News

Loading...

Friday, August 29, 2014

My new private community...

is a lot like Singapore.

I just bought a small house in a private community in the Poconos that I am fixing up to either sell or rent. The experience with the community government has been interesting.

First of all, the idea that because I bought in the community I explicitly agreed to all its rules no more true or false than if I had bought a house in an ordinary "statist" town. In fact, I did not receive my packet containing all the community rules until the closing. I suppose I could have halted the closing while I read through the many pages of regulations, but if you have ever been at a closing, you can imagine that there would've been a number of other unhappy people at the conference table.

As I began to learn the community's rules, I found some interesting things. I had my regular tree guy come over to look at some trees overhanging the house that definitely needed to come down. He told me, "I can do this work, but you need to get a permit. For every tree you take down with a trunk diameter of over 3 inches, there is a $650 fine." I went and applied for my permit, but in the meantime, there were a number of small trees I could take down myself. About 10 minutes after I started my chainsaw, a security vehicle drove by my house and slowed to see what was going on: the tree police.

I have been doing AirBnB rentals at my other Pocono house. Perhaps, I thought, I could pick up a few extra dollars doing those at this new place as well, when I didn't need to stay at the house. Nope. The community rules forbid rentals of under 30 days, and the community charges a $500 fee each time a new tenant occupies the house.

The community, for a place with low traffic volume, is also chock-full of stop signs, and has a low posted speed limit. When I stopped to register at the "government" office, I was told I would be fined for failing to stop at a stop sign or exceeding the speed limit. Oh, and while I was there, the community board president saw a newcomer, approached me, introduced himself, shook my hand, and told me his office was always open to me I had any problems or questions. Kind of like a... politician.

Today I had my house power-washed. Within a few minutes of the rather noisy power-washing machine starting up, a security vehicle was again passing my house, again slowing to have a look at what was going on. In two weeks, my house in a private community has already garnered more security attention than the two houses I have owned in rural areas under the control of "statist" governments had in a dozen years.

In short, private government looks a lot like plain-old government, except maybe a bit more intrusive than I am used to. Yes, I chose to live here, but so does anyone moving to an old-fashioned town. And if we ever "achieve" ancapistan, this more intrusive form of government might become the norm.

And note: I do not object to this community having these rules. But I also don't think that I am somehow "more free" living under private government than I was under public government.

UPDATE: And one thing I am certainly not allowed to do in this private community: secede. If I don't like the rules, I have to leave. Oh, and my "community fees" are MUCH higher than my "taxes." And if I don't pay them? I lose the house.

68 comments:

  1. Next week, Gene live-blogs from a brothel: "These ladies take more liberties than the TSA!! Yet I haven't heard a peep from the Rothbardians, those hypocrites."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob, I have no clue what you are trying to point out with this comment. If I went to a brothel, I would expect the women to fondle me. But in buying into this private community, i very much did not expect they would forbid vacation rentals. Yes, I could have sought this info out in advance: but so could I have done for any "statist" town I looked to move in to. So... I don't get what the hey you are trying to say here.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, I really do know exactly what you are saying: "Help me, I am desperate!"

      I know, it is uncomfortable! But once you admit you have been talking bs, you will start to feel better. Believe me.

      Delete
    3. I think Bob's point is when you go to the whorehouse you implicitly agree to abide by their rules, but when you go to the airport it is crazy to think you have somehow agreed to abide by their rules.

      Delete
  2. We lived for four years in such a community, in the beautiful Silver-lakes golf Estate, in South Africa. And we also had a few (minor) troubles with rules we didn't care about before (e.g. dogs always on leash, fine first offense 500 ZAR, second offense 1000 ZAR, etc. when we arrived we had no dogs). And traffic regulation was quite stupid with stops every 200 meters (but nobody abode).

    But it was marvelous : total security. You could go out and wouldn't need to lock the door, the children could play on the streets. Outside those fortified villages, as you can guess, crime is endemic. I was personally attacked while in a car at a robot (red light) by two men with a knife, in center Pretoria, in the middle of the day, in front of a lot of bystanders.

    It is just an anecdote, I have no points to make, except maybe to point out that the enforcement of the main, task, in my view, of the State, to protect people and their properties, is a total failure in South Africa. That's why the private security business is so flourishing. (It is quite common that the police officers rent their police cars and uniforms to criminals, to facilitate their crimes)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's really just another state. But really, what about the fiasco with Executive Outcomes?

