Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Day to day life in Libertaria
Message-ID: <788@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 16:33:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.788
Posted: Thu Oct 10 16:33:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 05:37:09 EDT
References: <139@mck-csc.UUCP> <437@calgary.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 49
Summary: 

In article <437@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>
>By my variety of libertarianism:
>
>One owns rights, not things.
>
>It is very convenient to own these rights in packages associated with objects.
>For instance, owning the right to drive car A forward and car B in reverse,
>but not car A backward and B forward would be pretty useless. Hence the 
>usual notion of property as physical objects. But this is not the general
>case.
>
	.
	.
	.
>
>Lets assume that at one time all the land in the neighborhood was owned
>(completely, all rights) by a developer, who subdivided it into lots which
>were individually sold. Presumably the developer could decide which rights
>get sold (or establish a mechanism which buyers agree to abide by for deciding
>which rights residents have). There are obvious possible motives for not
>selling all the rights, given that he guarantees a consistent scheme to all
>buyers.
>
	This sounds an awful lot like feudalism, in which recieved
rights in some productive resource are sublet to contrators in return
for value(services) recieved/rendered.

>Assuming that problems like this really are significant, one can imagine a
>structure resembling a municipal government, complete with zoning laws, 
>emerging. The difference from present governments would be that "laws" are
>the result of voluntary contracts, not political power.
> or maybe there's a better way which
>the market would discover. But the market could solve the problem this way
>it there is nothing better.
>
	Well, not exactly a voluntary contract, the original developer
has essentially a buyers market and can dictate terms of the contract.
(i.e buy under my terms or not at all). In fact the developer would
become the defacto government of the area by setting up the rules, and
by providing mechanisms for thier enforcement. Again very much like
feudalism, or like the private local communities that already exist
here in the US.(I saw an advertisement for one on TV the other day).
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa