ACland -- live it now

[latefordinner]

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)

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.

[Barcalounger]

[ 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]

[latefordinner]

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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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???

[Metric]

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.

[NeBlis]

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.

[Nielsio]

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

[elwoodblues]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

So funny...

[tolbiny]

[ 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.