Do you guys think they’d be enforceable in a stateless society? I don’t.
You don’t think property sales contracts could contain provisions to void the sale if certain conditions aren’t met?
Hmm. So if I buy a house from someone with such a provision, and 30 years later (for example) I violate it, that would void the sale from 30 years prior?
Well, yeah… but I guess the trickier part is how would YOU be compelled to insert such a provision when you subsequently sold the house. Because by the time you sold it, you would no longer own the house to take back, and requirements cannot by physically tied to property.
I don’t know… maybe a successful covenant community would need to consist of renters so that the community would have the leverage of eviction to enforce its covenants.
Actually, the free market already takes care of this. If you own a historical house and you want it to remain “historical”, you stipulate that in the deed when you sell it. You also stipulate a historical society that watchs the property and makes sure the covenant is upheld and takes legal action if it’s not. I think the historical societies are funded though trust funds and donations and such, the’re not government agencies.
Hmm. So if I buy a house from someone with such a provision, and 30 years later (for example) I violate it, that would void the sale from 30 years prior?
I dont see how it would void anything. What it would do, if so written in the contract as a penalty, is forfit the property.
For expample, if you get a mortgage to buy a home, you are as the owner of the property limited in what you can and cannot do. You signed a contract with the bank limiting your rights. If you violate that contract the contract is not voided (unless that is what is written into it), the pentalties are spelled out in the contract. If one of those penalties is forfiture of the property then you lose the house.
In theory, the restrictive covenant could be “recursive”. That is, one of the restrictions could be to not sell the property without stipulating the same restrictive covenant in the future sale.
My concern is that, if such restrictive covenants could be made, what would keep affirmative covenants from being made? It seems to me that the enforceability of restrictive and/or affirmative covenants in land could lead to a state (and may have, in earlier times). This is the reason why I started this thread.
I don’t see any issue there, since no landowner is having to agree to do or not do certain things as part of the land purchase.
While they’re not government agencies per se, could it be said that they function somewhat like government agencies?
On a more basic level, why should someone care what happens to property after he no longer owns it? (Presuming said property isn’t used to harm anyone or their property.)
Right, I was responding to Mises Pieces’ possibly rhetorical question.
Right, but what about after you own the home “free and clear”? In many areas (at least in the US), there are Home Owners’ Associations that essentially consist of restrictive covenants. A homeowner living in an area covered by an HOA is legally bound by the restrictive covenant even after he’s paid the mortgage in full.
I don’t think many people will buy a house with a restrictive agreement. This will drive down the price of such a house. So in the long run, I would expect such agreements to become rare. But I don’t see why such a contract would be any less enforceable than any other.
Right, but what about after you own the home “free and clear”? In many areas (at least in the US), there are Home Owners’ Associations that essentially consist of restrictive covenants. A homeowner living in an area covered by an HOA is legally bound by the restrictive covenant even after he’s paid the mortgage in full.
My point is only that just because you purchase a peice of property does not mean that your rights to that property cannot be contractually limited. These limitations can also persist intergenerationally. With the mortgage example, the mortgage does not go away just because the person who signed it dies. The inheritors can either agree to continue the obligation or ownership of the property would be passed to the bank. It is all written out in the contract. The same process could be used for restrictive covenants.
Even if it could not be enforced contractually, there would be other ways. In these communities with HOAs the streets, power lines, water lines, etc. are owned by the HOA. If someone refuses to adhere to those covenents the HOA could simply cut off the use of the roads, water lines, sewer lines, etc.
But contracts should be sufficient.
I don’t think many people will buy a house with a restrictive agreement. This will drive down the price of such a house. So in the long run, I would expect such agreements to become rare. But I don’t see why such a contract would be any less enforceable than any other.
Literally tens of millions of people do it today. I dont know why they would change their minds. Most people want to live where there are assurances that their neighbors will maintain thier house, keep up their yard, etc. Those people are willing to give up some control over thier property in exchange for a little control over thier neighbors. And that is essentially what HOAs do.
