It seems like taking away all common resources (land, air, though ancap says air would remain common) just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world.
Like, for me, going out and buying stuff or negotiating for it isn't fun, isn't how I'd choose to spend my time. Telling me that suddenly I have to do it for literally everything, and that's an increase of freedom, that makes no sense.
I said no such thing. I said it is too abundant to commercialize. It can still be owned.
>just adds a whole new layer of mental burden to engaging with the world.
If everything was made public (communism) you could be free from a vast number of other mental burdens which we are currently plagued with.
I don't buy it. We have a system around us now with all sorts of burdens and processes that are just part of life (you mean I have to stop through the checkout line before leaving the store--oh the horror of those evil capitalists who are trying to enslave us!). People adapt and are used to the system they are in.
>Like, for me, going out and buying stuff or negotiating for it isn't fun, isn't how I'd choose to spend my time.
Yet you do this already. I would wager a lot of your leisure time is spent on the private property of others, playing by their rules. Even the websites you go to and the video games you play have their rules and terms of service.
Especially since you're trying to bolster support for your claim that "you gain freedom by having to negotiate easements with anyone whose sidewalk you'd like to use" with the new claim that "it's just like buying stuff at the grocery store!". Well, ok, except it isn't.
But hey, you know, if your ideas were so compelling, it seems like you'd be able to find a neighborhood somewhere where you could convince people to try out the experiment: "everyone sell/negotiate access to sidewalks for everyone else".
I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the idea would spread from there?
Come on, ancap, let's see your fringe ideas grow and take off. Enough philosophizing, let's see this thriving new free society of sidewalk easements! After a few years of sidewalk easement negotiating under their belts, the people in your experimental neighborhood should have some pretty compelling "new feelings of freedom" results to share.
In fact, this really doesn't seem like so big a challenge at all. So, where's the beef?
No need. There's already communities where the roads and sidewalks are all owned through an HOA. There are communities with private roads yet no HOA.
Are you suggesting those who live in these neighborhoods have some extraneous burden over them as they go for a stroll through their neighborhood?
You say fringe, but they already exist in reality.
HOAs get a really bad rep for absolutely limiting the freedoms of the people who live there--from things like restrictions on what colors they can paint their houses to restrictions on what kind of political signage they can put up. HOAs are so completely recognized as little hotbeds of conformity (and abuse of authority, like all these stories about when HOA boards get it in for one of their residents, and end up booting that person out of their home!), it's actually surprising that you're positing them as sources of more freedom for the inhabitants.
And, also, I don't know how many people in these HOAs you're talking about chose them for their freedom-maximizing non-government-maintained sidewalks (which, to them, are of course de-facto commons anyway!).
I imagine if you asked any of them, they wouldn't even think about it, just that they'd pay a sidewalk tax one way or another.
I dunno, the whole thing keeps sounding stupid. Not that I lack imagination, but that you've gotten ahold of some dumb ideas and aren't letting go.
To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous.
But I'm beginning to get where this would all go--you're going to play word games and redefine "freedom" until the answer is "everything is owned by someone" (or, I'd venture to guess, "freedom means whatever ancap says") is somehow maximally free.
Well, of course, ownership itself is a severe curtailment of freedom. I can't just exist in my body anywhere I want, because some places are "owned" by someone and that person could eject my body from "their" space. The very idea of a private space is such an assault on my freedom to walk and exist where I want, I don't see how there could be less freedom in the world, once everything is owned. This whole "no commons" thing seems about as un-free as it's possible to imagine.
Unless, of course, we all negotiate to give everyone access to a number of well-demarcated spaces and resources. We could call them "common" places or "the commons"! Ha!
But like I said, I think this little chat is about to turn into dumb word games, so I'll step away here.
That's the first intelligent thing you've said.
Yeah, no. Having an unelected, compulsory board governing the area is not freedom.
"HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an HOA chose to be subject to the terms of the contract."
Often times not, as one cannot buy houses in an area without being a member of the HOA. Further, there's the whole "no voting on people running the HOA" thing.
