AC -> Statism

[valenzuela]

Valenzuela town its actually boring shake, its a residential town in which we dont allow pot or whores. We allow alcohol and cigarretes though, our customers wanted it and we realized that if we banned those things our income would drasticly decrease.
On the plus side we dont let ex-criminals in the town so its a really safe enviroment for kids.

Valenzuela town " a safe and friendly family enviroment".


Ps: everyone should read my second post on the thread, my first post wasnt clear enough.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Valenzuela town its actually boring shake, its a residential town in which we dont allow pot or whores. We allow alcohol and cigarretes though, our customers wanted it and we realized that if we banned those things our income would drasticly decrease.
On the plus side we dont let ex-criminals in the town so its a really safe enviroment for kids.

Valenzuela town " a safe and friendly family enviroment".


Ps: everyone should read my second post on the thread, my first post wasnt clear enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Crap, back to Somalia (obviously the defintion of AC land, lolz) I go.

[valenzuela]

nah, no need to move to Somalia you can buy some acres yourself and build shakezula drugs and whores allowed town.

But Valenzuela town is kinda of what we have today, only that we dont have criminals. Oh and its not that we dont allow marihuana, because nobody is willing to spend a penny for that.
We just dont allow marihuana being sold on locals and we dont allow marihuana advertisement. You cant smoke pot on public places either.( customers are willing to pay for that, we made a market study).

I will stop with my AC nonsense for now, I mean the system in which we choose between two douchebags once every 4 years is clearly better.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
nah, no need to move to Somalia you can buy some acres yourself and build shakezula drugs and whores allowed town.

[/ QUOTE ]
*And so the dream was born* [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
I will stop with my AC nonsense for now, I mean the system in which we choose between two douchebags once every 4 years is clearly better.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, don't you know us members of the AC troll Maffia can never relent! Jackbooted Thugery! $100 hot dogs!

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]

I say again-
I never agreed to have X% of my wages go towards someone elses social security or else
In the situation you describe the actions are agreed to. I never consented to the rules I have to abide by presently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you did. See below.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem too tricky to me. I agree to voluntarily trade the right of free sale in exchange for a certain security in knowing that my neighbors won't sell to someone that causes my safety, or land value, or some other desirable value to decline. Of course I am limiting my pot of potential buyers, but I feel I am being fairly compensated. In fact, I may believe that the total value of my holding may increase due to such an agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck, instead of using your service I'm going to the one that doesn't ask me to enter into a contract with him on wealth redistribution.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
By all means, please feel free to do so. But remember the land you bought (or lease) has certain encumbrances on it .

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the lowest levels, yes, but the concept easily carries through to towns, cities, states and nations.


[/ QUOTE ]

I refer you again to the linked thread. HOAs claim to land is valid, a state takes land by force so by definition is invalid. Also you seem to be trying to describe a place where I'd love to live, Valenzuela town.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And this brings me to my point. A natural consequence of AC is that the contracts between parties will inevitably be linked to the land not the people. Therefor, land ownership (or contracting for th use of land via a lease) implies consent with agreements made voluntarily long, long ago. The state is just the evolution of HOA.

Your acceptance of these various contracts is implicit in your ownership, or leasing of land. You are free to remove yourself from any such encumbrances by leaving the land under the control of these groups (using the free movement assumption I mentioned).
--
Scott

[valenzuela]

Well like Rothfard said. Suppose that AC eventually evolves into statism , then at least we had some good vacations from the state dont you think?
Would you like a million dollar every year until 2018?, or are you rejecting it because by the year 2019 youre not going to receive the million dollar bonus anymore? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

[valenzuela]

If youre consistent you dont have a right to complain about anything, I mean all americans agreed to invade Iraq a long time ago, so you cant complain. Anything that the goverment does wrong is not something you can complain about because you agreed to it a long time ago.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
By all means, please feel free to do so. But remember the land you bought (or lease) has certain encumbrances on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, at one point the HOA or AC town I live in owned that land legitamently . The state has no such claim.
[ QUOTE ]
And this brings me to my point. A natural consequence of AC is that the contracts between parties will inevitably be linked to the land not the people.

[/ QUOTE ]
why?
[ QUOTE ]
Therefor, land ownership (or contracting for th use of land via a lease) implies consent with agreements made voluntarily long, long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your definiton of the word consent? Either way for the like of me I don't understand why this is a natural consequence of the point of it.
[ QUOTE ]
The state is just the evolution of HOA.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. The state never had a legitament claim to any property. Did you even read the PVN OP I linked you to?

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By all means, please feel free to do so. But remember the land you bought (or lease) has certain encumbrances on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, at one point the HOA or AC town I live in owned that land legitamently . The state has no such claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it does.

When the HOA was formed, a group of people were appointed (or elected, or whatever was agreed to at the time) to make decisions on behalf of the HOA. They got together with several other HOAs and formed a town. A group of people were selected to make decisions on behalf of the town. You can see where I’m going with this.

Towns voluntarily become cities, then (here in the US anyway) they group together into states, finally one nation. Your State was voluntarily created via the consent of the representatives of the states, who were appointed via the consent of the representatives of cities (or towns, or districts, whatever), and so on…

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And this brings me to my point. A natural consequence of AC is that the contracts between parties will inevitably be linked to the land not the people.

[/ QUOTE ]
why?

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said in my OP, any reasonable group of people forming a HOA are going to make it a condition of the sale of land “governed” that the buyers must agree to abide by the HOA. And so on up the “State” chain it goes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefor, land ownership (or contracting for th use of land via a lease) implies consent with agreements made voluntarily long, long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your definiton of the word consent? Either way for the like of me I don't understand why this is a natural consequence of the point of it.

[ QUOTE ]
The state is just the evolution of HOA.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. The state never had a legitament claim to any property. Did you even read the PVN OP I linked you to?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read it. I think GMontaq is essentially making the same point I am, though I might argue it a bit differently.

I think my line of reasoning also means I agree with DValut1, that there is no “State”. The State is just the implementation of agreements piled on top of agreements, all made in good faith and entered into voluntarily, for a long, long time.

You agreed to the covenants that have existed for many generations when you purchased (or leased) land that had such encumbrances placed upon it long ago.

So what I am saying is, that we are currently living in a society that is, in fact, AC (with lots and lots of agreement, contracts, etc).
--
Scott

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
If youre consistent you dont have a right to complain about anything, I mean all americans agreed to invade Iraq a long time ago, so you cant complain. Anything that the goverment does wrong is not something you can complain about because you agreed to it a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not sure what you mean. I can complain about whatever I wish, even agreements I entered into voluntarily.

It makes no more sense to say that all American agreed to invade Iraq than it does to say that all members of a HOA agreed to plant roses at the front entrance. What they (and Americans) did agree to was that duly appointed representatives of the HOA would be empowered to make such decisions on their behalf.

I guess I agree with you that governments can do no wrong. But that is only because governments don’t do anything. People do. And people can certainly break agreements they entered into. In some cases we call these actions crimes, and we have an agreed-upon method for dealing with such people.
--
Scott