So present government (i.e. limitation of one’s liberty) is fine as long as an ancestor from 200 years ago had consented to it, but becomes an abomination (“slavery”) if no record of such consent existed?
Present government has nothing to do with the past governments and the relation between its tax base. But an ancestor consenting to government sounds perfectly fine,
but becomes an abomination (“slavery”) if no record of such consent existed?
Yes, that and reasonable doubt.
In terms of the present state of affairs, somewhat of a trivial distinction between the an-cap and the minarchist position, IMO.
Minarchy sounds like a huge improvement over the present state of affairs. However choice still sounds fundamental to me.
Sorry, I meant hypothetical present state of affairs as opposed to the hypothetical 200 years ago when the ancestor had (or had not) signed the contract. Didn’t mean to involve the actual present state of affairs we’re currently experiencing – being fully aware that it’s far from both minarchy and an-cap.
In terms of choice… If your ancestor had, in fact, signed the contract with the company your choice today would be indistinguishable from the choice you’d have under minarchy: If you don’t like the terms, just leave. It’s your ancestor 200 years ago that had (or didn’t have) the choice – not you.
In terms of choice… If your ancestor had, in fact, signed the contract with the company your choice today would be indistinguishable from the choice you’d have under minarchy: If you don’t like the terms, just leave. It’s your ancestor 200 years ago that had (or didn’t have) the choice – not you.
Assuming he lived to be 200 and I was the next in line, yes. I’d have to leave the house that wasn’t mine. I have no issue with that.
However, there is a glaring distinguishment between choice and minarchy as a whole: under one system I can choose between competing agencies, or not choose at all, not so for the other. I didn’t mean to imply that an-cap gave you choice everywhere, I don’t think you should have much choice over things you don’t own.
If I inherit the property within the jurisdiction of a neighborhood pool origanization (or possibly a Home Owners Organization), am I required to pay to its coffers or move away even though I have signed no contract?
The inheritance falls under contract by the previous owner. Basically, the previous owner did not have full rights to his property. It’s like inheriting a rented cable box from a deceased person. Not an exact example but close enough.
The inheritance falls under contract by the previous owner. Basically, the previous owner did not have full rights to his property. It’s like inheriting a rented cable box from a deceased person. Not an exact example but close enough.
This is correct. Contracts and debts are always satisfied by the estate first, for they already have a pre-established right to the property. Usually some discretion is given to the heirs in what to settle debts out of, but rights to specific properties (such as real estate) are a different matter.