      Delete
    2. When their is a lack of good government, entrepreneurs will fill the void.

      Delete
  3. Most things that are proprietary draw my ire: walled gardens, technologies, software, etc. But proprietary states, uh, I mean communities put me the most on edge. Open > closed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You know, I wonder if the reason Singapore, despite it's very unfreeness, gets marketeer praise because it is run like a corporation. They don't call it Disneyland with the death penalty for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The TV Tropes page for One Nation Under Copyright has some good words on the subject:
    If taken to the extreme by the government owning everything, this raises the question: "What's the difference between these and Dirty Commies?" Some might argue that this is the whole point. This idea—that "business runs government" and "government runs business" are basically the same—is at the heart of many, many populist and/or agrarian movements since at least the 19th century, e.g. G. K. Chesterton's "Distributism".

    So, if in Ancapistan's made up of large plots of land controlled by companies, then those will be governments. Why this straightforward fact is lost on so many anarcho-capitalists is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson, in Ancapistan the choice is, accept my rules or die of starvation, harried and hounded from every plot of land. In the USA the choice is, accept our rules or live in a designated spot where we will feed you.
      Now you see why Ancaps are so smug about their superior morality.

      Delete
    2. actually, in ancapistan locking people up in prison against their will, or just shooting them dead when they don't obey your rules is just as much of a possibility.

      Delete
  6. I went on a lion taming course last week. It was very dangerous and I had to agree to all sorts of rules to make it safe. But it was fun and the rules all made sense so I was happy to agree to them.

    The only think that spoiled it was this anarchist who had been sent there as a punishment for non-payment of his taxes. He hated rules and hated danger and did nothing but complain.

    I have no idea what he was complaining about though because the rules were exactly the same for him as for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I have no idea what you are getting at.

      Delete
    2. In your post you say 'But I also don't think that I am somehow "more free" living under private government than I was under public government.'

      I took this to mean that what mostly matters is what the rules you face are - and the question of your consent to these laws is not very important.

      Did I misunderstand?

      Perhaps your post was really about the importance of reading the small print when signing a contract.

      Delete
    3. "I took this to mean that what mostly matters is what the rules you face are - and the question of your consent to these laws is not very important."

      But, but... "First of all, the idea that because I bought in the community I explicitly agreed to all its rules no more true or false than if I had bought a house in an ordinary "statist" town."

      So there is no more and no less consent in moving into a private community than on moving into a public community! I very explicitly handled this point, so that was why I didn't get your first post.

      Delete
    4. If you just take the set of rules that apply to a community as a given that you have accept if you choose to live there then your point is good.

      However that says nothing about the legitimacy or fairness of the set of rules that happen to apply. People who move to North Korea or Syria clearly have to accept the rules they have there. But this makes these rules neither legitimate nor fair using the standard that most people would apply.

      Delete
    5. Rob, my point has nothing to do with what you are writing about. I am just noting that private communities have no essential difference from small towns.

      Delete
    6. However that says nothing about the legitimacy or fairness of the set of rules that happen to apply. People who move to North Korea or Syria clearly have to accept the rules they have there. But this makes these rules neither legitimate nor fair using the standard that most people would apply.

      You're almost there. Just one step away from applying this to businesses.

      Delete
  7. "my "community fees" are MUCH higher than my "taxes."

    higher than your local taxes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fees I pay as a result of buying this house are higher than the taxes I pay as a result of buying it.

      Delete
  8. I too live in a private community, a co-op in fact. I was told most of such rules before buying in. The rules certainly are more intrusive and extensive. The size of mailboxes is regulated for instance. But because we are an equal opportunity housing community we fall short of the Rothbardian ideal ...

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I also don't think that I am somehow "more free" living under private government than I was under public government."

    You're still living under public government of course.

    'private government' on its own sounds like a form of dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course. What I mean is that in this private community, things are far more restrictive than under "merely" public government.

      Delete
  10. "So there is no more and no less consent in moving into a private community than on moving into a public community!"

    Do you agree that the private community was established with unanimous consent of the owners involved?
    Then do you see the difference with a nation-state?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Julian, the private community works by majority vote, not unanimous consent: just like the nation-state. Do you not see the identity?

      Delete
    2. Hi Gene
      Yes, the parallel is clear. My question aimed to show a significant difference .

      Do you agree that the private community was *established* (as in started, founded, initiated) with unanimous consent of the owners involved?
      In other words, no property was joined to this compact without explicit consent.

