You know, that sounds like the typical acts of petty tyranny that statist zoning laws are all about. On the other hand, a google search for “partial ownership” didn’t produce anything useful. It seems as if the notion of “partial ownership” you describe doesn’t exist, or at least is not widespread…
I was expecting for instance that racist gun manufacturers would sell guns only to buyers who agreed to shoot blacks or mexicans, or something like that…but I didn’t found anything yet. Not that such a contract would mean anything in the real world, but at least it would have provided an illustration of your principle of ownership-not-ownership…
Please provide examples of libertarian(or at least close to) societies where that is the norm ? And also please explain how, for instance, using any property as a brothel(or any other use) can be a violation of the NAP ?
Or maybe it’s because I am not using exact legal terms. As for zoning laws, yes, they can be recreated on a market. In fact, it is perfectly desirable that it did. I for one would not want to live next to a car mechanic. Rather than partial “tyranny”, which is just you trolling again, it is a way for people to make sure that residential areas are free of industries they do not wish to live nearby. Nothing “authoritarian” about it. By Mr Libertarian himself:
Source. It’s on p.146 (185 of the PDF.)
So please don’t try fault me with being clueless of libertarian ethics.
Also:
Source.
[^o)]
What a half-witted example that is. Have you never heard of tickets being sold on the condition for example they’re not resold? Things you buy often have tons of conditions attached to them by their producer firms.
Which libertarian societies? I have already provided examples that occur in partially free societies. It does not matter if they’re “libertarian” or not because these transactions in particular are done on the market. Now, when you sell a piece of property you do so on certain conditions. It might be a complete transfer of ownership, or only a partial one, for instance you may sell it on the condition that the owner does not turn it into a brothel. I’d love to know why one cannot do that. In fact it is precisely what Rothbard’s title-transfer theory of contract allows for.
Perfect example of the introduction of (your) personal preference as an objective fact ?
…I don’t see how the owner can be prevented from turning his house into a workshop ? As long as he doesn’t pollute, I expect that in a free society he could do pretty much what he pleases.
Yes. A lame attempt at preventing a ‘secondary’ market for tickets when such a market is desired.
Conditions which nobody pays any attention to, I believe.
Maybe. I don’t believe that Rothbard is the ultimate authority in matters of ‘libertarian doctrine’ although this part is not so bad :
“Covenants and other restrictions, in short, cannot simply “run with the property” forever, thereby overriding the wishes of all living owners of thatproperty.”
I am coming really late to this one, but I just thought I would volunteer that most property owners in the US do not own the mining rights to their property, in many cases this was sold by a previous owner and is then carried as a contractual obligation with the title.
Only the first homestead is “free”. After that if the property title is transferred via sale (assuming that your theory of ownership allows this) conditions can be set in the contract between the parties. Both parties are free to accept the contract (or not), but if they do then the contract could become binding in perpetuity if it was so written.
Relevance? It is desirable to its participants for them to achieve their goals, e.g. the conservation of an old monument, or living in an area free of ugly buildings and so on.
And in a FREE society he might acquire the property on the condition he does not transform it into a workshop. Just because this does not conform to your personal predilections does not mean it shall not occur in a free society.
Yet it is perfectly valid, contractually.
Too bad. If you enter a contract the conditions are binding upon you. It’s up to the firm to punish violations.
Yeah, if the particular right in question is abandoned. Read what he says carefully.
A covenant is like any other form of property. It can be bought and sold.
If I sell my property with a covenantal limit that prevents demolition, for example, I own this covenant. If I stop enforcing it, it becomes void. If I no longer consider the covenant useful, it can be sold and rolled back into the property.
The rental contract they’ve agreed to, one must presume.
If, in a different case, a stand-alone shop is surrounded by a mall built around it, without a pre-existing contract or easement between Mr. Littleshop and SprawlMall, Inc., then Mr. Littleshop is, indeed, at the mercy of Sprawlmall. This would be prevented under my current system of government, but that’s government and icky. Before we do away with the government and go to an anarchic system, knowing how to deal with such problems may be prudent.
And why would that happen? How would it lose its easement, exactly? It’d either have to a) sell it or b) buy property without an easement (because homesteading land automatically generates one.)
That is, indeed, my fear. Nor is malicious intent required at the onset of the contract; situations change, technology alters, and what seemed remarkably reasonable and just 10 years ago looks foolish and shortsighted now, yet the contract remains valid.
In which case, I would do well to not contract with you - foretelling the future is remarkably chancy, and I’d have no way of knowing what you would consider to be your rights after the contract was signed. Going to war with your security provider would strike me as an excessive cost of doing business.
