Depends entirely upon how your contract with the HOA is written. Later misuse of clauses in condominium HOA contracts that were originally well-intentioned became almost canonical. If they’re written to include decision-making on a democratic basis, the minority is contractually obligated to cooperate with the majority. Could you really call in your hired guns to get you out of a contract that had unforseen consequences?
Depending on which school of government you subscribe to, government can have many different roles - defining and enforcing individual rights, providing for common defense, regulation and maintainence of public common-use property such as roads, parks, etc., all the way up to providing education, food, housing, and regulating the monetary supply. If you know of a government that only seeks to enforce individual rights, I think several people here would like to hear of it.
It’s that “provide for the common good” clause in so many HOA contracts, put there so that they are allowed to deal with unforseen problems that became such a danger point in the 1980’s condominium boom. A contract that seeks to anticipate any potential issue and prescribe how it will be dealt with is, arguably, more dangerous than one that allows for some use of judgement in management issues - but that’s an arguable point, not an obvious one.
This is, however, a side issue. What would make a HOA that administered the road in front of my house equivalent to a government is that my next-door neighbor would be required, by necessity, to deal with the HOA to have access to that road - they’d have an unavoidable monopoly on an essential function.
Danno - actually, more unhappy about the lack of solution now than I was last month.
This is the most amazing assertion I’ve seen on this thread - that the right to travel does not exist in libertarian doctrine.
Let me ask you - if you were running a company that wanted to provide road access for profit, and were considering the purchase of an urban thoroughfare, would you consider it wise to grant easements to people who would otherwise be customers?
Then read Rothbard. There is certainly no such “right” devoid of context.
There’s really no choice in the matter for the company. If the land has been appropriated, the easement exists. If it is bought from a land developer, it’s up to the land developer to secure one.
Bullshiting. You’re pretending to know people’s preferences when you don’t. You claimed a privately owned city is unlibertarian. I showed that this statement is sheer nonsense.
Sure he would. He sells them the right. It’s his to begin with. And when they leave it goes back to him.
Try to understand: it’s a voluntary contract.
Troll.
To a road.
You really seem to know absolutely nothing on libertarian theory. Not in economics. Not in political philosophy. And you have the gall to suggest Stranger and I are the ones who are ignorant. I hope from this discussion it is clear to everyone who is really ignorant.
Just like you. You talk about an hypothetical and ridiculous system that can only exist if people prefer it. - But I don’t expect you to admit your double standard - it’d take too much intellectual honesty to do so.
What right ? Houses are privately owned. Access to them exists thanks to easements. The city ‘owner’ has no way to control who enters and leaves ‘his’ city. Get over it.
Whether they leave or not is irrelevant. Stop pretending that a free society is a bunch of flats for rent will you ?
Stranger ? Is he the same guy advocating bank socialism in this thread ? Oh boy. Is he the same guy that regards libertarian morality as a fairy tale ? … I suggest you try to pick better ‘allies’…
You’re a bit more clever at confusing things than he is, but are ultimately just as clueless. All your arguments reduce to equivocating ‘free society’ ‘city’ and ‘apartment building’.
Which in turn depends on the people who wrote the contract. If the owners are sensible people then the contract will be a sensible contract. If the owners are a bunch of potential tyrants and crooks, then you’ll have a government. There seems to be no way around that.
Well, if people try to interpret a contract in a way that violates your rights, why not ? That’s exactly the kind of service that I would expect a security provider to offer.
Fine, but we’re talking about minimal government vs. no government ?
Of course, there’s none. The American government was supposed to do that, but it never really did, no ?
Are you assuming that the HOA has the right to ‘exclude’ property owners from using a jointly owned road ? Why ? How ?
Excuse me? You’re the one who ruled it out as unlibertarian.
Assume a conglomerate of firms builds the city up from scratch. It possesses all rights to its holdings. It can sell them or rent them on any given conditions it so desires, subject to the agreement of the buyer/renter.
Demonstrate where I “pretended” such a thing.
He is certainly more correct than you are on this.
Clueless of what? Libertarian literature? Then I implore you to read Rothbard or the Tannehills.
Someone asked for examples, I gave examples. ANYTHING is possible if the price is right.
Air taxis and bridges are MORE REALISTIC than the hypothetical and ridiculous scenario of a person investing money in a roadway, then blocking off potential customers and shooting them for trespass instead of luring them to his business with coupons, discounts and other advertising methods.
Not really. Maintaining safe, comfy access for customers is part of what the company who owns the mall provides to their tenants, the shops renting space. If they started blocking traffic, or inconveniencing foot traffic needlessly, the tenant shops would raise holy heck, and rightfully so. If the company can provide customer parking, they can charge higher rents to the shops.
Danno, remembering rental retail space with a shudder
But what’s stopping a mall company from locking store owners inside their stores, or evicting them and taking all the merchandise to sell on eBay? Clearly this is an insane business model.
Except that renting and selling are different operations. If you rent something you can attach terms to the contract such as “the renter/tenant can do this, can’t do that, etc”. As far as I know buying and selling doesn’t work like that. Buying and selling is, by definition, a transfer of ownership and thus a transfer of total control. So, if the conglomerate sells a part of its holdings, by definition, it loses control of that part.
So…again…you can come up with an hypothetical scenario in which tenants are ‘voluntary’ subjected to the will of the landlord…but such contracts would be slave contract in my opinion and, following Rothbard and others, unenforceable.
Come on. The absolute owner of a city trying to abuse his power is not a far fetched scenario while building a bridge to the grocery store is.
Or let’s say that 60% of the road users come to believe that redheads shouldn’t use the road and they are willing to pay more if the road owner excludes redheads. Now what ?
No, you can just sell particular uses of a piece of property but not others, e.g. all uses of it but the right to turn the building being sold into a brothel. It is indeed possible for a conglomerate to sell its holdings instead of renting them. But that does not mean the city was not privately owned by it before it did so. All the more so in a case where it simply rented out property.
And why is that? You do not possess a right with respect to something you do not own, e.g. the road, and property is certainly alienable. To argue it is a slavery contract you’d have to prove one has an inalienable right to move through whichever property they so wish.
Really ? So ownership is not ownership after all. How interesting.
So…Are you saying that somebody who is locked in his property is not jailed ? That this ‘voluntary’ jailing is compatible with libertarian principles ?
Do you have any real world examples of that kind of partial ‘ownership’ ? What is really mind boggling is that in your world absolute control doesn’t mean absolute control.
If I want to turn my property into a brothel I think I’m free to, because doing so doesn’t violate the NAP. Again, I’m assuming we’re talking about a free society, not about some feudal/conservative ‘private’ club.
Yeah, if you for instance sell a buy a house from a particular historic period from a group that conserves such buildings, it may come with restrictions on what you can do to it. If you buy the property on those conditions, you may only make certain alterations to it. Or you can buy villas in Sicily for low prices on the condition that you restore them. There’s nothing mind-boggling. Or in some cases you may buy a house from a developer on the condition you do not turn it into a business, as it is a residential area. To sell a good one must be its private owner to begin with. So it is with the city’s owners selling parts of it. If they rent it it remains theirs.
Please cut this puerile crap out. It is becoming boring. If you buy something on certain conditions you only acquire partial ownership over it.