No…they just come and take your gold (if you were foolish enough to tell them you have gold in your mattress). No bodily harm involved.
Are you saying that if you resist you will be harmed? Sure; possibly, but then the bodily harm will not come to you as a result of your breach of contract, but because of you telling the Sheriff that you will kill anyone who comes to take your gold mattress.
I don’t think that can be the Libertarian line. That would actually be taking paternalism a step further than it is today. As it stands, you’re free to waive most of your fundamental rights by contract. Indeed, the homeowners association that bans all guns is a real world example.
Are there such things as unreasonable contracts if they are entered into voluntarily in the ideal Libertarian world? Who decides?
Anyway, back to the big picture: I think I understand your answer to be that contracts, to be enforceable, will have to set forth their own monetary remedies. So is there no way for a community to ensure by contractual means that no one in it will build a pool? They can only get monetary assurances?
Libertarian checking in.
I think many here have the wrong idea of Libertaria. The basic concept is voluntary association; most of the population would not seek to emulate Galt’s Gulch. Reality would look like a more benign version of “Snow Crash,” with a bunch of independent entities competing for citizens.
To answer the OP: 1) Obviously not. One might sell water rights (or a portion thereof) directly; one cannot enter binding contracts on behalf of your progeny
Firefighting: yes if adult. Guns: yes.
Paladud, if competing voluntary associations can set up all the rules of a government, then what distinguishes Libertaria from a world of competing nation-states? Or, to put it another way, what prevents the world of competing voluntary associations from becoming a world of nation-states?
I don’t think there is any cut-and-dried answer to your questions. There isn’t a notation in the Federal Register, on page 11438, subclause 3.vi, that spells out whether X or Y is allowed, such as building a pool.
Homeowner’s associations have disputes all of the time. I own property (a lot, not a house) in one right now that has a dispute. The HOA prohibits any signage or ‘non-natural’ labels visible to anyone driving by on the road. This allows for rustic-looking nameplates engraved in wood, for example, on an entrance gate. But that’s about it. That was the intent.
Somebody put out a campaign sign for one of the Presidential candidates. The HOA president dropped a note in their mailbox telling them to take it down. The next morning, there were 50 of them out in the front lawn. So now we have a little pissing match going on between that property owner and the HOA. But I have to admit I smiled when I saw the 50 signs.
This sort of stuff goes on all the time. Another homeowner in the association got fined in the past for cutting down a tree she supposedly wasn’t allowed to. I know the lady. She refused to pay the fine. The HOA board said she had to. She said ‘Go to Hell’.
In theory, the HOA could take her to court. But like all contract disputes, both parties will weigh the costs, pros and cons of doing so. And make judgements accordingly.
I suppose I could sign a contract that says if I put up a Bob Barr for President sign in my lawn, and I’m not supposed to, I will allow a local street-gang to torture and rape my wife, and I can be drawn and quartered by skinheads at high noon.
But do you honestly believe any Libertarian would argue that ‘Yep, that needs to be enforced. It says so right on the paper.’? Of course not. A judge and/or jury would laugh it out of court, lecture me on my stupidity, and probably fine me a couple hundred bucks for their trouble. And rightly so.
Contracts are entered into willingly by two parties. Risk of counterparty default, and the risk and cost of relief, is something that each party should take into consideration at the time of signing.
In your pool example, the HOA would consider how much trouble it was worth to sue the homeowner for breach of contract. In that case, my guess is that it would be pretty good, since it’s a large and obvious breach and seems like a reasonable restriction entered into voluntarily at the time of signing.
Geographical noncontiguity of people sharing the same ideals/preferences. I think Stephenson’s burbclave/franchulate idea is a more probable outcome.
An employer offers you a contract, under which you give him man-hours of labour, and he gives you money. If you don’t agree to the contract, he doesn’t get your labour, and you don’t get his money. I’m not really familiar with homeowners’ agreements, but I see no way they could force you to agree to the contract as a condition to living there. They aren’t the government, and they don’t own your house, so they have no legal standing to deny you the use of your own property.
IIRC, these homeowner’s rules are part of a restrictive covenant that is issued along with the deed, so you agree to these rules prior to purchasing your home, or at least you agree to submit to the elected board in granting them the power to make the rules.
But, I’m confused. Does the OP think that the whole nation would become a series of connected HOAs where if I drive 10 miles to the south, I would constantly be under the jurisdiction of one and have to comply with varying jurisdictions on my travel?
I’m not sure about travel, but I find it plausible that the vast majority of places you might want to live would be governed by a somewhat comprehensive HOA. That seems like one plausible way in which a Libertarian society would gradually revert back into a society of nation-states (albeit smaller).
I don’t think so. At least, not amongst the Libertarians I know.
None of them have any desire to trump the basic rights outlined in the Constitution. They think it’s a pretty good document. There is no need to create bizarre sets of laws with unreasonable remedies for relief or sanction.
Most of what of you hear from Libertarians about ‘drawing up contracts’ is for the far simpler purpose of establishing property rights, and just use of property. For example, a government can’t come in and unilaterally dictate after-the-fact that the 40 acres you just purchased at considerable expense is a ‘wetland’, and therefore place all sorts of restrictions on its use. Or run a 6-lane highway through your backyard. Or prohibit you from cutting down a tree in your backyard because it might endanger the marbled murrelet, and therefore you need to submit a 200-page environment impact study before considering such an action. Stuff like that.