"To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous."
I get to vote on members of my local government. I don't get to vote on members of the HOA.
Whether the officers are elected or not (or whether there are officers at all) would be determined by the founding documents of the HOA. But it is definitely not compulsory.
>Often times not, as one cannot buy houses in an area without being a member of the HOA.
That doesn't make it compulsory. If you buy a house in an established HOA you chose to be subject to it. If you don't want to be subject to it, you don't buy the house. Saying you should have the right to buy a house in an HOA area and not be subject to it is saying you believe contracts should be non-binding, that is, worthless.
>I get to vote on members of my local government. I don't get to vote on members of the HOA.
As pointed out above, an HOA can have whatever structure the founders want it to have, or whatever the current decision makers amend it to be. As a tangent note, democracy does not define freedom.
The whole point of HOAs is to enforce somebody's personal preferences on their neighbors. Its annoying, infringes on my personal space, and promotes a weird philosophy of groupthink in what I consider an un-American way.
What you are saying is the equivalent of "I don't like wearing a shirt. Walmart wants to compel me to wear a shirt to go in their store and it's a flagrant un-freedom and un-American policy".
Similar to buying a home in an established HOA, when you buy certain pieces of software, or use countless websites, you agree to their Terms of Service. There is no compulsion involved because you make the decision on whether to limit yourself. Everyone who chooses to do so, does it because they believe they will be better off engaging in the agreement than not.
>Buying a house is a contract between the seller and the buyer regarding personal property. To be required to include a third party (the HOA) is strange.
There's nothing strange about it at all. When you buy a house you have to ensure the seller has clear claim to the title. You have to make sure there are not any liens on the property. Is that strange to involve those third parties? Hardly.
When an HOA is formed, those in the neighborhood contractually agree to do certain things and not do other things. They do so of their own accord. They also agree that the HOA has a claim on the house so that when sold, the contract remains in force. Do you disagree with the concept of contracts?
Its a strange old conservative view that neighbors can dictate what color to paint your front door, to suit some groupthink. Maybe this is a liberal vs conservative issue?
Contracts are irrelevant - to be valid a contract has to have something called 'value received' in exchange for stipulations. You can't just write anything in a contract - for instance, the penalty of violating a term is generally a payment of money. What does it cost to get out of the HOA?
The HOA doesn't need ownership. They have a valid contractual claim to limit the use of the property based on the person who originally owned the property and elected to make it a part of the HOA. Any buyer accepts those limitations.
When you purchase a piece of property you are not always getting rights to everything you might think. You may not have mineral or water rights. The property may have an easement in place.
>And I was never part of the HOA, yet am required (compelled) to join and abide by it.
You are never forced to join an HOA. A piece of property is part of an HOA or it is not. You choose whether you want that property or not. There is no force and no compulsion involved.
>Contracts are irrelevant
On the contrary. It is all about contracts.
What you said, up there, is basically that some owner in the distant past could make a contract with an HOA that, despite the property changing hands, grants the HOA some power over that property forever.
What on earth kind of freedom is that? If I want to buy a house that some previous owner inducted into an HOA, and I don't want to join the HOA, why should I have to? That sounds like government, but worse, because I can't vote the bums out!
And if you're about to say "you don't have to buy a home within an HOA neighborhood, buy one without," well, what if I want to buy this house, but don't want to join the HOA? Why should some private organization be able to force me to join them for no reason other than some previous owner had an agreement with them?
You know, the more we explore the HOA idea, the worse it seems like being any kind of freedom at all.
How about it, ancap? Gonna rethink your ideas at all?
>What on earth kind of freedom is that? If I want to buy a house that some previous owner inducted into an HOA, and I don't want to join the HOA, why should I have to?
Do you disagree with the concept of someone owning mineral rights and someone else owning the land for the same piece of property?
Except you're not theorizing on how to increase freedom. You're theorizing on how to carve people into separate little boxes. There is no freedom whatsoever there. Only servitude to the corporate masters who would control things.