What about a more general case ?
A sells something to B on condition X. A dies. Is B still bound by the contract ?
Because they wouldn’t be able to willy-nilly violate your natural rights like your current masters.
To cite an example that happened near here; if you had a 5 year lease on a property and opened a strip club they wouldn’t be able to decide on year two of the lease that you can no longer sell alcohol in an attempt to penalize you for running an ‘immoral’ business. The city council in Scottsdale, Az did just this to try to force them out of the city and the voters shot it down after the fact.
You seriously can’t tell the difference between a system built upon natural rights and one based on theft, violence and the tyranny of the majority?
Just remember that when the bicycle lobby wants a wider bike lane on your street and they eminent domain half your driveway and front lawn. It’s not their problem that your current car won’t fit in your new driveway, compact cars leave a much smaller carbon footprint anyway and that’s all that matters.
Yes, the ownership is absolute when all owners are taken into consideration, but each has partial/fractional ownership over the whole thing. That is what I meant.
-Jon
Nope, unless they passed on ownership of the conditional restrictions.
That’s also why restrictions that property can only be handed down within a family are not valid past the death of the person who first placed the restriction on the ownership. They are trying to retain that ownership right past their death and forcing their children to abide by it by not passing on full ownership rights. As there is now not full ownership rights to the property (dead people can’t own property) you are in an impossible situation.
Well, maybe unless there is a contract that reads ‘on the condition of my death’ or something but that’s kind of tricky as the person who placed the condition isn’t around to enforce it. Never really thought about that aspect to be honest.
If anarchy cannot find a practicable method of allowing for the provision of necessary municipal services, then it’s not gonna work on more than a limited scale, is it?
Danno, who could come up with a method of providing municipal water, with multiple competing suppliers, and only the current system of water mains - but who is still stumped about the road thing.
We just showed you how, why do you keep pretending it’s no good?
I just explained why a HOA-style contract was not, IMO, a good option - I’d avoid that solution if possible. My avoidance of HOAs has prevented me from condominum living, and I can’t say I’ve ever regretted that. Personally, I’d prefer the white-with-blue-trim brigade to need a much wider acceptance to gain a majority, and I’m still having trouble reconcilling ‘majority rule’ with anarchism.
Why do you keep pretending that my objections are invalid?
Danno, off to soothe himself by loading some ammo…
A HOA (cooperative ownership) was not the solution outlined. Private ownership and rental of land is the solution. Stop dodging.
Danno,
Despite what some people may claim, an industrial society is not the same thing as a condo and a mall is not a city.
Maybe you’d be interested in checking the original presentation of libertarian anarchism.
The Production of Security (1849) by Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912)
ps: Please don’t aim my way.
Okay - that last page or two of posts didn’t happen.
Oh! Private Ownership! That’s what will make roads a non-monopoly, or a monopoly that can’t be abused! How could I have not understood that?
Sorry to be sarcastic, but claiming that the solution has been presented, without pointing toward what solution you’re talking about, is not terribly useful - I’m just not that bright. Sorry.
Danno, who hadn’t even realized he was dodging.
I understand this, but looking at similar situations isn’t a waste of time - sometimes, that does bring a possible solution to light, and knowledge is somewhat transferrable - my knowledge of what condo HOAs have been known to do is what makes me leery of any situation that’d use a HOA-style contract.
Yes, indeed, I would. New reading pointers are always welcome - I’ll peruse it later tonight, when all the chores are done. Thanks very much.
Juan - unless you’re aiming at me, or look like a large piece of paper with printing on it, you’ve nothing to fear - it’s long been my policy to never initiate violence, and I know my gun safety rules. But making ammo isn’t shooting - different thing entirely. Boring, repetitive, productive - you’ve gotta pay attention, but there’s time for thinking, and rushing isn’t good - it’s considerably more relaxing than shootin’ holes in paper is. It’d been too long, and it was fun.
Thanks for the pointer - I really needed something new on my “to read” list - but I expect I’ll enjoy this one.
Danno, off to finish the day’s chores…
No, you have not understood that since you refuse to educate yourself.
Very neat - you ignore the question, claim a solution you refuse to name, and blame it all on my ignorance - nay, my refusal to correct my ignorance.
You win, I guess. Was there a trophy or somethin’?
Danno, wondering where he left the intellectual honesty - could it be under the couch?
Colonize Somalia? Why? That was a really bad word to use. Colonize. Sounds like statism. Why would I go there? My life is here. My family is here. I don’t even know how to get there lol.
Your slavery is here! lol
It’s not really anarchic there, not yet anyway. There’s alot of foreign statist intervention that impedes on the free market progress.
That’s easy. Cities are unnatural to a true free market. Who created the cities? The state. The cities, as we know them, would change. Pretty simplistic, but true.
The arguments that anarchy could exist is just flawed because of the assumtptions needed to make it work. Suppose that such a state could be productive what would save it from it’s less enlightened neighbours who directed capital disproportionately towards weapons and armies? What would save an anarchic country from the lack of trade and commerce with other countries who would not do business with a ‘lawless’ socitey? How would such an anarchy seek resolution against wrongdoing by foreigners when it has no binding ‘statist’ legal structure?
For any idea to be valid, it has to be able to be defended. An anarchist state cannot be defended logically or even by itself if it were to become reality.
Because it would not be lawless.
who would enforce the laws? Who would agree on the laws? Each contract has to be drawn up fresh with each transaction?