ACland -- live it now
 

Tomcollins (I think, I didn't look again --- sorry if it wasn't you) has posted this question a few times and I had a similar question in a thread a while back that didn't get any attention. The ultimate question is (as Tom has put it): Why isn't our current system considered AC? My question was more of a hypothetical:

Consider the following: ACland opens for business. People acquire their initial properties from homesteading. Soon people find that they want to maintain some semblance of order amongst their neighbors, so they create what are essentially homeowners associations. The HOA's rules are written so that once a person enters the HOA they are given a vote to elect members who will set rules for the HOA (noise ordinances, where you can keep your trash, park your vehicle, etc.) These HOAs would spring up naturally all over the place (I would suspect.) Once a member of the HOA, your property is encumbered by the rules (i.e. all HOA rules run with the land.) HOAs might soon band together and create towns (to minimize costs of, for example, police, fire protection, schools.) Heck, towns might form together to create states (and so on.) If all available real estate were eventually a part of an HOA (or a larger town, county, state, country) has AC evolved to statehood? Would that state be considered AC even if in 5 generations none of the existing property owners actively consented to the original creation of the HOA?

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

Of course, at any time, those HOA's have the right to secede...

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, at any time, those HOA's have the right to secede...

[/ QUOTE ]

And so AC would be officially dead when the seceding HOAs were forced to stay?

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

Thomas DiLorenzo - Is Voluntary Government Possible?
http://one.revver.com/watch/84998/fo...ffiliate/34890
(38 minutes, and a fun watch)


Does that answer your question?

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, at any time, those HOA's have the right to secede...

[/ QUOTE ]

And so AC would be officially dead when the seceding HOAs were forced to stay?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much, yes. This is why we hate Lincoln so much. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] The U.S. wasn't AC then, but it was basically mostly voluntary participation. By the white male land owners anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas DiLorenzo - Is Voluntary Government Possible?
http://one.revver.com/watch/84998/fo...ffiliate/34890
(38 minutes, and a fun watch)


Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but I'm not going to sit through a 38 minute video. If you want to summarize it or make the same argument, great. Otherwise, I can't respond.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, at any time, those HOA's have the right to secede...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that necessarily be the case? They have the right to contract whatever terms they want. If a right to secession is built into the contract, then yes, they have a right to secede.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

AFAIK, different interpretations of AC recognize different limits to contracts. For example, many ACers including Rothbard would not recognize a contract where one person signs themselves into permanent slavery (or their children).

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thomas DiLorenzo - Is Voluntary Government Possible?
http://one.revver.com/watch/84998/fo...ffiliate/34890
(38 minutes, and a fun watch)


Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but I'm not going to sit through a 38 minute video. If you want to summarize it or make the same argument, great. Otherwise, I can't respond.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry, I believe in division of labour.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK, different interpretations of AC recognize different limits to contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the contract(s) outline in the hypothetical are of the type that wouldn't be recognized? If so, why is that? What is it about their character that would make them so objectionable.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

well I'm not an ACer or an expert on market anarchist understanding of contracts but I would say yes, certainly I think some people could make the case that a contract that "runs with the land" and includes an "unable to secede" clause is unfairly restrictive in that it allows people to negotiate unbreakable contracts that future people will have no option to renegotiate or back out of.

as far as my vision of anarchist collectivities, any participation in any association must be voluntarily and able to be terminated at any time by any of the parties involved (with an appropriate loss of access to whatever the original perceived 'advantages' of that association were in the first place)

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
certainly I think some people could make the case that a contract that "runs with the land" and includes an "unable to secede" clause is unfairly restrictive in that it allows people to negotiate unbreakable contracts that future people will have no option to renegotiate or back out of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but you acquire the property with full knowledge of those restrictions. It is still an entirely voluntary process. I can choose to purchase a piece of property that is part of an HOA/City/State or not. The price for that property will reflect its membership in such a group (higher or lower.) You can get out of the contract by selling your property.

[ QUOTE ]
as far as my vision of anarchist collectivities, any participation in any association must be voluntarily and able to be terminated at any time by any of the parties involved...


[/ QUOTE ]

That is quite a sever restriction on contract, in my opinion.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as far as my vision of anarchist collectivities, any participation in any association must be voluntarily and able to be terminated at any time by any of the parties involved...


[/ QUOTE ]

That is quite a sever restriction on contract, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish my 3 year gym membership had been in AC land... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

Not the same, in any version of AC asserted by people on this board (I think) you would be responsible for the 3 yr term of contract you signed (assuming that your original contract had penalty clauses for termination or whathaveyou). However, you possibly couldn't sign a contract that said that your children and your children's children in perpetuity had to be bound under the same contract with the same gym.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, you possibly couldn't sign a contract that said that your children and your children's children in perpetuity had to be bound under the same contract with the same gym.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is binding children or children's children. The hypothetical is a bind on property. Think of it as akin to an easement. Imagine that the phone company purchases from you an easement on your property for $10,000. The easement allows them to run lines underground through your yard. Are you suggesting that you can back out of that arrangement or that successor owners of the same property should be able to back out of it? How about if you sell to your neighbor an easement to use part of your driveway (because absent your driveway they have no access to their house. You agree to sell that access for $5,000 and agree that successive owners of your neighbors property will have access to the easement (though you still own the land.) Should you (or your children or your children's children) be able to back out of that one as well???

