Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons (Read 2814 times)
freeforall
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Sep 14th, 2014 at 11:09am
Print Post  
How would privatization evolve if the government were to dissolve?  Would Sleepytown USA become Sleepytown Inc. owned by investors?  They could then contract with security/fire/emergency services in a safer more homogeneous manner (it's kind of unsafe to have one fire department company serving my house and another my neighbor's house, etc.)

These privatized towns or neighborhoods could also boot their homeless into the commons (those areas between private towns or neighborhoods) if they so choose.  I'm asking in all seriousness here: Would it truly be a NAP violation if an area, previously public and now private, acted in self-defense or as part of its business practices to remove individuals that were hurting business?
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 41790
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #1 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 12:15pm
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 11:09am:
How would privatization evolve if the government were to dissolve?  Would Sleepytown USA become Sleepytown Inc. owned by investors?  They could then contract with security/fire/emergency services in a safer more homogeneous manner (it's kind of unsafe to have one fire department company serving my house and another my neighbor's house, etc.)

These privatized towns or neighborhoods could also boot their homeless into the commons (those areas between private towns or neighborhoods) if they so choose.  I'm asking in all seriousness here: Would it truly be a NAP violation if an area, previously public and now private, acted in self-defense or as part of its business practices to remove individuals that were hurting business?

People would get together and form new governments. Private property would still be private, and "Sleepytown Inc." would have to buy all the property in town before they could start operating it as a business.
Self defense never violates the NAP.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
freeforall
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #2 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 12:44pm
Print Post  
Yes but can the homeless in that model be viewed as aggressors because they don't pay homeowners fees?  Is it therefore acceptable to commit violence on them as self-defense and forcibly remove them from this new private property?  And where would they be brought to after removal?
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Land of Freedom
Libertarian's Forum Administrator
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 779
Location: The Land of Freedom
Joined: Apr 11th, 2009
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #3 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 1:59pm
Print Post  
Homeless wouldn't be a problem or issue. Socialism, governments, are the cause of homelessness. In privatized towns people would mostly prosper and easily find jobs. The very few that truly couldn't provide for themselves would be taken in by charities like churches.

The few earning a very small amount of income would be able to rent living space. Most low cost rental space was eliminated by governments because of high property taxes and regulations. For example, lets say there are 20 homeless in a town, one or more people would rent space to them on farms or extra space they have in unneeded buildings or old houses in exchange for work. There would be almost no situation were the market couldn't find a solution to someone being homeless. (low priced rent, work for shelter, family help, charity)
  

LibertariansForum.com The LF Administrator.
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 41790
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #4 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:18pm
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 12:44pm:
Yes but can the homeless in that model be viewed as aggressors because they don't pay homeowners fees?  Is it therefore acceptable to commit violence on them as self-defense and forcibly remove them from this new private property?  And where would they be brought to after removal?

What model? I didn't describe a model, you did. So you must be talking about your model. Why are you asking me a question about your model?
You seem way to interested in committing violence on others. The majority of people in a civilized society just don't do that sort of thing. Their parents and family and friends and neighbors and teachers all teach them that it's unacceptable behavior, but not very many people need much teaching. Probably about 30%, which coincidentally is about the percentage of any population that are 'progressives'.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JW
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 385
Joined: Jul 4th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #5 - Sep 14th, 2014 at 5:04pm
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 11:09am:
How would privatization evolve if the government were to dissolve?  Would Sleepytown USA become Sleepytown Inc. owned by investors? 


My 2nd house was in a town that was founded as a company town. A lumber mill created and owned the entire town from 1910 until about 1945.

The town was made private long before I moved there.  From the old pictures and what people said, it was kind of like Comcast owning a town.  Instead of being a paradise of privacy it was a hellish nightmare of inadequate housing, super expensive food in the company run stores, and no right for a 3rd party to open a store as an alternate.  People were not allowed to garden or do anything with their yards, because it wasn't their yard.