I’ve long since argued that, at least depending on how it manifests, a “restrictive covenant” (and an HAO) can function exactly like a state, in that there is basically an absolutist law mechanism over a geographic area that precludes the possibility of consent (especially intergenerationally). The only difference, at best, is a matter of how the land is aquired. Beyond that, if it functions exactly like a state then I don’t see why “homesteading” makes any substantive difference.
This is a very interesting issue.
It seems to me that in a free society, you could not transfer full ownership of a property with this kind of clause. It would have to be more like a type of lease giving you control of the property, but stipulating that, if you violate the clause, control will go back to the owner. I can’t see how you could be a full owner and still not be able to do as you wish with your own property (as long as you do not violate the property rights of others).
I can’t see how you could be a full owner and still not be able to do as you wish with your own property
This is exactly what a mortgage does. It limits what you are able to do with a property.
True.
But a mortgage is a lien, a claim against the owner which is secured by real estate. once the loan is paid off, the bank no longer has a claim on the property. In the scenario described above, there would be no way for the owner to ever own the property “free and clear”.
But a mortgage is a lien, a claim against the owner which is secured by real estate. once the loan is paid off, the bank no longer has a claim on the property. In the scenario described above, there would be no way for the owner to ever own the property “free and clear”.
The only difference is that one is open ended and the other is close ended. The point is that contracts can and do limit what an owner can do with their property. I dosent mean they dont own the property only that they are contractually restricted from certain things.
So I dont see how there would be any problem with HOAs or a restrictive convenance.
This was somewhat discussed earlier:
Do you guys think they’d be enforceable in a stateless society? I don’t.
IP communism leads to total communism.
The thing is, if you can have a restrictive covenant with land, why can’t you have a restrictive covenant with non-land property?
I see nothing to prevent restrictive covenants with people, even. Restrictive covenants neatly sidestep the question of “Who owns X?” because, with them, it’s not necessary to own X (at least legally speaking) in order to impose restrictions on X. What this means is that restrictive covenants allow for slavery in spite of the fact that people are self-owners.
Indeed, it allows for inheritable slavery. The restrictive covenant there is recursive.
Please note that this is not a slippery-slope argument. My point is that there seems to be no a priori reason to keep restrictive covenants restricted (no pun intended) to land.
As far as enforcing restrictive covenants regarding building appearances, I know for example I used to live in a townhouse community where the owners only owned the interior of the units, and the HOA owned the exterior. This didn’t necessarily solve the problem of behavioral covenants, but it ensured a uniform aesthetic appearance of the buildings and grounds.
Since so many find the idea of covenant communities, with predictable standards and security, appealing, it’s hard for me to imagine that the market could not come up with a workable plan to satisfy these kinds of demands without resorting to aggression.
"I see nothing to prevent restrictive covenants with people, even. Restrictive covenants neatly sidestep the question of “Who owns X?” because, with them, it’s not necessary to own X (at least legally speaking) in order to impose restrictions on X. What this means is that restrictive covenants allow for slavery in spite of the fact that people are self-owners.
Indeed, it allows for inheritable slavery. The restrictive covenant there is recursive."
Actually, the question “Who owns X?” is never forgotten or sidestepped in the process. The current owner of the property is its actual owner - but he has agreed, via a contract, to limit the exercise of his rights to a certain degree. With the ‘historical building’ example, he would have to refrain from certain types of reconstructions for example - failure to do so could result in fines or even losing the property - as specified in the contract and explicitly agreed upon by the owner.
Comparing a contractually-based HOA to a state is an interesting point. One should of course keep in mind, how detailed those contracts are and what do they entail - they should be pretty specific in order to attract customers. But ultimately, it is a question of what you sign and what exactly is in the contract - having the association conclude on the basis of some obscure or unclear clause that have a blank check to basically regulate every aspect of living should be easy to challenge in court… or they could just conclude that you were a dupe to sign it in the first place. 
So yes, one can easily entangle himself in an undesirable position by signing a contract the implications of which they didn’t consider at the moment. How far that goes will depend on many other factors, including courts. Nobody said life would be easy.
And as for slavery, that goes way outside of this discussion - namely, to the questions whether one can actually own other people, whether one can effectively sell himself and become a slave, whether children are the property of their parents, whether slavery can be inheritable, etcetera. (Hopefully, this was already covered in different threads.)