Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Day to day life in Libertaria
Message-ID: <724@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 18:58:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.724
Posted: Tue Oct 22 18:58:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:13:06 EDT
References: <139@mck-csc.UUCP> <437@calgary.UUCP> <788@psivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Distribution: net
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 22
Summary: 


In article <788@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <437@calgary.UUCP> radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
>>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.

Actually, something much like this happened in many places in the U.S.
A great many sales contracts for homes had clauses forbidding their sale
to blacks.  (And requiring that the same condition be applied to any
subsequent purchasers.)

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108