A libertarian community association in New Hampshire?

[ArcRiley]

Nah, no interest here. It sounds entirely too utopian..

By definition community assoc's are not utopian.  Utopia translates literally to "no place", it's original literary use was the name of a fantasy world where everything was perfect.  The fact that this place was fictional, rather than perfect, is where it got it's name "Utopia".  Other people talking about perfect societies were called utopians, as "like Utopia".  That perfect society in that book varies greatly from anything we're talking about here.  Too many people use this word out of context.

That concludes today's Etymology lesson.   

They are, however, heterotopias - "other places".  I agree that this is not productive to the free state project.  There are times and purposes for creating spaces where culture or normals are different from the rest of the world, this is not one of them.

We should also not congregate too closely neighborhood-wise, but find places in the state each of us can fit in for other reasons and integrate ourselves into those communities.  A majority of people have not thought deeply about politics and can be swayed by friends.

[EthanAllen]

almost like the 19th century socialists who would go out and build their socialist planned communities

Oh hell, I would have dismissed this idea out of hand... but if you see what the Socialists have accomplished, in terms of effect on society... maybe there is something to this idea after all!

Most of these failed miserably like Robert Owens' "New Harmony" in Indiana and many of the Fourier's Phalanx communities...btw Ripon, Wisconsin was a socialist phalanx community called "Ceresco" (Roman goddess of grain) and one of the members - Alvan Bovay - helped start the Republican Party where before he had been the Treasurer of the National Reform Association where their land reform agitation became the homestead act of 1862. Also, the NRA was officially endorsed by Karl Marx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Phalanx

Interestingly the individualist anarchist Josiah Warren started Modern Times on Long Island that was very successful.

excerpt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_and_present_anarchist_communities#Modern_Times_.281851_to_late_1860s.29

Modern Times (1851 to late 1860s)

Modern Times was an individualist anarchist colony begun on March 21, 1851 on 750 acres (3 km²) of land on Long Island, New York, Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. By contract, all land was bought and sold at cost, with three acres being the maximum allowable lot size. The community was said to be based in the idea of "individual sovereignty" and "individual responsibility." There was an understanding that there was to be no initiation of coercion, leaving all individuals to pursue their self-interest as they saw fit. All products of labor were considered private property. The community had a local private currency based upon labor exchange in order to trade goods and services (see Mutualism). All land was private property, with the exception of alleys which were initially considered common property but later converted to private property. No system of authority existed in the colony. There were no courts, no jails, and no police; yet, there are no reports of any problem with crime existing there. This appears to have given some credence to Warren's theories that the most significant cause of violence in society was most attributable to policies and law which did not allow complete individuality in person and property. However, the modest population of the colony might be considered a factor in this characteristic. The Civil War, as well as a gradual infiltration into the community by those that did not share the same libertarian and economic philosophy, is said to have contributed to its eventual dissolution. The colony's location is now known as Brentwood, New York. Almost all of the original buildings that existed in Modern Times have been destroyed.

==============

Also, the Geo-libertarian communities of Arden, Del. and Fairhope, Ala. are still going strong.

[atr]

Well, that's the deal: they should get reductions in taxes if the town isn't maintaining their roads. In this hypothetical libertarian CA scenario, I imagine that the town charter would be amended to guarantee that CAs would be able to opt out of any city services and receive a tax rebate equivalent to the reduction in city spending responsibility.

This is a good idea, but I don't know if it's possible. If it were possible, it would be very popular, and I certainly haven't heard of it. Imagine all those senior communities being able to get out of funding the schools. My guess is that the Supreme Court would strike it down as a violation of Part 1, Article 12 ("Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary."), and Part 2, Article 5 (power to "impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates, and taxes, upon all the inhabitants of, and residents within, the said state"). Property taxes can discriminate among types and uses of property, but not among the taxpayers themselves. Yes, various tax credits/deductions (vets, elderly, etc.) are of dubious constitutionality, but they've been around forever. Basically, what you're describing is an opt-out mechanism, and there is no way the state supreme court would let that slide. Disclaimer: I have not researched this particular question, and I'm sure there are a variety of interesting agreements out there between existing neighborhood associations and municipalities.

