General

Re: Private City

Stranger — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:57:39 GMT

Brainpolice:

I think you set up a bit of a false dichotomy. Cooperative or common property can be "private". To use purely individual ownership as the criteria for "private property" ignores the larger-scale manifestations of private property.

The fact that it is an association of private owners does not make the association itself private property. Democracy is made up of private owners, but the powers of democracies are not privately owned.

While the argument that one can buy out an association of private owners is valid, that doesn't mean the association will demonstrate the same efficiency at producing goods that a purely private owner would, and thus the fact that the ownership can be sold to a private owner simply results in a private owner buying out the association and substituting it for some other administration once the market process unfolds.

This is similar to a corporation whose shareholders fight and bicker with each other over control. The inefficiency of the corporation lowers the shares' price and makes a buyout easier, but this means that the corporate constitution is less efficient than that of the buyer.

Re: Private City

Stolz2525 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:13:02 GMT

Brainpolice:
I think you set up a bit of a false dichotomy. Cooperative or common property can be "private". To use purely individual ownership as the criteria for "private property" ignores the larger-scale manifestations of private property.

Agreed, but in this case it's not any different from a city government for all intents and purposes. I e-mailed someone there to find out more about this earlier today. Everyone living there is required to join the neighborhood association which collects dues to take care of the roads and park. The neighborhood association is run by 7 people who are elected and they can raise the dues whenever they want. They still have public schools there for which property and sales taxes are collected, only the roads and the park is "private".

Re: Private City

Brainpolice — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:48:31 GMT

Stranger:

the North Oaks Home Owners' Association owns the park and recreation areas and trails throughout the City.

The HOA owns the city, that makes it a cooperative property, not private property. I'd be very interested in finding out what kind of building code they have in place. I doubt that they would allow a skyscraper to be built on one of their neighbor's lot.

I think you set up a bit of a false dichotomy. Cooperative or common property can be "private". To use purely individual ownership as the criteria for "private property" ignores the larger-scale manifestations of private property.

Re: Private City

Stranger — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:12:24 GMT

the North Oaks Home Owners' Association owns the park and recreation areas and trails throughout the City.

The HOA owns the city, that makes it a cooperative property, not private property. I'd be very interested in finding out what kind of building code they have in place. I doubt that they would allow a skyscraper to be built on one of their neighbor's lot.

Private City

Fephisto — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:36:14 GMT

In case you haven't seen it, there's apparently a private city in the U.S.:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021678.html