Freedom Of Association?

[JoelKatz]

I'm not the idiot here. How do I ensure that the people who own the land around me don't change how they wish to use it? Who regulates that?

There are a few different views on this in Libertarian circles.

One is, as I mentioned before, that private property rights don't include the right to exclude people from passing through your property to get to their property. Property owners have an obligation to ensure that their use of their property doesn't trample on other people's rights to reasonable use of their property, such rights include access. So under this system, the people around you cannot interfere with your ability to reasonably access your property, even if you have to cross their property to do it. A well-maintained perimeter road would meet this requirement, so it's not a blank check for others to traipse through your property as they please. The government would enforce this right of access.

Another is that a system of easements would be set up. When you purchase a piece of property, it would include necessary easements to reach thoroughfares that were encumbered in such a way that access to the thoroughfares could not be obstructed. This would work much the way the Internet works today. I get Internet access from a local ISP who arranges interconnectivity with other ISPs. The net result is any two people who each have Internet access can reach other through a path worked out by their ISPs, possibly indirectly. The government would protect your rights to those easements you acquired with your property purchase.

I think a hybrid of these two makes the most sense. A system of easements should be the primary mechanism, falling back to the fundamental right of access when someone attempts to sabotage or obstruct the easement/thoroughfare system.

[1714775424]

1714775424

[1714775424]

1714775424

[1714775424]

1714775424

[myrkul]

Not necessarily, not for a new owner or for any and all uses.

'any and all uses' isn't necessary. Only the use you need it for is. You can find land usable for your use, elsewhere, if need be.

[jgraham]

However when asked how this is done.   You answer appears to be "it's all figured out".

Would you build a grocery store unless there was a major road that could get people to your store? No, of course not.

Would you as a grocery store be worried about any and all people as potential customers at any expense?  No, of course not.

That's what I mean by it's all figured out. Businesses want to make money therefore it will be in their best interests to do so.

Not every road will be a business.  Interestingly enough I actually own sole rights to a private road right now. It's not used by businesses and even if it were located in fantasy-land and I could make money per car.  It wouldn't be the kind of money I would care about.  I'd be far more interested in having access depend on some weird set of criteria or if I did want to make money the best way would be to have some pretty random set of rules with large fines.

This isn't even remotely the same as making tanks run on dirt because that's technological problem while getting people to drive on roads to a store, isn't. It's a entrepreneurial problem.

Actually they are both identical in one very specific respect.  They are both assuming that stating the idea is the same as solving the problem.

Just ignore that though and keep talking about "fantasy-land" like a complete and utter tool.

So what's the problem with using the term "fantasy land"?  It seems both accurate - there is no real land like this - and useful - it shows the problems inherent in dealing with a non-existent place.  Just like if you were describing a place built from candy-canes. ;-)

'any and all uses' isn't necessary. Only the use you need it for is. You can find land usable for your use, elsewhere, if need be.

Aren't you assuming that I know all uses I'd have for land up-front?

[jgraham]

any and all uses

Speaking of "fantasy-land". Since you demand complete and utter perfection, that must be where you live.

How is this demanding complete and utter perfection?

[NghtRppr]

Would you as a grocery store be worried about any and all people as potential customers at any expense?  No, of course not.

What's your point?

Not every road will be a business. Interestingly enough I actually own sole rights to a private road right now.

Congratulations, why do I care about driving on your private road? Some shitty little dirt road on your property isn't the issue. People building major roads that stretch far enough to get anywhere important will most likely be a business. Why else would people invest money in building a road from A to B (where A to B is a significant distance)? Any major road I'll care about driving on is most likely going to be a business, ignoring the crazy billionaires that build roads for no reason, which of course is something realistically worth worrying about. 

The point still stands.

Actually they are both identical in one very specific respect.  They are both assuming that stating the idea is the same as solving the problem.

No. I've already explained that one is possible with current technology, it's just a matter of ironing out the details. Making tanks run on dirt isn't.

So what's the problem with using the term "fantasy land"?

The problem is that it's childish and only shows how pathetically frustrated you are that you can't attack the issue intellectually so you have to lash out like a whiny brat.

[myrkul]

'any and all uses' isn't necessary. Only the use you need it for is. You can find land usable for your use, elsewhere, if need be.

Aren't you assuming that I know all uses I'd have for land up-front?

No, just that you know the use you're intending to put the land to right away. If you want land you're able to do anything with, either buy unencumbered land, or renegotiate with your neighbors.

[JoelKatz]

No, just that you know the use you're intending to put the land to right away. If you want land you're able to do anything with, either buy unencumbered land, or renegotiate with your neighbors.

