A libertarian community association in New Hampshire?

[KBCraig]

Having read the many, many horror stories of HOAs and CAs in action --"democracy" at its worst-- the only way I would ever join such an association is if the libertarian nature were written into irrevocable deed covenants.

"Rule 1: There shall be no rules."

[Eli]

Actually, unanimity is part of the problem with a lot of CA's.  The require a unanimous vote for any rule change (generally the lessening of obnoxious rules) and some folks just sit on them.  If the CA was designed with libertarians in mind then the unanimous votes could be centered around liberty issues, so us curmudgeons could prevent any losses of liberty.

[Lasse]

I watched a documentary on 'Celebration' in Florida, the planned Disney town. It seemed like a nightmare.

If anything like this was attempted, I'd definitely be on the fence and see what happened before I tried it.

[money dollars]

Well, that's the deal: they should get reductions in taxes if the town isn't maintaining their roads.

Why should the town maintain a private road?

The town should maitain town roads, the state should maintain state roads, and private individuals should maintain their private roads.

That is precisely my point.

If the CA roads all exit onto state roads, maybe something could be worked out.

Even if it is possible to get out of the town and school part of the property tax, that would still leave the county and state part. But most of the tax burden would be gone.

[money dollars]

I understand the concerns that it's like a smaller government, but the point of it would be a temporary measure to allow a greater degree of self-governance than what is currently possible until we can make more progress at the local level with shrinking governments. It's a practical approach to achieving more freedom for yourself RIGHT NOW. I can appreciate Jason's suggestion in that sense.

My concern would not be nearly so much with the CA itself but whether I could trust the local government to respect our contract and not start passing laws to infringe on that deal, particularly as they continue to expand "taxes" and "services".

I think the idea would be to do it in a small town, and grow it until it can take over the local government.

I see three requirements....1. housing 2. jobs 3.broadband internet access.

[anthonybpugh]

Will there be a pistol range?  Archery range? 

[EthanAllen]

The downside is that you would be at the mercy of the majority in any decisions made.  The upside is that if you dislike the changes that much you can pretty much move w/o much struggle (unlike having to repatriate to another country if you don't like it).   One upside is that you could instill early on a requirement for a super-majority or unanimity to raise any fee, add any service, etc. You could even have town meetings via email, authenticated web poll, live webcast, phone conference or any and all other means besides having all to be in the same room.

IMHO, running an organization of libertarian individuals via consensus is almost near impossible and would never scale sufficiently to drive the cost of land down enough on a per owner basis to make it worthwhile.

[EthanAllen]

Actually, unanimity is part of the problem with a lot of CA's.  The require a unanimous vote for any rule change (generally the lessening of obnoxious rules) and some folks just sit on them.  If the CA was designed with libertarians in mind then the unanimous votes could be centered around liberty issues, so us curmudgeons could prevent any losses of liberty.

Every heard of tyranny of the minority? In this case one.

That is why the founders had it right by basing many rights on the notion of common rights like freedom of speech & travel which are equal individual rights. An individual is free to act so long as they are not infringing on the equal rights of anyone else to the same.

[anthonybpugh]

which would be why the only way I would join one of these organization is if it were limited in its authority.  It is easier for people to reach concensus on issues if there are fewer items up for debate. 

[J’raxis 270145]

Actually, unanimity is part of the problem with a lot of CA's.  The require a unanimous vote for any rule change (generally the lessening of obnoxious rules) and some folks just sit on them.  If the CA was designed with libertarians in mind then the unanimous votes could be centered around liberty issues, so us curmudgeons could prevent any losses of liberty.

You need to design the system to make it very difficult to pass new rules but easy to overturn or repeal existing ones, sort of like how the United States' legislative system is supposed to work in theory. That is, for a bill to become law, it has to pass through all sorts of checkpoints at which it can be struck down—congressional committees can kill it, it can be voted down by the congressmen, it can be vetoed by the president, it can be struck down by courts, and finally it can be nullified by juries.

I don't think this specific check-and-balance system would be particularly appropriate for your CA (and as we've seen, in practice it's not as useful at keeping bad laws down as it looks like), but hopefully you see the idea. Perhaps require unanimity to pass a new rule, but only a simple majority to repeal one. Perhaps all rules would have to be reauthorized yearly or they'd expire.

[EthanAllen]

which would be why the only way I would join one of these organization is if it were limited in its authority.  It is easier for people to reach concensus on issues if there are fewer items up for debate. 

Yes, I believe the original intent of the founding of our country was to write a narrow constitution that limited the monopoly on force to the legitimate authority of self-governance which only covered what we had as "natural" rights (life, liberty and labor-based property as self-ownership) in a state of nature prior to governance which was being thwarted by arbitrary power (might makes right).

[jsorens]

There are plenty of horror stories about CAs and planned communities, but there are also ones that seem to work well. After all, these are really market institutions: if people didn't want to live in these places, developers would stop creating them. Some of them seem to have flourished, because they were designed well from the start; one example might be Reston, Virginia:

http://www.reston.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reston,_Virginia

In my personal view, the best bylaws for these types of places are relatively simple & do not make detailed supermajority or unanimity requirements for various kinds of rules; instead, they make it simple & easy to run for the governing board, to present your case to them if you need permission for something, to elect new board members if the existing ones get out of hand, & so on. Generally, if the culture of the place is open & relaxed rather than closed & suspicious, you don't need detailed restrictions on what the board can do - you just need to give all the power to the residents so that they can kick out the control freaks as needed.

However, I've never lived in one of these places. My expressed hunches are simply based on my conversations with the CAI people and a libertarian friend of mine who actually serves on the board of his CA in Indiana. It's surprising how many of these CAs have just obviously bad or incomplete constitutions from the start. Putting just a little thought into the concept can prevent a lot of problems down the road.

[money dollars]

If the CA can get out of paying parts of the property tax because they do not use some services, then why should a property owner in the town that does not use those same services have to pay?

I am thinking of someone who does not even live in the town, but owns land.

[EthanAllen]

If the CA can get out of paying parts of the property tax because they do not use some services, then why should a property owner in the town that does not use those same services have to pay?

I am thinking of someone who does not even live in the town, but owns land.

Because their exclusive use backed by the threat of real force (a service) imposes a cost on all those who live in proximity in higher land prices.

[Kat Kanning]

I like the idea.  It could be a government free zone   We don't use their roads or police or anything.