5 ms·

As I said, I'm grateful that yours is such a fringe view. It's still jarring to see someone actually posit "no commons would be an improvement," but the more I

by Frondo 11y ago

As I said, I'm grateful that yours is such a fringe view. It's still jarring to see someone actually posit "no commons would be an improvement," but the more I read what you have to say, it jut gets sillier and sillier. Especially since you're trying to bolster support for your claim that "you gain freedom by having to negotiate easements with anyone whose sidewalk you'd like to use" with the new claim that "it's just like buying stuff at the grocery store!". Well, ok, except it isn't. But hey, you know, if your ideas were so compelling, it seems like you'd be able to find a neighborhood somewhere where you could convince people to try out the experiment: "everyone sell/negotiate access to sidewalks for everyone else". I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the idea would spread from there? Come on, ancap, let's see your fringe ideas grow and take off. Enough philosophizing, let's see this thriving new free society of sidewalk easements! After a few years of sidewalk easement negotiating under their belts, the people in your experimental neighborhood should have some pretty compelling "new feelings of freedom" results to share. In fact, this really doesn't seem like so big a challenge at all. So, where's the beef?

ancap 11y ago
>I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the idea would spread from there? No need. There's already communities where the roads and sidewalks are all owned through an HOA. There are communities with private roads yet no HOA. Are you suggesting those who live in these neighborhoods have some extraneous burden over them as they go for a stroll through their neighborhood? You say fringe, but they already exist in reality.
- Frondo 11y ago
  If HOAs are your idea of expansive new freedom, I think you can probably do better than that. HOAs get a really bad rep for absolutely limiting the freedoms of the people who live there--from things like restrictions on what colors they can paint their houses to restrictions on what kind of political signage they can put up. HOAs are so completely recognized as little hotbeds of conformity (and abuse of authority, like all these stories about when HOA boards get it in for one of their residents, and end up booting that person out of their home!), it's actually surprising that you're positing them as sources of more freedom for the inhabitants. And, also, I don't know how many people in these HOAs you're talking about chose them for their freedom-maximizing non-government-maintained sidewalks (which, to them, are of course de-facto commons anyway!). I imagine if you asked any of them, they wouldn't even think about it, just that they'd pay a sidewalk tax one way or another. I dunno, the whole thing keeps sounding stupid. Not that I lack imagination, but that you've gotten ahold of some dumb ideas and aren't letting go.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  HOAs are routinely held up as the exact opposite of freedom.
  - ancap 11y ago
    Only by the ignorant who couldn't define freedom to begin with. If you have freedom than you also have the right to limit your freedom by engaging in contracts with others. HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an HOA chose to be subject to the terms of the contract. To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      Well of course you can have less freedom under something you choose than under something imposed upon you. I can sit around all day, doing nothing, and the government is doing nothing to restrict my freedom. They're not telling me to go anywhere or do anything. They're not restricting my freedom at all! If I choose to go get a job, though, now I gotta show up somewhere, do what someone tells me, etc. That's something I chose voluntarily, but gives me much less freedom than the alternative. But I'm beginning to get where this would all go--you're going to play word games and redefine "freedom" until the answer is "everything is owned by someone" (or, I'd venture to guess, "freedom means whatever ancap says") is somehow maximally free. Well, of course, ownership itself is a severe curtailment of freedom. I can't just exist in my body anywhere I want, because some places are "owned" by someone and that person could eject my body from "their" space. The very idea of a private space is such an assault on my freedom to walk and exist where I want, I don't see how there could be less freedom in the world, once everything is owned. This whole "no commons" thing seems about as un-free as it's possible to imagine. Unless, of course, we all negotiate to give everyone access to a number of well-demarcated spaces and resources. We could call them "common" places or "the commons"! Ha! But like I said, I think this little chat is about to turn into dumb word games, so I'll step away here.
      - ancap 11y ago

by Frondo 11y ago

ancap 11y ago

>I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the idea would spread from there? No need. There's already communities where the roads and sidewalks are all owned through an HOA. There are communities with private roads yet no HOA. Are you suggesting those who live in these neighborhoods have some extraneous burden over them as they go for a stroll through their neighborhood? You say fringe, but they already exist in reality.

Frondo 11y ago
If HOAs are your idea of expansive new freedom, I think you can probably do better than that. HOAs get a really bad rep for absolutely limiting the freedoms of the people who live there--from things like restrictions on what colors they can paint their houses to restrictions on what kind of political signage they can put up. HOAs are so completely recognized as little hotbeds of conformity (and abuse of authority, like all these stories about when HOA boards get it in for one of their residents, and end up booting that person out of their home!), it's actually surprising that you're positing them as sources of more freedom for the inhabitants. And, also, I don't know how many people in these HOAs you're talking about chose them for their freedom-maximizing non-government-maintained sidewalks (which, to them, are of course de-facto commons anyway!). I imagine if you asked any of them, they wouldn't even think about it, just that they'd pay a sidewalk tax one way or another. I dunno, the whole thing keeps sounding stupid. Not that I lack imagination, but that you've gotten ahold of some dumb ideas and aren't letting go.
st3v3r 11y ago
HOAs are routinely held up as the exact opposite of freedom.
- ancap 11y ago
  Only by the ignorant who couldn't define freedom to begin with. If you have freedom than you also have the right to limit your freedom by engaging in contracts with others. HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an HOA chose to be subject to the terms of the contract. To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    Well of course you can have less freedom under something you choose than under something imposed upon you. I can sit around all day, doing nothing, and the government is doing nothing to restrict my freedom. They're not telling me to go anywhere or do anything. They're not restricting my freedom at all! If I choose to go get a job, though, now I gotta show up somewhere, do what someone tells me, etc. That's something I chose voluntarily, but gives me much less freedom than the alternative. But I'm beginning to get where this would all go--you're going to play word games and redefine "freedom" until the answer is "everything is owned by someone" (or, I'd venture to guess, "freedom means whatever ancap says") is somehow maximally free. Well, of course, ownership itself is a severe curtailment of freedom. I can't just exist in my body anywhere I want, because some places are "owned" by someone and that person could eject my body from "their" space. The very idea of a private space is such an assault on my freedom to walk and exist where I want, I don't see how there could be less freedom in the world, once everything is owned. This whole "no commons" thing seems about as un-free as it's possible to imagine. Unless, of course, we all negotiate to give everyone access to a number of well-demarcated spaces and resources. We could call them "common" places or "the commons"! Ha! But like I said, I think this little chat is about to turn into dumb word games, so I'll step away here.
    - ancap 11y ago