It tried - and, for a first-anywhere attempt, it was a respectable try. I’d be happy to see it tried again - unless we can find a way in which to do without government entirely, about which I remain skeptical.
For example - the HOA is dominated by people who like a particular color scheme to face ‘their’ street, and the controlling board agrees to a cocidil that requires every house with access to the road to be white with blue trim. (HOAs have, in the past, done just such things.) I like my house to be yellow, and my neighbor likes her green house - but we’re a minority in the HOA, and must act by the dictates of the HOA. The HOA has, thus, become a mini-government, whose territory encompasses the portion of the road that they control.
This does not seem consistent with anarchic goals to me - but then, I haven’t studied anarchism thoroughly, and may be underinformed.
Danno, who likes a clear view of the targets he’s aiming for.
“Fair share” as determined by whom? That’s one of those phrases that have always made me highly nervous.
With adequate space for competition, rates would be determined in a free market, of course. Without room for competition, who has authority to decide what rate is a “Fair share”?
Danno, contemplating the cost of an air taxi ride being added to the cost of this week’s grocery store trip. Yeek!
I must disagree with you on this one, Juan. If I acquire the property to my south (quite possible - the bank who currently owns it seems to be unable to find a buyer, and I expect the asking price to drop fairly soon), I could then sell it to someone, and, as part of the deed, add a cocidil that they may not build any structure higher than 45 meters on it, saving my gardens from perpetual shade. That would, of course, lower the value of the property - but that cocidil to the deed would be legal, just, and enforceable. Any condition on future use could be placed on the deed in this way - the prohibition of a retail service business, whatever I liked. That would come out of my pocket, such restrictions serving to lower the value of the property.
Such use-restricted clauses in deeds are not at all uncommon. That’s one reason you hire an expert to do a title search before transferring property - to bring such clauses to light.
It was, perhaps, a poor analogy - the case in front of us is an entity who owns the road in front of my house versus myself, a homeowner, both pieces of property in current use as road and residence, respectively - rather than a situation in which property can be bought and put to a new use.
And yes, it’s a problem that does not exist at present. However, we’re discussing a social system that also does not exist currently - anarchy. Anarchy may, indeed, be a better system than the present one, but minimalist governement is also demonstrably better. In deciding between mini-gov and anarchy, examining how the difficult, tricky aspects would/could work is an interesting exercise, important to such a decision.
It’s all moot, of course, until we figure out how to alter the present situation into either min-gov or anarchy - which I don’t expect to see happen this month, or next. But if the present system of government does lead to social breakdown (as it’s looking to do), knowing which way to push afterward would be useful - and that’d be a poor time to start examining the alternate systems carefully.
A mall is a parcel of land, owned by a business entity, which rents spaces for retail/business outlets, maintains the common areas, attracts customers, and has rules about what types of business may be performed in its spaces - such as, refusing to rent to brothels, tanneries, or heavy manufacturing. They generally arrange for security services, utilities, and mall-wide advertising. Pretty much like my city government now, come to think of it.
If you want to arrange a city with one central owner, who rents space, regulates behavior in those spaces, and provides services, that’s fine - that’s pretty much what I live with now. I fail to see how this would be anarchy - and, if it is anarchy, how it would be in any way different from the nominally-democratic system I already have.
Danno, looking forward to meeting the new boss, same as the old boss, with a nod to The Who.
You can do that. Now let’s imagine that you don’t want any brothel/liquor store/church/school to be within a mile of your home ? Any chance of buying out all possible sellers in that area ?
Well, that’s because it isn’t ‘partial ownership’.
Someone, always, must possess full ownership of a thing. If someone sold a parcel of land while retaining the ownership right of building a business on the property then there is still full ownership but not by a single owner.
Where the problem comes in is where there is a restriction placed on the property with no clear owner, as in a blanket clause that all future owners must follow as a condition of owning the property but nobody has an ownership claim on the excluded uses. The original owner has passed away with no provision to pass on the right to build a 45 story building in the residential neighborhood he developed and someone wishes to sue a neighbor for violating their deed restrictions or something like that. The person trying to build the skyscraper wouldn’t be violating anyone’s property rights since there is no owner of the excluded rights.
This is also Rothbard’s justification for copyright so I’m still trying to get a handle on it as it applies to further sales of the good but it does seem to make sense that the person who first bought it didn’t also buy the right to copy so couldn’t pass it along through further sales. But that’s waaaay of topic.