Topic: Freedom Of Association? - page 9. (Read 11878 times)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Knew you couldn't stay away.

Tyranny is then an end state in both cases.

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.    

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

What's your point?


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.


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.


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.

How is this demanding complete and utter perfection?

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


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.


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.

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. ;-)

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

'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.

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.

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

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

Like what, harassing people that cross your bridge? Fine, take your ball and leave.

"Screw you guys. I'm going home!"


Would you build a grocery store unless there was a major road that could get people to your store? 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. 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.

I can't predict the future but I can suggest some possibilities. Since major road owners want people to drive on their roads, they also want to attract businesses which will attract customers, thereby bringing more drivers on the road. Road owners will guarantee access to grocery stores and other shops for that reason.

Another possibility is that major stores will first buy options and then build the roads themselves once they have all the options in place.

There are other possibilities but I shouldn't have to exhaust them all just to placate you. The fact is, road owners want drivers and shops attract drivers therefore road owners want to attract shop owners, it's pretty simple really. Just ignore that though and keep talking about "fantasy-land" like a complete and utter tool.

No you won't. Trolls never stay away from the lulz.

What on earth are you jabbering on about? Anyway, I got shit to do, so I'll just leave you lot
here waffling on about pathways and boundaries and property and all that pointless bullshit.