ACland -- live it now

[elwoodblues]

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?

[AlexM]

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

[Dan.]

[ 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?

[Nielsio]

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?

[AlexM]

[ 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]

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.

[latefordinner]

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).

[Nielsio]

[ 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.

[elwoodblues]

[ 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.