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

This is similar to my own reservation with ACism (though I do want to be fully convinced). The issue is stability -- constructing larger contracts and more powerful corporations is to a point natural and profitable and good. But at some point some group is going to say "Our contract already include X% of the population -- let's just make it universal and everyone gets to vote on changes. Much easier that way."

Thinking about this some more, a transition from ACism to coersive government actually bears some resemblance to phase changes in statistical mechanics (imagine magnetic domains forming in a piece of iron below the Curie temp.) -- I'm wondering how far I can push the analogy and come up with useful quantities (analogs of temperature, etc) that could be used to evaluate how stable ACism might be in an actual society.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

And there is the rub.

AC > minarchy > libertarianism > big statism.

This is obvious to all but the most obtuse of statists. So the argument becomes how is AC sustainable. The normal thought process is that AC would degenerate into minachcy of some form. So the realist answer is we need to get to minachy with the minimum of legislation in place to keep the state that size.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

When protection rackets are viewed as.. just that, why would you expect them to take over a whole citizenry?

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
AC > minarchy > libertarianism > big statism.

This is obvious to all but the most obtuse of statists.

[/ QUOTE ]

So funny...

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
Heck, towns might form together to create states (and so on.) If all available real estate were eventually a part of an HOA (or a larger town, county, state, country) has AC evolved to statehood? Would that state be considered AC even if in 5 generations none of the existing property owners actively consented to the original creation of the HOA?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess anything is possible. However it seems highly unlikely that very many (let alone every land owner) would sign an agreement in which they lose the right to remove themselves from that contract.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AC > minarchy > libertarianism > big statism.

This is obvious to all but the most obtuse of statists.

[/ QUOTE ]

So funny...

[/ QUOTE ]



whats funny ? the fact that sky is indeed blue or that I say it is even though you claim it is pink. You can keep deluding yourself that your helping the poor and improving society, etc. I will still be here telling you the sky is blue when you realize you've been a fool.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
However it seems highly unlikely that very many (let alone every land owner) would sign an agreement in which they lose the right to remove themselves from that contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

People do it all the time with easements and...Home owners associations.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
And there is the rub.

AC > minarchy > libertarianism > big statism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm, ACism and minarchy are both versions of libertarianism.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AC > minarchy > libertarianism > big statism.

This is obvious to all but the most obtuse of statists.

[/ QUOTE ]

So funny...

[/ QUOTE ]



whats funny ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine it's the fact that insulting 95% of the people only hurts our cause.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
AC > minarchy > libertarianism > big statism.

This is obvious to all but the most obtuse of statists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assert, assert, assert your way to victory!

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

move to antarctica, it's getting warmer there!

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

I would imagine the most important thing that would prevent ACism from evoling back into a form of statism would the separation from AC 'governments' from your bank account, and the private police forces refusal to come arrest you for leaving a homeowners associations. Given that these two things would be present from the beginning and that the majority of the population, being ACists, would never let a company that broke either of these services get off the ground, I find it hard to believe that we would end up getting government in another form.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

You don't think that as the services the HOA/City/State provided increased and as the HOA/City/State dues increased accordingly that could evolve into something akin to what we have now?

[ QUOTE ]
and the private police forces refusal to come arrest you for leaving a homeowners associations

[/ QUOTE ]

When the association is paying for the police force, I have no idea why you would think otherwise.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and the private police forces refusal to come arrest you for leaving a homeowners associations

[/ QUOTE ]

When the association is paying for the police force, I have no idea why you would think otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
When the association is paying for the police force, I have no idea why you would think otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

But once a HOA starts trying to kidnap their customers and demanding their money, they can say good bye to all future profits. They will also have a hard time once everyone in the HOA get antsy and starts to leave. A HOA isnt going to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue just to get some tax money from one guy.

A similar analogy would be poker sites. Sites can basically confiscate your funds at any time and you have very little recourse. How many sites do this? Except for a small number of cases, not very many. Why take some kids 100K bankroll when you will lose millions (mabey even billions if you are in business long enough) in future revenues. Reputation is everything in AC.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

And the point I was trying to make is that the HOA is going to have a police force, and the banks are going to have their police force. A HOA isnt going to be able to confiscate your money without engaging with the banks forces.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
But once a government starts trying to kidnap their customers and demanding their money, they can say good bye to all future taxes They will also have a hard time once everyone in the country get antsy and demands change. A government isnt going to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue just to get some tax money from one guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wait....it does...

