All possible social conflicts and problems will be solved by signing a contract between a bunch of home owners. Is abortion ‘legal’ ? Oh, it’s up to the HOA. Can you plant roses in your garden ? Well, there are HOA rules to deal with that. Can you drink whiskey at home ? There are HOA rules for that, too.
…But I don’t think that a big industrial society can be ‘organized’ that way. The idea is naive…or worse.
It can be. Now, if you have an alternative you think is better, propose it. Otherwise, you have little cause to whine.
What do you mean you doubt it would happen? There’d be every economic incentive for such a contract. The result of living in such a community would be lower insurance premiums. All things being equal there would be less crime since everybody is insured, hence, there’d be a greater presence of police officers etc. Meaning, lower crime, lower insurance premiums and higher property values.
Why bother when the owner(s) can buy you out?
Don’t forget the paying riders. Consider the overall balance sheet. Enter in your ledger the societal liabilities of free riders as well as the societal assets of paying riders .
Maybe you could sell ad space on security forces’ uniforms or on their cars. You could sponsor tactical maneuvers. “This arrest is sponsored by Joe’s Plumbing.”
Again, you said, “I fail to see how owners of any community wouldn’t make some form of protection or insurance compulsory.”
Please, tell me, how are property owners in a community in a stateless society are going to force others in the community to have some form of protection or insurance?
Ummm, they’re not. Stop loading the questions.
If you are renting property owned by another, the other party simply charges you rent sufficient to cover his costs, which presumably include providing for the common defense.
If you live alone, nothing forces you to purchase this sort of insurance other than the contracts to which you’ve already been bound, e.g., your mortgage will simply build into its costs, the price of such a policy, much like they now do (for many people) with homeowner’s insurance.
You’re more than welcome to not purchase this insurance, just don’t come to me asking for a loan. Don’t try renting an office space in my building.
There’s no force, you’re free to do whatever you want.
The other concealed premise in this question, is the assumption that stateless “communities” would, like their Government counterparts, rely on a geographical monopoly. But in theory, State Farm (e.g.,) doesn’t require a geographic monopoly to insure against economic loss. Your health insurance provider doesn’t require such a monopoly, nor your renter’s insurance, your auto insurance, your valuables, umbrella coverage, etc.
You’re also overlooking, intentionally or not, what is a community, which is a loose (some moreso than others) association of people who presumably like one another. My neighbor and I may very well use different “insurance” companies in a Stateless society, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t help him out if, when he’s on vacation, I see someone suspicious sneaking around his backyard, and vice versa. We’re so conditioned now to the absence of community, that most of the time, we forget what it really means.
None of what you said really makes sense to what I was asking. Did you look at what the other guy said that I was quoting? I think you are all missing the fact that he said, “wouldn’t”. If you separate it out, that would be “would not”. So, he said, "I fail to see how owners of any community would not make some form of protection or insurance compulsory.
So, you are correct, in that I would not be forced to get a loan with your insurance. I could go to your neighbor, and get a loan from him and you would go out of business.
Regardless, a stateless society would have far more home owners, and far fewer mortgages.
There is no assumption in my question that stateless societies would rely on geographical “monopolies” either.
And as to a “community”, there is no presumption that they like each other.
Community - “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/community
Nonsense, Spencer MacCallum has some good essays on this, I advise you to look them. Also, Hoppe has an essay in D:TGTF describing why this would not be the case. The fact is the state does a lot to discourage renting.
Of course there is, why else would they live in a community? The next part of your post highlights part of the reason, people who share a similar culture and heritage are more likely to like one another. Moreover, if you reside in a community inhabited with people you dislike you’ll be likely to move, moreover the owner of the community would have the option of removing you from the community or buying you out.
The state also does a lot to discourage wealth generation. Since there would be much more wealth, there would probably be much more home ownership.
Look. I do not know anyone I live by, and I do not move.
But, since you want to make the assertion, prove it. Otherwise, withdraw your statement, and go on.
Until you can prove it, it stands that people in a community do not necessarily like or dislike each other.
Let’s clear the air here: in a free society, the actual cost of providing something similar to “national” defense is unbelievably low. Since there is no standing government to take over, the actual cost of invading a “territory” are exceedingly high - since each area must be conquered independently. The more fractious the territory is, the harder it is to take over. Also, since this territory ought to be both inexpensive source of goods/services, and extremely profitable, there’s not much reason to invade, given the costs that would likely be incurred. In any event, an insurance company in stateless free society need only repudiate the Oligarchy’s rules of order: e.g., issue a notice:
There is a standing bounty for any information pertaining to credible plots to attack our customers, which shall include a monetary reward and swift extradition from the hostile regime.