      Delete
    3. No, you are wrong: it was started by a corporation. I suppose you could claim it was started "with the consent" of this one owner. Which is, in fact, the way the entire state of Pennsylvania was started.

      Delete
    4. Benjamin Franklin had some interesting things to say on proposed alterations to the Constitution of Pennsylvania in 1789:

      "Suppose one of our Indian Nations should now agree to form a civil Society; each Individual would bring into the Stock of the Society little more Property than his Gun and his Blanket, for at present he has no other. We know, that, when one of them has attempted to keep a few Swine, he has not been able to maintain a Property in them, his neighbours thinking they have a Right to kill and eat them whenever they want Provision, it being one of their Maxims that hunting is free for all; the accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society, must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws. Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy in Government"

      http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch12s25.html

      Delete
    5. Is it just me or are these responses beginning to sound more and more desperate and less and less coherent?

      Delete
    6. Thanks for your patience.

      It seems to me that you actually agreed.
      Private communities are indeed formed from unanimous consent of the owner(s) of the property.
      It could be that individuals owners come together to form this community. Or it could be that they formed a group beforehand to pool their resources and acquire this large property. In both cases, the property was voluntarily contributed by the owner or owners.

      Now, I am no expert in Pennsylvania's history, but I doubt that it was legitimately owned by a single organization. From my reading, there were multiple groups of settlers, as well as native Indians tribes.
      Unless all those settlers and tribes were part of a single organization, I don't see evidence of unanimous consent.

      That is a relevant difference.

      Delete
    7. All of Pennsylvania was owned by William Penn. Now, you may think that ownership was illegitimate... but then so is all subsequent land ownership in Pennsylvania, since it all springs from that grant. So that includes that of the private community in which I live. So, no, no relevant difference.

      Delete
    8. "Now, I am no expert in Pennsylvania's history..."

      But, amusingly, this isn't going to stop you from talking about it.

      Delete
    9. Now, I am no expert in Pennsylvania's history…

      That much is clear, sir.

      Delete

    10. Samson Corwell6:07 PM
      Is it just me or are these responses beginning to sound more and more desperate and less and less coherent?

      We could christen this
      Corwell's Law of Ancaps! This is what usually happens Samson.

      Delete
    11. "But, amusingly, this isn't going to stop you from talking about it."

      Cute. Good to know how you respond to humility. I could only assuming from your mockery that you are expert on all the topics that interest you, that you're learning about or that you engage in discussion about.

      Now back to the topic. Since you are obviously very knowledgeable, would you mind sharing how King Charles II came to be the legitimate owner of this property which he then granted to Penn (supposed "private owner")?

      Delete
    12. "Cute. Good to know how you respond to humility."

      ROFL! Spouting off on a topic you know nothing about ain't humility, Julien!

      'would you mind sharing how King Charles II came to be the legitimate owner of this property which he then granted to Penn (supposed "private owner")?'

      Would you mind sharing how your "humility" allowed you to miss: "Now, you may think that ownership was illegitimate... but then so is all subsequent land ownership in Pennsylvania, since it all springs from that grant. So that includes that of the private community in which I live."

      Delete
    13. … would you mind sharing how King Charles II came to be the legitimate owner of this property…

      The king doesn't need to be the owner of the land anymore than ICANN needs to own the domain names people register.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. "Claiming that Penn is a "private owner' when he didn't buy the land from a private owner or homestead ain't honesty, Gene."

      By any legal definition of private ownership that has ever existed anywhere, as far as I know, Penn was the private owner of Pennsylvania. The fact that I don't use your idiosyncratic definition of private ownership does not make me dishonest.

      "It is very unlikely that a person would manage to homestead..."

      "Homesteading" is a fiction: almost NO land ownership came about in that way. And there is no obvious reason why fencing some land allows you to own it in the first place. Since ANY and EVERY private community will have ownership of land in a way you consider invalid, no private community can ever exist!

      "If a thief steals your radio, sells it, then it gets sold a few more times, it gets homesteaded again."

      Right, and if a lie gets repeated enough times, it becomes true! This libertarian argument is hilarious:

      When asked why property rights should be absolute, libertarians make up a fictitious tale about homesteading.

      When it is noted that essentially 0% of the property in the world can be traced back to such "legitimate" homesteading, libertarians do a bunch of hand-waving and claim that stolen property that gets passed around enough isn't stolen anymore!

      THAT is dishonesty, Julien.

      Delete
    16. Just after I posted my reply, Julien yanked the comment I was replying to.

      Delete
    17. [Sorry for the repost, a sentence was out of sequence after a copy&paste]

      "Spouting off on a topic you know nothing about ain't humility, "

      Claiming that Penn is a "private owner' when he didn't buy the land from a private owner or homestead ain't honesty, Gene. You tried to play a fast one on me and make me self-attack, when you still have the weaker case.
      My point was indeed correct, as you'd reasonably expect. It is very unlikely that a person would manage to homestead such a massive area when there are in a process of settling by multiple groups (not to mention Indians). Penn cannot be said to be a private owner, and Pennsylvania a private club. It was just the direct result of the king's power.
      Or maybe you'll call Great Britain a private club too and the king a private owner?

      "[illegitimate] but then so is all subsequent land ownership in Pennsylvania"

      I didn't miss it that statement, it just doesn't answer the question. That said you raise a fair point about legitimacy of property today.

      The difference in my mind is not categorical, but rather a question of degree. If a thief steals your radio, that property is clearly illegitimate. If a thief steals your radio, sells it, then it gets sold a few more times, it gets homesteaded again.
      Similarly, most land ownership today is the result of owners buying it (with exception of public land and eminent). Penn got it from a straight grant.
      In other words, we can argue the degrees of legitimacy of property that resulted, but Penn's case should be clear.

      Delete
    18. "Just after I posted my reply, Julien yanked the comment I was replying to."

      I thought I reposted after deleting the comment. I realized a sentence was out of order due to bad copy&paste. I am happy to repost as needed (I archive all my comments) if it does not show up in your approval queue already.

      "The fact that I don't use your idiosyncratic definition of private ownership does not make me dishonest."

      Then please let me know why you think Penn is a legitimate owner (as opposed to the settlers and Indians) and what definition of private ownership you use.
      Was the king the owner of England?

      "claim that stolen property that gets passed around enough isn't stolen anymore!"

      I do not say that. A rightful owner can reclaim his legitimate property that was stolen.
      What would you say, in the radio example then?

      Delete
    19. "The king doesn't need to be the owner of the land anymore than ICANN needs to own the domain names people register."

      Samson,
      A register does not need to approve or grant ownership, it just records it. If it requires approval, then it is an owner, not a register.
      In order for the king to grant this land, the king must have owned it.

      Delete
    20. "In order for the king to grant this land, the king must have owned it. "

      Complete nonsense. The fantasy of "homesteading" is completely clouding your thinking. In order to grant someone ownership of X, Y only need be the legitimate legal authority determining property rights.

      Delete
    21. If it requires approval, then it is an owner, not a register.

      Then you don't know what you're talking about. ICANN isn't the owner of the domain name system.

      Delete
    22. A register does not need to approve or grant ownership, it just records it.

      You also don't know what domain name registration is.

      Delete
    23. In order to grant someone ownership of X, Y only need be the legitimate legal authority determining property rights

      I think this becomes obvious once libertarians start talking about privatizing the electromagnetic spectrum, something which doesn't even conform to their usual tripe about "scarce resources".

      Delete
    24. Samson, was any of your replies an argument? I only see unsupported attacks.

      Delete
    25. "In order to grant someone ownership of X, Y only need be the legitimate legal authority determining property rights."

      Do you agree that ownership simply means "who gets to control" this resource?
      Then please tell me how having "the legitimate legal authority determining property rights" for something any different than ownership?

      If I get to decide who owns something (or not), then how am I not the prior owner?

      Delete
    26. This is kind of like explaining how a sunny day is different from a rainy day, but here goes:

      Let us imagine an estate. There are two wills, one leaving the estate to George, the other to Rob. It is not clear if both are genuine. It is not clear which is more recent. The two parties bring their evidence before a judge. He will wind up deciding who owns the estate.

      But in NO sense does the judge own it. He cannot take a vacation there. He cannot sell it and pocket the proceeds. He cannot tear down the mansion and put up condos. So owning something and having the authority to decide who owns something are completely different things.

      Delete
    27. "But in NO sense does the judge own it."
      "So owning something and having the authority to decide who owns something are completely different things."

      You are correct that ownership may be a strong word for this scenario. But ownership is a bundle, from which the judge receives some rights. That is indeed ownership (partial and conditional).

