Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Day to day life in Libertaria
Message-ID: <453@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 22:24:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: calgary.453
Posted: Tue Oct 15 22:24:47 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Oct-85 16:02:04 EDT
References: <139@mck-csc.UUCP> <437@calgary.UUCP> <788@psivax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 50

> >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)

One could indeed imagine a feudal setup emerging from this. That this is 
possible is a point in favour of my scheme. Any framework for organizing 
society should be able to accomodate diversity - if people like the sort
of security and predictability that comes fromm a feudal community, they
should be able to join one.

One could also imagine a democratic setup, in which everyone agrees to
abide by the majority choice among some set of options.

The contracts WOULD be voluntary as long as no one had a monopoly of natural
resources (in this case land). The question of ownership of uncreated (by
man at least) objects is a complex one on which libertarians disagree. I 
don't propose to get into it here.

Once again, I don't necessarily think the above solution is desirable - it's
just a way in which the market *might* lead to a situation much like the 
present if no better setup is discovered.

     Radford Neal