Most people don't really want fully unencumbered land -- it's additional cost that provides very little benefit. If you don't want a waste treatment plant opening up right next to your small home plot, you're going to need an arrangement that creates an incentive for someone to build a home in the adjoining plot instead. They're not likely to do that if you insist on retaining the right to turn your home into a sewage treatment plant at any time.

[myrkul]

No, just that you know the use you're intending to put the land to right away. If you want land you're able to do anything with, either buy unencumbered land, or renegotiate with your neighbors.

Most people don't really want fully unencumbered land -- it's additional cost that provides very little benefit. If you don't want a waste treatment plant opening up right next to your small home plot, you're going to need an arrangement that creates an incentive for someone to build a home in the adjoining plot instead. They're not likely to do that if you insist on retaining the right to turn your home into a sewage treatment plant at any time.

Exactly. This will, IMO, eventually result in voluntary 'zoning laws'.

[billyjoeallen]

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

It's your critique that is half-assed. You cannot complain that a libertarian society both would have problems and also that it is an unrealistic utopia.   Libertarianism is the best of all available options, none of which are ideal. Libertarianism fixes every problem that can be fixed without introducing unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. 

Why would anyone want to join a club where they are not welcome in the first place?  Nobody has a right to be popular.

[TheColdOne]

One important thing that I haven't heard mentioned yet is that if a Libertarian system were implemented in a real country there would obviously be a period of transition where the state sold off all the public properties like roads etc. Most access problems would be solved during this period of transition as most people would try to purchase the formally public road leading to their property especially if a road only led to one's property. Alternatively, a group of property owners (those which are served by the road) could purchase the road and agree to allow anyone access to the road (or just owners, or owners and guests, or whatever the owners choose). Even in the unlikely circumstance that access was blocked because a property owner was in a coma during the transition period. When the property owner needed access they could trade something of value or even attempt to persuade the owners of potential access routes to give them access. Most of the fantasy land examples seem to assume that the property owner's blocking access value blocking access to the property more than anything else. That is highly unlikely. There are millions of neighborly disputes that are resolved without the government every year. Why assume that people would be unable to resolve disputes when there is a really small gov't or no gov't.

To the poster that said that political systems must address minor religious and social disagreements or devolve into tyranny. In my view any political system that meddles in religious or social disagreements (besides actual violations of rights) is a tyrannical political system.

[bonker]

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

It's your critique that is half-assed. You cannot complain that a libertarian society both would have problems and also that it is an unrealistic utopia.   Libertarianism is the best of all available options, none of which are ideal. Libertarianism fixes every problem that can be fixed without introducing unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. 

Why would anyone want to join a club where they are not welcome in the first place?  Nobody has a right to be popular.

This is a particularly dismal reply to my original proposition.

It's not that negroes would not want to join a whites-only collective its that they would not be at liberty to do so.

The point is that that Libertarianism does not address the issues of conflict that naturally arise from, for example, the Freedom of Association.

You goofballs seem so tied up in the concept of property and ownership that you miss the big picture. This is to be expected from a
community born of decadence.    

[bonker]

To the poster that said that political systems must address minor religious and social disagreements or devolve into tyranny. In my view any political system that meddles in religious or social disagreements (besides actual violations of rights) is a tyrannical political system.

Tyranny is then an end state in both cases.

[myrkul]

This is a particularly dismal reply to my original proposition.

Knew you couldn't stay away.

[billyjoeallen]

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

It's your critique that is half-assed. You cannot complain that a libertarian society both would have problems and also that it is an unrealistic utopia.   Libertarianism is the best of all available options, none of which are ideal. Libertarianism fixes every problem that can be fixed without introducing unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. 

Why would anyone want to join a club where they are not welcome in the first place?  Nobody has a right to be popular.

This is a particularly dismal reply to my original proposition.

It's not that negroes would not want to join a whites-only collective its that they would not be at liberty to do so.

The point is that that Libertarianism does not address the issues of conflict that naturally arise from, for example, the Freedom of Association.

You goofballs seem so tied up in the concept of property and ownership that you miss the big picture. This is to be expected from a
community born of decadence.    

What a terrible travesty of justice to be prevented from doing something you don't want to do in the first place.  That's like complaining that you can't get raped. This is your big killer argument? fail.

[JoelKatz]

It's not that negroes would not want to join a whites-only collective its that they would not be at liberty to do so.

Correct. Just as you may or may not want to bash my skull in with a baseball bat, but in no sensible society would you be at liberty to do so. Your freedom ends at my stuff.