      The ownership is between A and B, and they both delegate a decision to the judge.
      The judge gets his authority over the property because A and B own it (amongst the two of them).
      The judge received temporary ownership (within conditions) from A and B: "We will put this property in your trust, and you will give it back to who you determine is the rightful owner".

      On the other hand, if it is clear that neither A or B have claims to the property, and the judge gives them the property, then the judge must have been the owner. Otherwise, how did he get it?
      Similarly, when the king grants Penn ownership of this land, it means the king had ownership.

      If you disagree with either of these accounts, then please tell me how the judge derives his authority to give the property to either A or B.

      Also, for purpose of clarity, let me re-iterate my earlier questions:
      "Then please let me know why you think Penn is a legitimate owner (as opposed to the settlers and Indians) and what definition of private ownership you use.
      Was the king the owner of England?"

      Delete
    28. [Since I still don't see the re-posted comment, I'm re-posting again for the record with the sentence back in the proper place. Sorry for the trouble]

      "Spouting off on a topic you know nothing about ain't humility, "
      Claiming that Penn is a "private owner' when he didn't buy the land from a private owner or homestead ain't honesty, Gene. You tried to play a fast one on me and make me self-attack, when you still have the weaker case. My point was indeed correct, as you'd reasonably expect. It is very unlikely that a person would manage to homestead such a massive area when there are in a process of settling by multiple groups (not to mention Indians). Penn cannot be said to be a private owner, and Pennsylvania a private club. It was just the direct result of the king's power.
      Or maybe you'll call Great Britain a private club too and the king a private owner?

      "[illegitimate] but then so is all subsequent land ownership in Pennsylvania"
      I didn't miss it that statement, it just doesn't answer the question. That said you raise a fair point about legitimacy of property today.
      The difference in my mind is not categorical, but rather a question of degree. If a thief steals your radio, that property is clearly illegitimate. If a thief steals your radio, sells it, then it gets sold a few more times, it gets homesteaded again. Similarly, most land ownership today is the result of owners buying it (with exception of public land and eminent). Penn got it from a straight grant. In other words, we can argue the degrees of legitimacy of property that resulted, but Penn's case should be clear.

      Delete
    29. "Do you agree that ownership simply means "who gets to control" this resource?"

      No. And you don't believe that either.

      For example, if Mr A shoots Mr B with a gun in a way that you think is unjust, you believe that you have the right to use force to make him comply with your beliefs about what is right and wrong with regards to the use of that gun.

      Why you pretend otherwise is a mystery.

      Delete
    30. "please tell me how having "the legitimate legal authority determining property rights" for something any different than ownership?"

      You believe that you have the right to determine property rights for land and objects that are not your property.

      Yes, you do.

      You claim legal authority over those things, but you don't claim that you "own" them.

      ...

      Do you realize now why you are a hypocrite?

      Delete
    31. Julien, you go ask 100 lawyers if a probate judge "owns" the estate he is settling. You will get 100 "no"s. But if you want to use language in this bizarre way... hey, it's a free country.

      "If you disagree with either of these accounts, then please tell me how the judge derives his authority to give the property to either A or B."

      Because he has been appointed to the probate court? I mean, that is kind of the easy and obvious answer. Why you thought you had "got" me is a little puzzling.

      Delete
    32. Claiming that Penn is a "private owner'…

      I think this is what Voegelin meant by "'reality' in quotes".

      …when he didn't buy the land from a private owner or homestead…

      Who in the world has heard of homesteading, much less even uses it aside from maybe several tens of thousands of people who have been more or less swindled by Murray? The inclusion of a such an arcane and unusually specific rule should tip people off to something being an ideology. It's like a kind of pseudolegal woo.

      Here are some words from a Canadian judge on pseudolegal arguments that also happen to fit anarcho-capitalism to a tee: "OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. … The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer.". Arbitration? Contracts? Homesteading? Private law? The NAP? It's all nonsense.

      Delete
    33. "Mr."
      "if Mr A shoots Mr B with a gun in a way that you think is unjust, you believe that you have the right to use force ..."

      I didn't get your point. How does this relate to what ownership is?

      Delete
    34. "But if you want to use language in this bizarre way..."

      I have now offered you 3 times to define what you consider ownership (and how Penn is a "private owner") to avoid such problems. Sadly you avoided the question.
      I've given you a definition of ownership and used it consistently.

      If you consider yourself an owner of your condo, despite not having the full bundle of rights, then the judge which has just a few rights (exclude you from using this property for instance) is no different.