[Eli]

I might be willing to live in such a community if it had provisions for home offices, if it's rules were mutable with a community majority or super majority, and if the community had a thorough and serious adr policy to keep disputes out of state courts.  I think seperate incorporation is probably the only way to get an exemption from school taxes.

[jsorens]

Well, that's the deal: they should get reductions in taxes if the town isn't maintaining their roads. In this hypothetical libertarian CA scenario, I imagine that the town charter would be amended to guarantee that CAs would be able to opt out of any city services and receive a tax rebate equivalent to the reduction in city spending responsibility.

This is a good idea, but I don't know if it's possible. If it were possible, it would be very popular, and I certainly haven't heard of it. Imagine all those senior communities being able to get out of funding the schools. My guess is that the Supreme Court would strike it down as a violation of Part 1, Article 12 ("Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary."), and Part 2, Article 5 (power to "impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates, and taxes, upon all the inhabitants of, and residents within, the said state"). Property taxes can discriminate among types and uses of property, but not among the taxpayers themselves. Yes, various tax credits/deductions (vets, elderly, etc.) are of dubious constitutionality, but they've been around forever. Basically, what you're describing is an opt-out mechanism, and there is no way the state supreme court would let that slide. Disclaimer: I have not researched this particular question, and I'm sure there are a variety of interesting agreements out there between existing neighborhood associations and municipalities.

Well, I know that many CAs have opt-outs for taxes paid for things like roads, utilities, garbage pickup, & so on. I don't know for certain whether any have opt-outs for education, although it seems that a large, private town like Summerlin, NV would. Also, there are NH towns that don't have public schools, right? They send their kids to neighboring public schools and send a per capita annual payment to those towns, AFAIK. If the CA had its own tuition-charging school and allowed every child in the CA to attend, it would have a valid argument that it is providing educational services & thus shouldn't be taxed for town public schools.

Well, in any event, this issue of school tax opt-outs is something I'd like to investigate further, to see whether there are any precedents.

[Russell Kanning]

yes ... as long as I don't have to go to the board meetings

[Lex]

I like a loose knit friendship based type of community more than a community planned by planers, just seems so sterile to plan a community like that. We're not robots...

[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.

If I have a bunch of land and decide to build a road and put a house at the end, why should the town have to maintain that road?

Also, do the people who live on private roads still use the town roads?

[money dollars]

Also, there are NH towns that don't have public schools, right? They send their kids to neighboring public schools and send a per capita annual payment to those towns, AFAIK. If the CA had its own tuition-charging school and allowed every child in the CA to attend, it would have a valid argument that it is providing educational services & thus shouldn't be taxed for town public schools.

IIRC, public schools are by school district, not town. And yes, some towns do not have publics schools. Last time I looked, the public school tax was 70% of my property tax bill....

[money dollars]

Are we talking about Grafton again

[Rochelle]

Oh hell, I would have dismissed this idea out of hand... but if you see what the Socialists have accomplished, in terms of effect on society... maybe there is something to this idea after all!

Lol, good point. Only difference is that they stopped doing the whole "voluntary socialism" thing and went straight to force.

By definition community assoc's are not utopian.  Utopia translates literally to "no place", it's original literary use was the name of a fantasy world where everything was perfect.  The fact that this place was fictional, rather than perfect, is where it got it's name "Utopia".  Other people talking about perfect societies were called utopians, as "like Utopia".  That perfect society in that book varies greatly from anything we're talking about here.  Too many people use this word out of context.

And thus endeth today's segment of "people telling me things I already knew."

So are we going to ban the use of the word utopia because it happens to be greek for "no place"?

Seriously, the socialist experimental communities can accurately be described as Utopian because they meant for them to be perfect, ideal, etc. and they all failed...thus proving that no place can be Utopia.

[EthanAllen]

Seriously, the socialist experimental communities can accurately be described as Utopian because they meant for them to be perfect, ideal, etc. and they all failed...thus proving that no place can be Utopia.

What about a Kibbutz?

[jsorens]

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.

[dalebert]

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".

[BaRbArIaN]

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.