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

Where are the other ACists hiding? I want to see some AC responses to this!

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

Anything is possible.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But once a government starts trying to kidnap their customers and demanding their money, they can say good bye to all future taxes They will also have a hard time once everyone in the country get antsy and demands change. A government isnt going to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue just to get some tax money from one guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wait....it does...

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you expect an ACist to disagree with you?

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But once a government starts trying to kidnap their customers and demanding their money, they can say good bye to all future taxes They will also have a hard time once everyone in the country get antsy and demands change. A government isnt going to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue just to get some tax money from one guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wait....it does...

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you expect an ACist to disagree with you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I expect those questioning the abilities/actions of a giant HOA to recognize that it likely will go after one person.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't our current system considered AC?

[/ QUOTE ]
Enforced territorial monopolies who hold legitmate right to squelch competition in it's "services" and holds a monopoly on legimate theft. It's going to be tough to find a business that acts in that manner.
[ QUOTE ]
Consider the following: ACland opens for business. People acquire their initial properties from homesteading.

[/ QUOTE ]
Property is already aquired now. What property is left for homesteading?
[ QUOTE ]
Soon people find that they want to maintain some semblance of order amongst their neighbors, so they create what are essentially homeowners associations.

[/ QUOTE ]
HOAs, while they would likely exist, would not likely be very highly used as it's not to effecient in all matters. First and foremost in retaining order would be private property, followed by contracts and arbitration, all of which not only can be supplied without HOAs, but would be provided better without use of a HOA.
[ QUOTE ]
Once a member of the HOA, your property is encumbered by the rules (i.e. all HOA rules run with the land.)

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems incredibly unlikely in an individualistic society, especially one that preferred the fruits of the free market. If people came into an AC society, it's unlikely they're going to care for rules, especially ones they can't back out of unless they move outside the HOA.
[ QUOTE ]
HOAs might soon band together and create towns (to minimize costs of, for example, police, fire protection, schools.)

[/ QUOTE ]
There would be towns without HOAs in AC. Minimizing costs for services by monopolizing them doesn't make sense. If society were to become AC it would because people recognized such services were better provided by a free market.
[ QUOTE ]
If all available real estate were eventually a part of an HOA (or a larger town, county, state, country) has AC evolved to statehood?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would depend on the nature of the HOA's rules. Either way, this is a very unlikely senario for the reasons I gave earlier.
[ QUOTE ]
Would that state be considered AC even if in 5 generations none of the existing property owners actively consented to the original creation of the HOA?

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly, it's definitely coercize and against the meaning of anarchocapitalism.

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But once a government starts trying to kidnap their customers and demanding their money, they can say good bye to all future taxes They will also have a hard time once everyone in the country get antsy and demands change. A government isnt going to sacrifice millions of dollars in revenue just to get some tax money from one guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wait....it does...

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you expect an ACist to disagree with you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I expect those questioning the abilities/actions of a giant HOA to recognize that it likely will go after one person.

[/ QUOTE ]
By saying that government is anologous to a entity that operates in a free market?

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly, it's definitely coercize and against the meaning of anarchocapitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it coercive if you give your consent through contract?

The reason I think HOAs or similar things would exist is I imagine it would not be too uncommon for residential neighbors in ACland to agree, for example, to not place a business on their property as a business could drive down the value of their own property. All agree and then someone sells their property to someone who intends to conduct a business on their property. It won't take too long for people to realize that in order to ensure that their property isn't next to a gas station, they have to create an agreement with their neighbor that lasts beyond their neighbor's tenure at the property. In fact, if the agreement attached to the land, that could actually be a selling point driving up the value of your personal property --- "2 acre estate in residential neighborhood --- all neighboring property MUST be residential in future"

There are many situations in which people would view it as mutually beneficial to bind the property (something that runs with the land) rather than your person (through traditional contracts.)

Re: ACland -- live it now
 

[ QUOTE ]
How is it coercive if you give your consent through contract?

[/ QUOTE ]
I misread what you wrote in the part I replied to.
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I think HOAs or similar things would exist is I imagine it would not be too uncommon for residential neighbors in ACland to agree, for example, to not place a business on their property as a business could drive down the value of their own property. All agree and then someone sells their property to someone who intends to conduct a business on their property.

[/ QUOTE ]
This may happen. I don't see why you think this would become incredibly widespread or why you think that other "laws" would become fairly common.
[ QUOTE ]
It won't take too long for people to realize that in order to ensure that their property isn't next to a gas station, they have to create an agreement with their neighbor that lasts beyond their neighbor's tenure at the property.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's very unlikely that some contract could put restrictions on any property ad infinitum.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if the agreement attached to the land, that could actually be a selling point driving up the value of your personal property --- "2 acre estate in residential neighborhood --- all neighboring property MUST be residential in future"

[/ QUOTE ]
It can be a bad thing also for the seller as it artificially lessens demand for that property by limiting the amount of potential buyers (such as business).