      I offered an explanation of how that is possible by usual mechanisms (delegation, contracting). You offered me: because the court!

      "Because he has been appointed to the probate court?"
      Awesome.
      Why does the judge have authority or rights over your property? Because the court said so.
      Do you want to guess my next question? (How does the court have rights over your property?)

      Let me cut to the chase. If I read between the lines, you will say it's because government is a club (like HOA). Some rights to this property have be delegated to government.

      Yet when I asked evidence that property was pooled into this club, you gave the example of Penn. But this turns out to be circular, since he got this property grant from the king. So I asked you if England was a club and the king the owner. (Again, unanswered)

      Delete
    35. Samson

      Gene stated that "Penn was the private owner of Pennsylvania."
      Given that he got the land from the king, which I doubt Gene will call a private owner, I am using quote because it does not make sense to call Penn a private owner.

      "Who in the world has heard of homesteading"
      Who in the world has heard of quarks? Yet they drive the world at a fundamental level.

      The point is it does not matter that some political philosophers identified this behavior and named it. The important thing is whether it describes the logic of property and ownership.
      Maybe you will step in for Gene, and offer your theory of property.

      Delete
    36. "Because the courts..."

      Dumb-ass remarks like that are going to have you banned real soon. That the judge can decide this case because of his position is simply and obviously true, and is the answer every legal scholar in the country will give you. That this does not fit in your bizarre personal definition of ownership... well, who care?

      The owner of something is whoever the legal system says the owner is. This is now about the fourth time I have explained this to you, but you can't fit it in your thick skull cause it is so stuffed full of nonsense definitions of ownership.

      Delete
    37. I have now offered you 3 times to define what you consider ownership (and how Penn is a "private owner") to avoid such problems.

      William Penn was the private owner because he was the only one who owned it! That's the define characteristic of something being private. France was the private property of King Louis XIV prior to the French Revolution. King Leopold II was the private owner of the despotic Congo Free State. For crying out loud, why is this so complicated for you?

      I've given you a definition of ownership and used it consistently.

      It's a weird and idiosyncratic one.

      If you consider yourself an owner of your condo, despite not having the full bundle of rights…

      Being a judge doesn't convey any of the sticks in the bundle. Full stop. Nevada's legislature created statutes defining allodial title within its borders and they don't own it. In any sense of the word. At all.

      I offered an explanation of how that is possible by usual mechanisms (delegation, contracting).

      Your "usual mechanisms" aren't usual at all because they aren't don't even fit into this.

      If I read between the lines, you will say it's because government is a club (like HOA).

      No, it's like a government because it's a big power structure that sets rules for an area.

      Some rights to this property have be delegated to government.

      Nope.

      Given that he got the land from the king, which I doubt Gene will call a private owner…

      Monarchies are private states. In fact, the term "state" comes from being a contraction of "estate".

      Who in the world has heard of quarks? Yet they drive the world at a fundamental level.

      I'd say subatomic particles that continue to operate the same way no matter what conventions society uses are a bit different.

      Delete
    38. It was just the direct result of the king's power.

      And?

      Delete
    39. Roddis was making noise about Congo. I pointed out it was privately owned ...
      The ancaps will retort it was actually stolen. Fair enough but irrelevant. It was run as privately owned, and the situation could have arisen various ways in ancapistan. The simplest is to find an old document detailing "first use" or homesteading by Leopold's ancestors.

      Delete
    40. The ownership is between A and B, and they both delegate a decision to the judge.
      The judge gets his authority over the property because A and B own it (amongst the two of them).
      The judge received temporary ownership (within conditions) from A and B: "We will put this property in your trust, and you will give it back to who you determine is the rightful owner".


      Yeah, no. Just no. That's not what happens at all.

      Delete
  11. Your alleged moral and intellectual turpitude is being discussed again. But you have an unexpected defender.
    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/08/maybe-libertarians-do-need-to-talk-about-privilege-after-all.html#comment-861456

    ReplyDelete
  12. Starting a different thread for a different line of questions.

    Gene, does your homeowners association claim the role of ultimate arbitration for itself?
    If the HOA board does not follow the covenants, is your last appeal to the HOA?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's been a while, so I don't know if Gene will respond to this, but here I go: Gene, what do you think it is that makes libertarians/people like our friend Julien here adopt such strange conceptions/definitions of property? Do you think the status of something as private property can be negated with enough laws restricting use?

    ReplyDelete