Randall Holcombe is quoted by Walter Block in Chapter 9 of "The Myth of National Defense" as drawing a corollary of government from the neighborhood pool association:
Both the neighborhood pool organization and the municipal government have the ability to force its residents to contribute to its coffers. In both cases the individual cannot escape the organization without moving away, but in both cases it is possible to move away.
Walter Block responds:
The obvious difference between the two cases, clearly apparent to anyone who understands even a smattering of political philosophy, is that in the former case, the swimming facility is privately owned, while in the latter case it is not. [...] In very sharp contrast indeed, the municipal pool is under the auspices of the town council. There are no private-property rights involved. Very much to the contrary, there is a local government, with the power to compel citizens who have signed no contract with it whatsoever. This elementary distinction, so basic to public-policy analysis, seems to have entirely escaped notice of this author.
Hans Herman Hoppe makes similar claim as Holcombe in his essay "The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration" by suggesting that if all land were privatized, immigration could be restricted and, therefore, it is within the purview of government to do the same with public lands. I am assuming that as AnCaps, Walter Block has the upper hand and Hoppe falls into the same error as Holcombe by the simple facts of not understanding "even a smattering of political philosophy" and, therefore, having allowed the difference between public and private property to "entirely escape [his] notice."
My questions to AnCaps, then, would be:
If I inherit the property within the jurisdiction of a neighborhood pool origanization (or possibly a Home Owners Organization), am I required to pay to its coffers or move away even though I have signed no contract?
and
How would this paradox be resolved if Walter Block's argument is to stand?
Lysander Spooner might suggest the neighborhood pool organization be dissolved as more and more properties pass to offspring with whom it has not contract, the previous one with parent being a contract of no authority.
OR maybe the organization would transition from requiring residents to pay up front and simply charge at the pool per use. Could this be a model for government, from taxation to user-fees?
^ I could definitly see this as a possibility but I could also see the neighborhood pool organization (or home owners association) realize the very real possibility of this type of scenario occuring and write it into the contract of the original owner of the property on how it is to be handled. I am not a lawyer so I'm not going to attempt to try and word how it would be implied.
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." - Murray N. Rothbard.
The HOA contracts could simply limit inheritance. That is, the potentiol inheritors only receive the property by also agreeing to the contract, if they won't agree, the property isn't theirs to inherit.
It depends on the terms of the contract the previous owner signed. For example, it could specify that he can give it away but only to a person who agrees to the covenant; on a failure to do so you would either fail to inherit or be forced to accept some set payment for the land.
The Block/Hoppe debate on immigration is certainly one of the more controversial issues in Austrian scholarship. Basically, from a highly simplified pragmatic perspective - and my understanding of the situation - they advocate:
Block: Open the borders and then privatize the land.
Hoppe: Privatize the land.
I think Hoppe has a stronger argument here. If all land was privately owned, then immigration would be restricted at the property owners discretion. I would concede that in a stiuation where a state/country is transferring ownership from public to private; the specifics regarding immigration would be really fuzzy. Yet, no one has the right to trespass; when immigrants travel on property without the owners consent then they are violating the owners property rights. Of course, property owners could allow unregulated travel if they choose, but I don't see that happening in real life, and if is does, it would likely be in a limited sense.
I don't really understand Block's stance on this because he is forced to admit that property owners have the right to discriminate on who enters their property. In a hypothesized world (or country) with 100% private ownership I fail to see how open borders would be possible.
I think that this issues needs more attention from Austrian scholars because each side has valid arguments. I would love to hear other's take on this.
Most land in the U.S. is unowned and uninhabited, if anything claimed by the criminal gang of the US Government. Furthermore, the border patrol will just be incompetent assholes as usual and keep out all the wrong people. The US Government has no rights. I don't even support the police when they get the right person, because they're going to do the wrong thing.
Roads and such are not 'collectively' owned by 'the public'. They are owned by no one. Even if we pretend that government property can be in any meaningful way be traced back to private citizens, there are just as many people (probably more) who oppose government obstruction of immigration. What about all those people who need the cheap labor?
