I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the latter.
This is the key portion,
and so to “acquiesce to the system favored by majority consensus in each particular area”—so long as that means a majority consensus of the owners—without any compromise of, or loss of confidence n, their own No-Proviso Lockean principles.
I don’t get it.
What I meant is whether you felt that alternative property arrangements could be valid under a Lockean super-system.
My intrepretation of what he is saying is that as long as there is a general agreement of the members of a group, the group may adopt whatever property rules it pleases (provided that they are not in contradiction of natural law, of course). It is a consensus decision, so those that disagree are given voice; it’s not a case of majoratarianism. If those in disagreement value being a part of the group more than seeing there own views on property upheld, than they will agree to follow the consensus rules. Otherwise, they will leave the group, which doesn’t necessarily mean actually physically moving; a polycentric, interterritorial (there’s a better word, but I can’t think of it right now) system is easily imaginable. It will probably be easier, in the long run, for different towns or cities or what-have-you to have a minimum of different systems, though.
And once the consensus is in place, maintaining it is exactly analogous to a restrictive covenant; you agree to follow the rules before you purchase any property or join the group or whatever. Of course, there will be problems and conflicts, but that is true of anything in the real world, and arbitration systems would emerge to help solve that.
I think that perhaps what is meant is that it would be perfectly fine to use all sorts of non No-Proviso Lockean arrangements if that is what the owners consent to, without simultaneously believing that such property arrangements can be made without the owners’ consent. If this is what he meant then he sure picked a very uneccessarilly confusing way of stating such; thus I’m not too confident it really is what he actually meant.
People can choose statism as well. They can make up their own sytem of lottery of property or soemthign equally outlandish. But I see no reason to abide by the lotterys results. What people choose does not make it just. I am unconcerned with the state of the world as it is, or as some others woudl have it be (very much opposed to some views of THAT), only with as it ought to be.
no disagreement there, where we are speaking of things that are not discernable from natural law.
Well thats pretty much the state of the world as it is, but I do not much care for it. I suppose I am a bit intolerant. Again, I have no sympathy for the “savages” I describe from “region X”.
right off the WOMbat? hahaha
I’m tolerant, but if Carson really thinks as a capitalist, and I am going to let the much larger group of labour (anarcho-soc-syn-com) vote away my property, how the heck is that any different than what we have today?
I want a world where savages can be savages (or not) and civilized people can be free (or not) as they each choose.
ba dum bum.
But seriously, don’t give your day job 
well what I mean by intolerant is that I am not going to care much about their customs and bullshit if it gets in my way. Shoudl they all decide to move into my neighborhood I will continue to act as I believe just and they will just have to kiss my ass. I am not saying I am on a crusade or what not.
Well, that wouldn’t be different.
[H]