The point is that that Libertarianism does not address the issues of conflict that naturally arise from, for example, the Freedom of Association.

It does address them. It says that your freedom ends at my stuff. You cannot use coercive mechanisms to get access to stuff that is not yours. But there are a variety of non-coercive mechanisms you might use.

You goofballs seem so tied up in the concept of property and ownership that you miss the big picture. This is to be expected from a community born of decadence.

What's the big picture? We fully accept that freedom means that some people will do stuff that we would prefer they not do and we are willing to let them do that in exchange for having that same freedom ourselves.

And note that our society has precisely the same problems. The Boy Scouts of America remain free to exclude atheists, and they have substantial government support. Racism in the South was substantially propped up by Jim Crow laws.

[bonker]

What a terrible travesty of justice to be prevented from doing something you don't want to do in the first place.  That's like complaining that you can't get raped. This is your big killer argument? fail.

Let me make it easier for you. Suppose during a famine, a bunch of racist whites had a great farm. Now they would let everyone in to eat except negros, simply because
they hated them.

Now, those negros want to go in to whitey's BBQ party as they're fucking starving, but they can't because, by Freedom of Association, whitey won't let them.

The Blacks are going to be pissed, yes? It's going to cause conflict, yes? How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?.. It doesn't, because all anyone cares
about is property rights. So the conflict spirals down in to war and the whole things falls to shit as it has to.

[NghtRppr]

Suppose during a famine...

So, you think that the consequences that result in emergency, life or death situations, should apply in all situations? Is your position that weak that you can only come up with examples that don't apply in real life, everyday situations?

It's going to cause conflict, yes? How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?

Violence. The same as any system. Forcing whitey to allow blacks on his property vs. forcing blacks to stay off whitey's property. Get your head out of the clouds and stop pretending that any system is going to be perfect.

[bonker]

It's not that negroes would not want to join a whites-only collective its that they would not be at liberty to do so.

Correct. Just as you may or may not want to bash my skull in with a baseball bat, but in no sensible society would you be at liberty to do so. Your freedom ends at my stuff.

The point is that that Libertarianism does not address the issues of conflict that naturally arise from, for example, the Freedom of Association.

It does address them. It says that your freedom ends at my stuff. You cannot use coercive mechanisms to get access to stuff that is not yours. But there are a variety of non-coercive mechanisms you might use.

You goofballs seem so tied up in the concept of property and ownership that you miss the big picture. This is to be expected from a community born of decadence.

What's the big picture? We fully accept that freedom means that some people will do stuff that we would prefer they not do and we are willing to let them do that in exchange for having that same freedom ourselves.

And note that our society has precisely the same problems. The Boy Scouts of America remain free to exclude atheists, and they have substantial government support. Racism in the South was substantially propped up by Jim Crow laws.

This is a slightly more thoughtful, but still suffers from "stuff" obsession. Freedom of Association has little to do with "stuff" or property and is
a source of conflict that cannot be resolved with "stuff" or property.

The only property based solution is partition and segregation. Spiraling conflict is the natural result in any case. How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?.. It doesn't.

[bonker]

It's going to cause conflict, yes? How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?

Violence. The same as any system. Forcing whitey to allow blacks on his property vs. forcing blacks to stay off whitey's property. Get your head out of the clouds and stop pretending that any system is going to be perfect.

At last, a glimmer of realism! Indeed, Libertarianism is not perfect. But then neither was Marxism or any other artificial
system of governance.

[JoelKatz]

This is a slightly more thoughtful, but still suffers from "stuff" obsession. Freedom of Association has little to do with "stuff" or property and is a source of conflict that cannot be resolved with "stuff" or property.

Freedom of association comes down to property. If I'm in your store, I have limited my freedom of association because I have to interact with the people you allow into your store. If I'm on my own property, I have complete freedom of association because I can limit who enters my property.

The only property based solution is partition and segregation. Spiraling conflict is the natural result in any case. How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?.. It doesn't.

I agree that if you had people who generally believe that racism and sexism are unacceptable and you also had people who wished to practice those kinds of discrimination, conflict would be inevitable. I already explained exactly how that conflict would work -- the non-racist, non-sexist folks would likely isolate themselves from the racists and sexists.

If a bunch of racist people want to live together and be racists, that's fine. I'm willing to live and let live. I will despise them, refuse to deal with them, and refuse to deal with those who deal with them. But I'm willing to let them do that in exchange for them allowing me to have integrated water fountains even if they'd prefer separate ones.

At least the racists can't use the machinery of government to enforce segregation or discrimination, as has happened in pretty much every Democracy.