Re: I lost round one with the thugs

[Ed]

I'm not complaining about HOA's - I'm complaining of the double standard where libertarians call the same exact thing but under the name of "municipal government" as an "evil initiation of force"

[Ed]

the government doesn't own most of the roadways - they only maintain them. They have no deed. Literally what happens is the "deed" says that the road will be "dedicated to the public", usually a developer does this.

You don't get to make the choices any less than you do with government-maintained roads, if you compare them to HOA roads. Are the government-maintained roads worse? Maybe. If so, that just means that's what happens when you there are a lot of people in the "HOA" and there is a lot of property to maintain. Too many voters and too much property; it becomes less useful for each voter to vote, and they become apathetic. Privately managed road maintenance is no less susceptible to that problem - it's just that that problem never reaches the size of a town - because of public roads and municipalities' willingness to take on the burden of maintenance, there has never been a need to maintain a town-sized HOA.

If you want to tell me that the management system can be improved by making it more susceptible to market forces by giving the voter/unit-owners more direct control, then you may be right and that's reasonable. My preliminary idea is that each block or road would be sectioned off, and the owners of each section get to vote on one property manager, for a however-long period. Different landscaping guys and/or property managers could bid different mill rates, and the voters would choose. This would be direct and small-scale enough to give people impetus to choose the best and cheapest guys.


But if you're going to tell me that you can take those public roads, which are my property just as much as anyone else's, and just give it or sell it to somebody who could potentially bar me from it for whatever reason he wants, then you'd be commiting a form of theft.

Read up on that Elinor Ostrom chick - or some swedish name i cant remember- - the nobel prize winner. Private property is by no means the only property. Sometimes people collectively make something - she uses a villagers-making-a-path as they walk through the woods example, among others.

[Tom Sawyer]

Wilbur, I'm just here to troll.   

[MaineShark]

You know, it's interesting... I'm actually looking at creating a small subdivision.  Anyone wanting to live there will have to agree to certain things.

But we're not going to vote on representatives of other such nonsense.  Any changes to the agreement will be made only by unanimous consent of all members.  No one gets to vote you into obligations or restrictions you never agreed to.

Oh, wait, so that's actually nothing like a State.  Does that mean that HOA's and the like are only "equivalent" to States when someone intentionally makes them mimic States, and anyone who does not want to make them intentionally mimic States, can go that route?

Odd.  Almost like libertarians can think critically, whereas Statist trolls cannot.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

I wouldn't buy into that subdivision, either.

[Ed]

I admitted* that decades ago, when this town or that town first imposed taxes, that would be a violation of property rights.
But that's irrelevant to modern home and realty purchasers. They frequently buy knowing they will be taxed, and that not being taxed could only happen through voting and is thus unlikely.
HOA's are the same way.

And like it or not they are frequently set up Republic style. You sign away your right to directly control your money and to not pay the dues when you buy the property.

In terms of choice and initiation of force they're the same

But you know that libertarians all over have/would/do flip a shit over property "taxes" and claim it's an initiation of force, whereas they'd completely accept HOA's as being allowed under "property rights"

*try actually reading posts

[Ed]

Any changes to the agreement will be made only by unanimous consent of all members

I wouldn't buy into that subdivision, either.

Indeed that sounds stupid.
What I would do is set it up as democratic. Votes have to pass by 70% or something of all the voters. Referendums get on the ballot after 20% signatories. Maybe one guy or a board get elected with the power to introduce votes.
May be a problem with insurance and liability, if it's difficult to get changes done and it ends up no insurance, and some trips or something and sues for no real reason, as tends to happen

[Lloyd Danforth]

I didn't think Joe's idea was stupid, just not for me. Your idea doesn't make any sense at all.

[John]

This thread gives me a headache.
Good by.

[Pat K]

That's cause ED is here and ED has not taken his meds in quite awhile.

[Ed]

you're calling me crazy in so many words, when you call the state evil, but then the people you consider good, the guys on your side that you have no problem with, are on here talking about how they have the right to murder people just for slight property trangsressions and how every cop is willing to kill anyone for any reason. And if I'm not mistaken, I think he participates in the Keene protests - I'm guessing he was the fatty in the red shirt open carrying standing on the side in the youtube videos of the Keene nudity/open alcohol container protest.

You're saying I'm off my meds, and you're hanging out with the next Loughner.

[littlehawk]

Can you find the door Ed? or do you need some help?

[Tom Sawyer]

Mr. Ed comes in and insults everyone who posts here, tries to group us all together as if we all believe the exact same things...

[MaineShark]

you're calling me crazy in so many words, when you call the state evil, but then the people you consider good, the guys on your side that you have no problem with, are on here talking about how they have the right to murder people just for slight property trangsressions...

No, self-defense is not murder.

And, as anyone who actually knows me can attest, I would not associate with someone who used lethal force too easily.  Just because someone has a right to do something, does not mean I support it.

You do, in actual reality, support mass murderers.

...and how every cop is willing to kill anyone for any reason.

They are.  The penalty for any violation is death.  If the cop's victim is willing to bend over backwards, sometimes they will not murder them on the spot.  If he does not comply, they will kill him.

And if I'm not mistaken, I think he participates in the Keene protests - I'm guessing he was the fatty in the red shirt open carrying standing on the side in the youtube videos of the Keene nudity/open alcohol container protest.

Nope.  I haven't been to Keene for about four years, other than on business.

You're saying I'm off my meds, and you're hanging out with the next Loughner.

Uh, no.  Loughner killed and harmed innocents.  I don't particularly support him shooting Feds, but at least that's morally-defensible.  Shooting innocent bystanders and kids is not.  Libertarians don't believe in "collateral damage," like you Statists.

Oh, by the way, Loughner is from your side of the political spectrum...

You're really batting zero, ain't ya?

Joe

[Ed]

-a guy waited with a shotgun for a child to cross his lawn and shot and killed him. The claim is he had the right to do that

-cops are willing to kill anyone for any reason. The penalty for violations is always death

-the 90-99 % of people who aren't anarchists actually support mass murderers

-attacking, shooting and killing federal agents is morally defensible

By their friends ye shall know them
You can't call other people demons when you're fine with the devil