government.
eliotn: liberty student:Can you voluntarily withdraw from government? Yes, you can, just leave the country.
No you cannot. You are still a citizen, you are still subject to taxation, and they will not allow you take all of your property if they do not want you to.
Until you can gain citizenship somewhere else, the country of your birth OWNS YOU.
eliotn:Sorry for my statist rhetoric, but this is a good counterargument to what you just said. I would ask if the government legitimately owns the properity, and if this isn't so, if all of the owners of the properity allow the government, voluntary, to control various aspects of the properity. It is not as simple as consent.
It's a weak counterargument that doesn't account for all of the facts.
It is always as simple as consent. No consent, no legitimacy.
I'm not from USA so I don't know what exactly HOA is. Nevertheless basic difference between any voluntary agreement and any government is legitimacy of the agreement. There is no legitimate government in the world which got its power by voluntary agreement between all of the people, over whom government uses its power. Any government is just a group of people which got its power over the rest of people in a particular area by force.
liberty student:No you cannot. You are still a citizen, you are still subject to taxation, and they will not allow you take all of your property if they do not want you to.
Ok, I guess that implodes the love it or leave it argument, in part. But what if you could immediately renounce your citezenship, anytime?
liberty student: CONSENT. You aren't born into a HOA. You have to buy in. There is no buy-in with government.
You aren't born with property either.
It's a tad melodramatic to say that "the country of your birth owns you." Let us suppose (as is actually the case) that most democracies would be happy to have you leave, take whatever property you have accumulated and go anywhere else you're welcome. (U.S. is exceptional in that it would like to follow you with its tax collectors, but if you don't care to come back that's not an issue.)
Now the problem is: where can you go?
Suppose that you are born into a libertarian state but that for some reason every square foot of land in your state is covered by a Homeowner Association (HOA). There's nothing illegal or even implausible in that: It simply means that at some point in the past the owner of every single parcel of land decided that it was worth joining an HOA. Maybe they got tired of people not mowing their lawn, or playing music too loudly, or they just wanted the roads uniformly paved. It does, however, mean that you can't put a roof over your head in the state without submitting to an HOA contract -- which, as was previously argued, is tantamount to voluntarily submitting to arbitrary government (i.e., potentially "big government").
So in this case you're born free, but in practice all you can do is choose between different flavors of big government (i.e., different HOAs, which might as well be different municipalities or different states).
Hence my original question: If voluntary contracts are not proscribed, how does a libertarian propose to create a world in which one is free to choose limited government? Either you have to say, "Yes, people can legitimately choose big government, and they don't have to leave room for small government people to hide -- tough luck, libertarians," or else you have to somehow argue, "People can choose big government, but only at a small level, or only if they leave ample pockets for libertarians."
eliotn: Ok, I guess that implodes the love it or leave it argument, in part. But what if you could immediately renounce your citezenship, anytime?
I'm a big fan of renouncing citizenship. Unfortunately, my country tries to make it almost impossible.
But yes, I agree, if you could renounce, knew that, and did not, then you would be consenting. Although I hesitate to legitimize "opt out" systems. The initial "opt-in" consent should be there in a moral and ethical system.
eliotn:Does the HOA somehow have ownership over your properity?
Yes, usually it does.
Home owners association covenants are typically implemented as deed restrictions. They literally own the right to enforce the association covenants. My own HOA also maintains a lean against everyone's property in addition to deed restrictions.
FYI: HOA covenants were the preferred way to maintain whites only neighborhoods back when it was legal to do so. During her nomination process, former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor had to answer some questions along those lines about a house she had once owned.
dbooksta: You aren't born with property either.
Yes you are. Self-ownership. Unless you believe someone else owns us.
dbooksta:It's a tad melodramatic to say that "the country of your birth owns you."
I also cry during some movies.
dbooksta:Let us suppose (as is actually the case) that most democracies would be happy to have you leave, take whatever property you have accumulated and go anywhere else you're welcome. (U.S. is exceptional in that it would like to follow you with its tax collectors, but if you don't care to come back that's not an issue.)
Well that is very magnanimous of you to allow reality to be injected into this conversation. Cheers.
dbooksta:Suppose that you are born into a libertarian state but that for some reason every square foot of land in your state is covered by a Homeowner Association (HOA).
Well, I don't own the property under HOA control, so I'm on someone else's property. If I don't like it, I can leave. Or the HOA or property owner might ask me to leave anyway.
dbooksta:So in this case you're born free, but in practice all you can do is choose between different flavors of big government (i.e., different HOAs, which might as well be different municipalities or different states).
In this case? Sounds a lot like what we are living under now. We want to change that.
dbooksta:Hence my original question: If voluntary contracts are not proscribed, how does a libertarian propose to create a world in which one is free to choose limited government?
Who wants limited government? Most of us want no government.
dbooksta:Either you have to say, "Yes, people can legitimately choose big government, and they don't have to leave room for small government people to hide -- tough luck, libertarians," or else you have to somehow argue, "People can choose big government, but only at a small level, or only if they leave ample pockets for libertarians."
Government is just a monopoly on force and justice. We propose removing the monopoly status of government through opting out, and we justify it based upon the notion of consent.
You seem to be assuming that government is (1) legitimate, (2) desirable and (3) inevitable. I don't agree with any of those 3 points.
liberty student: You seem to be assuming that government is (1) legitimate, (2) desirable and (3) inevitable. I don't agree with any of those 3 points.
Almost: I am reasoning that government is both legitimate and inevitable.
Is government legitimate? Well, are HOAs legitimate? If yes, then I have argued that HOAs are indistinguishable from government, QED. If no, then I have argued that you are in effect saying that voluntary contracts can be illegitimate, which sounds surprising coming from a libertarian. So, if no, then what qualifications are reasonable and sufficient to ensure that voluntary contracts stay legitimate?
Is government inevitable? Well, if all it takes is every piece of land at some time to have its owner voluntarily opt in to a perpetual contract -- HOA or government -- then in the limit presumably all land will be under government. If you can't find land that is free from government, and you require land for subsistence, then isn't government inevitable? Or, again, you must maintain that voluntary contracts can be abrogated under certain circumstances in order to maintain certain natural rights. What are those circumstances and how are they justified?
dbooksta:Is government legitimate? Well, are HOAs legitimate? If yes, then I have argued that HOAs are indistinguishable from government, QED
Already proven false. The difference is that you have to opt in to a HOA, you are assumed to have opted into government.
dbooksta: If no, then I have argued that you are in effect saying that voluntary contracts can be illegitimate, which sounds surprising coming from a libertarian.
No, you are confusing voluntary contracts, with involuntary (coercive) contracts.
dbooksta:Is government inevitable? Well, if all it takes is every piece of land at some time to have its owner voluntarily opt in to a perpetual contract -- HOA or government -- then in the limit presumably all land will be under government. If you can't find land that is free from government, and you require land for subsistence, then isn't government inevitable? Or, again, you must maintain that voluntary contracts can be abrogated under certain circumstances in order to maintain certain natural rights. What are those circumstances and how are they justified?
I'm not an expert on covenants. Jon will be by later. I think he understands this from a legal and contractual perspective better than either of us, although I would question if a person can be bound to a covenant through their property. Or simply, can a contract be willed on another.
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