We don’t play by your rules: if you attack our customers, the leaders of your country, and their families will be assassinated.
ZOMG! Really? Is that what contraction does?
There’s no need to patronize me. You asked:
They won’t. You just don’t have to be a part of their little enclave. Part of belonging to the community consists of maintaining, or providing for the maintenance of the community. Since this will be exceedingly inexpensive, there should be little (if any) resistance.
My neighbor doesn’t have any money left to lend, because he lent it all out last year, and didn’t charge sufficient risk premiums to cover the losses incurred when the Visigoths sacked & pillaged the lands held by several of his borrowers.
Then you don’t live in a community. You live surrounded by a bunch of strangers. That’s not a community.
That just doesn’t follow. You’ve not countered the point that there a significant economic incentives for the community type of arrangement that I have been discussing. The fact of the matter is that there is no need to anybody to own their own land, it’s far easier and cheaper to rent land provided by an entreprenuer, along with it comes the usual features of a community: “public spaces”, defense and roads. Moreover the state does a lot to make large land ownership unviable, hence eliminating the option of entrepreneurial ownership of communities.
Anyway, the burden of proof is on you to show why people would want to own their own land.
I highly suggest you read the work of Hoppe and MacCallum on this.
Yes and David Z pointed out the community has largely been eliminated. In any case, nobody has said that you would have to live in a community as described by me. It’s somewhat analogous to what Mises points out regarding the division of labour, it does not arise through any propensity to trade.
Now, now, no need for the arrogance.
What definition are you using of “community”. You just seem to be making up definitions as you go to support your premise.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf
There are other possibilites to providing defense, as illustrated in the above article. Namely, call options on real estate.
BTW, the Visigoths did not sack and pillage his customers, because your customers had insurance, and free-loaded off of you.
There are also a lot more rules when renting land, as opposed to owning land. As to it being “easier” to rent than own, I have no clue what you are getting at here. As to it being “cheaper”, I have no idea what you are getting at here either. It all depends on the market what is cheaper, renting or owning. There is no way for us to know what would be cheaper.
There is no reason to believe it would be different in “normal” communities, where the land is owned instead of rented.
OK. Again, in a free market, it may happen like you say. I really doubt it.
What? Why do I need to prove this?
No arrogance. Just placing the burden of proof where it belongs.
Yes, and? You’re just showing the typical libertarian aversion to all rules here.
It would cheaper since it would solve the “free rider problem” in regards to security, it would solve the provision of “public places” and the provision of roads would be far easier. Simply put, there is no incentive to own land.
Because that’s how it works.
Anyway, I’m done with this until you can give some real answers instead of just avoiding anything inconvenient.
What the hell? Libertarians believe in law and order. We do not believe in the state. Get it right what a libertarian is before you spout more nonsense.
Also, your statement assumes that people in general do not like freedom. That is just more nonsense.
Not for the free-riders.
As if people really want them. Hmm, I wonder why the state has to provide them? Oh yeah, the market does not because people do not want them.
Why do I need paved roads? Sounds more expensive to me.
I’m trying to play along with your definition, even though it’s pretty clear we’re talking past one another on this topic. I say that for any arbitrarily defined geographic region, any number of “communities” with some degree of overlap between them may exist among one another. So, it’s pointless to say that “the community will force you to do X” when A) there is not just one community and especially because B)a community does not have volition and does not act.
There may (or may not) be individuals who are (or are not) members of one or more of these “communities”, who stipulate as part of contractual agreements you make with them, that you need to do X, but nobody is forcing you to do a god damn thing.
I’m well aware that there are other options, I’m not stipulating that the ideas discussed here are the only or even the best options, just that they are a possible means of providing for such things. I like the idea of dominant assurance contracts.
My customers had insurance. The Visigoths were well aware that my neighbor’s customers didn’t. My insurance company sat idly by, drinking coffee and eating donuts while my neighbor’s customers were overrun.
Read my words please. I. Never. Said. That. “the community will force you to do X”. That is what GilesStratton said.
Well then quit arguing with me and argue with GilesStratton, because that is what he said, NOT ME. That is why I was trying to point out to you in a previous post that you must have misread what he said.
Perhaps you should try reading in future?