A gated community is much like a private town. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_Lake,_California population 10,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Woods,_California population 18,000

I guess I still remain unclear why a condo-association running a town is fundamentally different from a town government running a town.  They pretty much look the same to me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
freeforall
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #6 - Sep 15th, 2014 at 8:52am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 14th, 2014 at 4:18pm:
What model? I didn't describe a model, you did. So you must be talking about your model. Why are you asking me a question about your model?
You seem way to interested in committing violence on others. The majority of people in a civilized society just don't do that sort of thing. Their parents and family and friends and neighbors and teachers all teach them that it's unacceptable behavior, but not very many people need much teaching. Probably about 30%, which coincidentally is about the percentage of any population that are 'progressives'.


I'm not interested in committing violence on anyone.  However, and here's the kicker, not everyone likes to see the homeless lying around on benches, or sitting on corners begging for change.

I'm an empathic person and I want to help them because I understand their problems are often due to inadequately treated mental illness with alcohol & substance abuse thrown on top.  One of my children could end up homeless unless I work vigorously to make sure that doesn't happen.

In the ideal privatized town or city, there would be a charity to help them achieve 'normalcy' where they can acquire treatment, seek employment or open a business.  But they are the owners of their bodies and can freely choose whether they want this or that treatment or lifestyle (of course it's debatable how much free will a mentally ill person has - it's on a case by case, sometimes day by day, basis).

In the public setting, if the homeless don't have a shelter to stay in, they sleep in the parks.  The usual understanding is: as long as they don't bother anyone they can stay there.  But still, how many people want to go to a park where the homeless are hanging out everywhere?  Ever been to Waikiki beach in Honolulu?  There are more homeless there than there are Japanese tourists.  Well, close anyway.

No business tolerates the homeless sleeping on its lobby benches or in its store aisles - they kick them to the curb.  It's bad for business.  Wouldn't a privatized town (that also seeks retention of and new homeowner clients) have the same right?  If they won't give up their 'homelessness' wouldn't they be kicked to the commons?
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 41790
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #7 - Sep 15th, 2014 at 5:18pm
Print Post  
freeforall wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 8:52am:
I'm an empathic person and I want to help them

By all means, help them. Help as many as you can. Are you looking for some good charities, or do you want to help one on one? There are lots of good charities.

Unfortunately, local governments have been relentless in passing laws against jobless transients, bums, hobos, gypsies, vagrants, panhandlers and other such people. They've done it because the people who elected them demanded it.

You also said, "If they won't give up their 'homelessness' wouldn't they be kicked to the commons?"

Could you explain this a little? It sounds like you're talking about people who want to be homeless, of which there are some.  But, what is this "commons" they'll be forced onto? A reservation?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
freeforall
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 70
Joined: Sep 7th, 2014
Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #8 - Sep 15th, 2014 at 6:42pm
Print Post  
When I say those that 'want to be homeless' I guess I'm referring to those who have become used to the lifestyle, be it sleeping in public places, or begging for change or what have you.  They may be used to using alcohol or other substances as well.  They may have tried prescription medication, not liked the side effects, and decided they won't take it.

The commons would refer to any area that isn't privatized.  Similar to a gated community, which usually keeps the homeless out, every town and city could theoretically become a gated community.  A 'common' could be a local forested area, ravine, desert, area of unusable terrain etc. that is not privatized.

Theoretically, when threatened with removal from the area which they are dependent upon for their lifestyle, they would acquiesce to conforming to the rules of that community whereby they would have to get their lifestyle and/or illness under control and join the work force.

But still you wonder if there were some that continue to refuse, and more or less play chicken with the rules of the newly privatized community, what would be done.  Commit violence against them and throw them out?
  

Give me my freedom for as long as I please.  All I ask of living is to have no chains on me. - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dissident Right
Ex Member


Re: Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Reply #9 - Sep 15th, 2014 at 9:21pm
Print Post  
You can throw people off your property if you own it.

If it's not your property, you can't.

You probably shouldn't try to create a libertarian community unless it's filled with people who are ideologically homogenous.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Private towns or neighborhoods and the tragedy of the commons
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy