Political Theory

Re: Neighborhood associations

JackCuyler — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:58:43 GMT

Inquisitor:
The point of restitution is to allow you to gain the good that was destroyed back. You will be reimbursed enough to buy the good back. Again, it is the good and not its value that is being replaced. The same applies in the case of a unique painting - you ought to be reimbursed as much as you spent on it, accounting for inflation &c. I suppose if you inherited it or otherwise never exchanged cash for it, then market valuation would come into play (in the form of current prices), but again this is because the item is irreplaceable, not because you owned the value of it, which exists solely in the minds of individuals.

The current market value will alway come into play. In order to replace the lost object, it must be purchased on the market. What one originally paid for the object is irrelevant. The restitution "price" is the market price, not the original price. In the case of the rare painting you mentioned, if I purchased said painting at a garage sale for $1, and later learned that it could sell on the market for $1 million, the restitution price were it stolen or destroyed would be $1 million. It's silly to think a thief could steal a painting worth $1 million on the market and then pay $1 to the owner as restitution.

Re: Neighborhood associations

Debbie — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:43:03 GMT

Hello, I'm new to this forum and would like to continue the subject of this thread to some extent if I can. I've been thinking about neighborhood associations and local governments and such and have a question or two.

My husband and I are, and have been, libertarians for some time now (well, really, I'm more on the voluntaryist/market anarchist spectrum now). We moved into a subdivision that has deed restrictions and a homeowner's association and we knew this when we purchased so I just think of it as something we voluntarily accepted because we wanted the property and this was part of the deal. THere are some rules we don't particularly think much of but we really don't care either and again, we signed on to it. The biggest issue seems to be as to how any changes to that contractual relationship will occur. In our restrictions or bylaws or whatever, the document can be changed but if any changes are proposed, there must be a quorum and then a majority of that quorum to vote for the change for it to go into effect. So two questions:

1. We have all probably moved from our original (birth) place of residence, even if it's in the same town or whatever. So can't we say that, at least from the exact time we signed the new documents for our new residence that we essentially signed a contract to agree with whatever governmental laws (state, local and federal) were in place that covered that property AT THAT TIME? That we would really have no right to not follow those laws because we voluntarily moved into the place and by doing so accepted the laws that were there. HOWEVER, here's the other side: shouldn't it also be the case that any laws passed PAST that point in time that we do not explicitly agree to and physically sign on to, then we should not have to abide by? If I am correct on this, then how did we get to the point that we would have to take on those new requirements that were not in our original contract and which we did not agree?

2. On a related note, how did we get to the place where we do not require a quorum in order to validate any votes and elections in any of our governments (local, state and federal)? Seems to me if we only did that one thing, then this could have the potential of changing a lot of things.

What do you think?

Debbie

Re: Neighborhood associations

JCFolsom — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:26:50 GMT

Well, I'm not ready to agree on that quite yet, but I think we can both agree that we've managed to hijack this thread. Mayhap another at some point for the continuation....

Re: Neighborhood associations

Inquisitor — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:05:03 GMT

Fine, but you are still making a conceptual mistake. You're trying to say that because a good can be represented in terms of its aggregate value (i.e. prices), that if it is damaged you should be given enough to buy it back at its going price, or restore it to its former level. How does this show you own its value? What is value? It is what individuals, subjectively, place upon a given good or service. How can you own this? You're equating the good with value. I'm saying this is incorrect, and that value is a mere measure of its utility, which cannot be owned; only the good can be owned. Value only serves as a guide for replacing/restoring it. Do we agree or not?

Re: Neighborhood associations

JCFolsom — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:53:43 GMT

Inquisitor:
The point of restitution is to allow you to gain the good that was destroyed back.You will be reimbursed enough to buy the good back. Again, it is the good and not its value that is being replaced.

Impossible. No two objects, however similar, are truly the same. Once a particular item is lost, it is gone forever. Its materials are no longer in the form which gave it its value, yet they still exist. If I scratch a painting and give you the scrapings, than by your logic you have lost nothing. What was lost is the value difference between the undamaged painting and the damaged one.

Inquisitor:
The same applies in the case of a unique painting - you ought to be reimbursed as much as you spent on it, accounting for inflation &c.

Nonsense! What if you bought it for far more than it was worth on the larger market? Should the damager be liable for your poor purchasing decisions? No! You should receive only the market determined value for the destroyed item. That value is what you're entitled to.

Let us instead say you have a common hammer. Say I take that hammer and bend it such that it is useless, than give it back. What have you lost? Utility? Which is a measure of what... hmm... value! You still have the hammer, the physical object. It is just worth less now. Its value has decreased. That is why I would owe you damages, or a new hammer. I need to replace the value of the hammer, despite the fact that the old hammer is still there.

Re: Neighborhood associations

Inquisitor — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:27:45 GMT

The point of restitution is to allow you to gain the good that was destroyed back. You will be reimbursed enough to buy the good back. Again, it is the good and not its value that is being replaced. The same applies in the case of a unique painting - you ought to be reimbursed as much as you spent on it, accounting for inflation &c. I suppose if you inherited it or otherwise never exchanged cash for it, then market valuation would come into play (in the form of current prices), but again this is because the item is irreplaceable, not because you owned the value of it, which exists solely in the minds of individuals.

Re: Neighborhood associations

JCFolsom — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:11:30 GMT

Inquisitor:
Why on earth would they own it? Value is subjective and exists in the minds of the people valuing the good. It is ridiculous to say one owns this, equally ridiculous to saying one has "right" to their reputation (also a form of value, arguably.) At most, one has the right to have a good of the same kind given to them if their original good was destroyed, or enough money to buy an item of a similar kind,

Enough money to buy an item of a similar kind is the same as saying the value of the item, in a market-determined sense. I fail to see the distinction you apparently do, here. Another example of how a person owns the value of something is, say you own a painting. I scratch the paint by accident. You are entitled to get the difference in value from me, as determined by the market. We would find the difference in value between as similar a painting as possible, except without a scratch, on the market, to the value of one with such a scratch, and make up the difference. Alas, such a valuation of such unique items as paintings is an inexact thing, but still...

Re: Neighborhood associations

Inquisitor — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:13:34 GMT

Why on earth would they own it? Value is subjective and exists in the minds of the people valuing the good. It is ridiculous to say one owns this, equally ridiculous to saying one has "right" to their reputation (also a form of value, arguably.) At most, one has the right to have a good of the same kind given to them if their original good was destroyed, or enough money to buy an item of a similar kind,

Re: Neighborhood associations

JCFolsom — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:03:36 GMT

Inquisitor:
Just as a reminder, value cannot be owned. What is in fact owned is tangible property. If one owned the value of their product competition on the market would have to be outlawed; any competition, in fact, would be illegitimate.

This is probably a topic for another thread, but Inquisitor, if that were true than if I stole something from its owner and destroyed it, than they would have no recourse. They did not own the value of the item, but only the item itself, which no longer exists, and thus is unrecoverable.

Competition would not have to be outlawed if people were seen to own the value of items, because creating a competing business in itself does nothing to the value of the first. It is solely the choices of the customers that determines the value, and this was so before the competing business started. The competitor did nothing to harm the value of the property, for the value is the same as it has always been: what the market determines at the time. It is not set.

This is a bit muddled (it's late), but people do own the value of their product... whatever that value happens to be when it is put on the market. Lawsuits do and should estimate the value of lost and destroyed property by looking at the value similar items have as revealed by the market.

Re: Neighborhood associations

kingmonkey — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:50:50 GMT

I suppose if you voluntarily moved there then you have voluntarily agreed to abide by their rules, even if that means paying a fine for breaking them. All of that would have been spelled out in your agreement signed with them. By moving into that neighborhood you have accepted that you do not have 100% freedom to do whatever you want with your property and that the HOA can force you to abide by the rules and regulations.

But again that was your choice. If someone doesn't like keeping garbage in the garage but the HOA says you must you have three choices. A) Petition the HOA to make an exception, B) move the garbage back into the garage (or perhaps around back so no one can see it) or C) move somewhere else where they don't have those restrictions. Either that or you gotta live with the rules you agreed to follow.

Re: Neighborhood associations

Mike — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:21:08 GMT

If you want to get to the bottom line. The best info on the subject is to be found by reading in the following article.

Mike

http://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/F/E/T/CommunitySHM_.htm

Re: Neighborhood associations

DBratton — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:05:05 GMT

BWF89:
Texas is the only state where your allowed to own property in allodial title

As I understand the term, allodial means essentially independent from the government. I'm not aware of anyone having an allodial title to any property here in Texas or anywhere else in the US. Even the Indian reservations have only the rights the US government allows them to have. And all property is taxed unless the government already own it.

Re: Neighborhood associations

Stranger — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:02:41 GMT

The neighborhood association is a property: the landlord of the neighborhood.

Because it owns a large-scale property, it can benefit from increasing returns to scale on neighborhood effects.

BWF89:

Almost nobody these days actually owns their own property. Texas is the only state where your allowed to own property in allodial title and I'd assume it's probably not even very common down there. Any kind of state enforced property tax, building code, zoning law, or neighborhood covenant is a form of tyranny. Curtailing and eventually taking away a mans right to own property is something right out of the Communist Manifesto. If you want to let your grass grow, park old junk cars in your yard, and erect a 20 foot tall neon pink statue of a penis in your back yard it's your property and your right to do so. Nobody unless you've signed some kind of voluntary agreement should be allowed to use force to get you to change something they don't approve of on your plot of land. If their property values happen to go down just because their trying to sell their house and not everyone likes the sight of rusting junk cars in the next yard over when they look out the window is unfortunate but something they'll just have to get over. Freedom means being able to live your life however you want as long as your not infringing on someone else's right to do the same even if they might completely disagree with how you choose to live.

This is a typically American point of view deriving from the fact that in America large-scale land production has always been done through the instruments of government. Telling people they need to accept junkyards in their neighbor's backyard is not a very insightful answer to the problem of neighborhood value.

Re: Neighborhood associations

Inquisitor — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:58:01 GMT

Just as a reminder, value cannot be owned. What is in fact owned is tangible property. If one owned the value of their product competition on the market would have to be outlawed; any competition, in fact, would be illegitimate.

Re: Neighborhood associations

BWF89 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:56:07 GMT

Almost nobody these days actually owns their own property. Texas is the only state where your allowed to own property in allodial title and I'd assume it's probably not even very common down there. Any kind of state enforced property tax, building code, zoning law, or neighborhood covenant is a form of tyranny. Curtailing and eventually taking away a mans right to own property is something right out of the Communist Manifesto. If you want to let your grass grow, park old junk cars in your yard, and erect a 20 foot tall neon pink statue of a penis in your back yard it's your property and your right to do so. Nobody unless you've signed some kind of voluntary agreement should be allowed to use force to get you to change something they don't approve of on your plot of land. If their property values happen to go down just because their trying to sell their house and not everyone likes the sight of rusting junk cars in the next yard over when they look out the window is unfortunate but something they'll just have to get over. Freedom means being able to live your life however you want as long as your not infringing on someone else's right to do the same even if they might completely disagree with how you choose to live.