There is no good anti-immigration argument. Sorry, Hoppe. Any anti-immigration laws should be evaded and broken, en masse, by any non-violent means possible. That's civil disobedience in action. I'll take all your huddled and starving masses, welfare or not, affirmative action or not.
I think the debate is what should be done now, Block says that public property is basically non-property and therefore can be used (within reason) by anyone. I think its better to view the government as owning public property (I think Hoppe agrees with this view as well) simply based on its actual control.
Block says that public property is basically non-property and therefore can be used (within reason) by anyone. I think its better to view the government as owning public property (I think Hoppe agrees with this view as well) simply based on its actual control.
The government owning property doesn't even make any sense. There is no equity, there is no one with actual control or responsibility over the government. There is no agency, legal or logical, involved in republican-bureaucratic states. It might make sense to say that Edward II owned property, but certainly no one in DC or your local city council actually owns the land. This land is unowned, and the people with the highest claim to it would be regular users.
The USG is an anarcho-tyranny. No one controls anything substantial.
The HOA contracts could simply limit inheritance. That is, the potentiol inheritors only receive the property by also agreeing to the contract, if they won't agree, the property isn't theirs to inherit. -- Angurse
Is there anything in the Constitution (allegedly a contract amongst the people as represented by their respective states) that limits inheritance? If not, then I see only two possible solutions for government, dissolve or abandon taxation and adopt a user-fee policy. This is an important point in determining whether or not the United States government, if no other, has a legitimate case at restricting immigration and/or requiring future generations to pay taxes eventhough they were not party to the Constitution.
I think its better to view the government as owning public property (I think Hoppe agrees with this view as well) simply based on its actual control. -- Angurse
Isn't it argued that legitimate ownership comes as a result of non-aggressive exchange rather than confiscation? Government may purchase land, but that it does so with funds that are confiscated, isn't the "purchase" really confiscation? Certainly confiscation can't be construed as legitimate ownership. If this is true, then public property is necessarily non-property. Can a contract/constitution change non-property to public property by simply limiting inheritance in its terms of agreement?
Hoppe comes off a bit too like a nationalist on this issue.There's elements of far right fear mongering and the like in his arguments for limited immigration.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
The government owning property doesn't even make any sense. There is no equity, there is no one with actual control or responsibility over the government. There is no agency, legal or logical, involved in republican-bureaucratic states. It might make sense to say that Edward II owned property, but certainly no one in DC or your local city council actually owns the land. This land is unowned, and the people with the highest claim to it would be regular users. The USG is an anarcho-tyranny. No one controls anything substantial.
If you don't realize that governments are a distinct entity you aren't trying hard enough. If you don't think anybody controls anything substantial try to homestead it and see what happens. I'd love to be wrong.
Isn't it argued that legitimate ownership comes as a result of non-aggressive exchange rather than confiscation? Government may purchase land, but that it does so with funds that are confiscated, isn't the "purchase" really confiscation? Certainly confiscation can't be construed as legitimate ownership. If this is true, then public property is necessarily non-property.
No, it may be (and is) illegitimately held property, but its property all the same.
Can a contract/constitution change non-property to public property by simply limiting inheritance in its terms of agreement?
This is utterly irrelevant. You don't understand the fact that without an equity owner there is no such thing as a corporate body, much less ownership. The US Government is no more an incorporated entity that could be claimed to 'own' anything than the violent mobs of students in the Cultural Revolution 'owned' something or composed an incorporated body. Yes, they are generally animated by a leftist gestalt and managerialism, and they somewhat spontaneously coordinate to an extent but no one owns the government. As a consequence the government does not own anything. If you can't understand what a bunch of legal nonsense such a cottonball tyranny 'owning' anything is then you're in legal fantasy land. The USG is a fiction used to cloak the acts of various leftist gangs.
Can a contract/constitution change non-property to public property by simply limiting inheritance in its terms of agreement? -- Lyle
Angurse: I understand this may not make sense to you because you don't believe in the idea of non-property. What I am saying, as in the example of an HOA, does private property become public (HOA) property by simply limiting inheritance in its terms of agreement? Seems to me that if a limitation on inheritance does not exist in a contract/constitution, then property cannot be public. It is either owned privately or not owned at all.
This is utterly irrelevant. You don't understand the fact that without an equity owner there is no such thing as a corporate body, much less ownership. The US Government is no more an incorporated entity that could be claimed to 'own' anything than the violent mobs of students in the Cultural Revolution 'owned' something or composed an incorporated body. Yes, they are generally animated by a leftist gestalt and managerialism, and they somewhat spontaneously coordinate to an extent but no one owns the government. As a consequence the government does not own anything. If you can't understand what a bunch of legal nonsense such a cottonball tyranny 'owning' anything is then you're in legal fantasy land. The USG is a fiction used to cloak the acts of various leftist gangs
A corporate body is nothing more than a legal entity operating under the same name. To the extent that those violent mobs maintained control over property they were the owners. Cloak or no cloak.
What I am saying, as in the example of an HOA, does private property become public (HOA) property by simply limiting inheritance in its terms of agreement?
I'd say no. As its either yours (private), your offsprings (private), or if they won't agree to the contract, the HOA's (private).
in order to reduce the cost of protection and raise property values, insurers would formulate and continually refine various restrictive (exclusionary) rules and procedures relating to immigration and immigrants and thus give quantitative precision—in the form of prices and price differences—to the value of discrimination (and the cost of nondiscrimination) between potential immigrants (as high or low risk and value-productive). -- Hoppe, "The Myth of National Defense," Chapter 10, p. 364
I am assuming that Hoppe is suggesting that insurance companies would employ similar inheritance/selling limits in contracts with its consumers in order to effectively discrimnate. I see insurance companies doing this in two ways: 1) Establishing its own communities by purchasing land and selling it via contract with said limiting clauses and 2) Requiring existing property owners who desire insurance to sign a contract with said limiting clauses. Essentially, to effectively discriminate, an insurance company would require that property owners relinquish some control over their property and make them, the insurer, their, the insured, sole insurance provider. The difference between an insurance company providing security and government security is that the former is secured by contract and the latter by coercion.
Sounds fine to me, insureres are going to serve their clientel in the end.
Lyle:The difference between an insurance company providing security and government security is that the former is secured by contract and the latter by coercion.
Angurse:Sounds fine to me, insurers are going to serve their clientel in the end.
So present government (i.e. limitation of one's liberty) is fine as long as an ancestor from 200 years ago had consented to it, but becomes an abomination ("slavery") if no record of such consent existed? In terms of the present state of affairs, somewhat of a trivial distinction between the an-cap and the minarchist position, IMO.
Z.
So present government (i.e. limitation of one's liberty) is fine as long as an ancestor from 200 years ago had consented to it, but becomes an abomination ("slavery") if no record of such consent existed?
Present government has nothing to do with the past governments and the relation between its tax base. But an ancestor consenting to government sounds perfectly fine,
but becomes an abomination ("slavery") if no record of such consent existed?
Yes, that and reasonable doubt.
In terms of the present state of affairs, somewhat of a trivial distinction between the an-cap and the minarchist position, IMO.
Minarchy sounds like a huge improvement over the present state of affairs. However choice still sounds fundamental to me.
Angurse:Minarchy sounds like a huge improvement over the present state of affairs. However choice still sounds fundamental to me.
Sorry, I meant hypothetical present state of affairs as opposed to the hypothetical 200 years ago when the ancestor had (or had not) signed the contract. Didn't mean to involve the actual present state of affairs we're currently experiencing -- being fully aware that it's far from both minarchy and an-cap.
In terms of choice... If your ancestor had, in fact, signed the contract with the company your choice today would be indistinguishable from the choice you'd have under minarchy: If you don't like the terms, just leave. It's your ancestor 200 years ago that had (or didn't have) the choice -- not you.
The inheritance falls under contract by the previous owner. Basically, the previous owner did not have full rights to his property. It's like inheriting a rented cable box from a deceased person. Not an exact example but close enough.
This is correct. Contracts and debts are always satisfied by the estate first, for they already have a pre-established right to the property. Usually some discretion is given to the heirs in what to settle debts out of, but rights to specific properties (such as real estate) are a different matter.