For years I’ve been jabbering away on radio jabber-ins, in favour of the right of people to discriminate in the use of their property, and in particular of minorities to discriminate against majorities, and in particular of the right of gays to discriminate against straights. Are you in favour of such a right? Question mark, question mark. Because I am. And so on. Property rights. The right to fire people because you’ve taken a dislike to the colour of their eyes. It’s their property, it’s their money, etc. etc.
So this story gave me particular pleasure, even though it’s about something that shouldn’t be happening.
A manager of a gay bar was told to discriminate against heterosexuals and ordered to throw out a straight couple for kissing, an employment tribunal was told yesterday.
Nothing wrong with a gay bar discriminating, but they shouldn’t be hauled up in front of any tribunal.
Angelo Vigil, the assistant manager of G-A-Y bar in Soho, London, said the venue’s co-director and licensee, Jeremy Joseph, ordered him to deny entry to heterosexual couples as well as mixed groups of gay and straight revellers.
The nerve. Who does this Jeremy Joseph think he is? He’s behaving like he owns the place. Doesn’t he realise that he owns nothing? He is the delegate of the community, in the person of the employment tribunal. The G-A-Y bar in Soho is the property of All Of Us, and if All Of Us, as interpreted by the employment tribunal, say heteros can enter it, enter it they can.
Mr Vigil, of Barons Court, west London, started working at the club, which is owned by the Mean Fiddler Music Group, in September 2002. He resigned three months later and is claiming victimisation and harassment. He told the tribunal in Woburn Place that he understood the importance of preventing homophobia in the bar, but he believed the policy amounted to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
Yes, that’s exactly what it amounted to. And if the law forbids this, the law is an ass. Chucking out all non-homos is a nice simple way of chucking out not just the reality of homophobia, but even the mistaken fear of it. Makes very good business sense.
He said when he raised concerns over the policy, he was told by Mr Joseph that he would “face the sack” if he “did not change his attitude”.
So. Angelo Vigil, “assistant manager”, didn’t want to assist the manager in enforcing the manager’s preferred policy of who comes in and who doesn’t, and how they behave when they’re there. So he got the boot. Sounds fair to me.
And even if it wasn’t fair, it is their property they wanted Angelo Vigil to help them administer, and it was their money they were paying him to do it.
Even if it wasn’t fair, it was still fair, and the employment tribunal should also get the boot.
Well, I’m not sure where I stand on this. My instinctive sympathies are with gay bar owners who want to bar heterosexuals, because I believe gays should have the right to socialise amongst themselves in an exclusive group if they wish, particularly as they are a minority. Having said that, what is the philosophical difference between that and a sign outside a bar that says “no blacks”? Would that be acceptable to you, Brian?
It would certainly be acceptable to me. The owner of the property is the one who exercises “sole and despotic dominion” over it “to the exclusion of any other individual in the universe.” Property owners have the absolute right to refuse entry for any reason, or for no reason at all; just as employers may fire someone for any reason, and an employee may quit for any reason. If someone’s choices offend you, you have many choices of your own as to how to respond – with the exception of putting the gun of the law to their head and forcing them to do your bidding.
Susan, this is nothing to do with gay rights or minority rights or suchlike, it is pure libertarianism – my property therefore my rules. Certainly a sign that said ‘no blacks’ is consistent with libertarianism. Perhaps Susan should stop relying on her ‘instinctive sympathies’ as a means to poltical enlightenment and do some proper libertarian philosophising, haply she will then be able to see why the libertarian view on this, as well as all other matters, is correct.
I can see where the thinking behind the G-A-Y ban came from. Post Queer As Folk, the Manchester “gay village” became so popular with rowdy (and sometimes threatening) heterosexual pissheads that the original gay clientele ended up back in the minority. (I know this from personal experience, having found myself in a supposedly “gay” bar there which was in fact 99% heterosexual.) So it’s a self-preservation thing – which, if you start from the premises that a) an identifiably gay neighbourhood is still a good thing to have and b) the character of that neighbourhood is under threat , is quite a logical position to adopt. It’s an issue which is specific to that particular part of London, rather than being representative of a wider discrimination.
I’m assuming, therefore, that in a town or country where all bars were owned by racist whites, and the owners all decided they didn’t wish blacks in their establishments, then this would be perfectly acceptable from a libertarian perspective. In other words, legal apartheid is not acceptable, but de facto apartheid is perfectly acceptable?
Ah. Well, you will be happy to know that people can still be banned from private stores legally,
from here (and other papers)
“My property therefore my rules”…
The phrase is striking but inconvincing.
You may well rule your property (walls, drinks, chairs, music, prices etc) as you want. You can’t rule people, at least not your clientèle. Your clientèle is wise enough to vote with their feet. If you want your bar to be really gay-flavoured, do you need to exclude straights? I don’t think so. If you want your bar to be prosperous & genuinely gay, you have to make it gay-attractive, not straight-repulsive. The most successful gay bars are not forbidden to straights.
If all minorities were to need exclusion to get a feeling of “we’re between us” or tranquillity, they would en up in ghettoes. There are gay ghettoes everywhere around the globe. Some are ultraspecialised in marketing some niches (see Frisco, see Soho, see Le Marais etc). This may well meet the need for some gays to fit to a model (conscious or unconscious).
Anyway the idea that a sign “no SOMETHING here” is needed whereas peoples’ choice works actually better, is puzzling.
Why not make an analogy with economical freedom & say that it’s people alone that make a place gay or gay-friendly, not signs?
(Of course I don’t mean that overtly abusive or provocative straight should be invited at all).
I see that Susan is still employing her own very faulty instincts rather than taking the time to learn to think.
…and Kodiak is as incapable of grasping the basics of libertarianism as Susan.
Paul Coulam,
I am NOT a libertarian.
I’m just discovering this Terra Incognita.
Excuse me.
Paul, I do grasp the basics of libertarianism, if not all its intricacies. I understand that to libertarians, the right to do whatever they like with their own property is sacrosanct. I’m arguing that, if in some cases, this could lead to apartheid, then libertarians cannot take the moral high ground when it comes to racism. What you don’t like about apartheid is not the racism itself, which you are indifferent about, but the imposition of laws. You see the right to do what you like with your property as an absolute entitlement, regardless of the consequences. I’m saying that I feel it’s a bit more complicated than that.
I’m assuming, therefore, that in a town or country where all bars were owned by racist whites, and the owners all decided they didn’t wish blacks in their establishments, then this would be perfectly acceptable from a libertarian perspective.
Yes, of course.
If property rights only apply to people who hold politically acceptable beliefs, then there are no property rights. However distasteful it may be, it is still not against the law to be a mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging bigoted asshole.
Though why a person of color would want to eat a burger in a town full of racist whites is another question all together. If it were me, I’d just as soon they hang a sign and let me know up front what sort of place I’m dealing with.
Paul:
I think Susan deserves better than insults about her thought processes. Hers are good questions.
Susan:
Yes I think “de facto apartheid” should be legal.
But I don’t like it personally, and would definitely avoid such redneck towns, and city districts (ghettos?), myself. Also, as I’m sure you appreciate, one should always distinguish between acceptable legally, and acceptable morally. The law should not suppress all forms of immorality, which means that much that it allows is indeed immoral.
But as I’m sure you appreciate, the reason I favour mean-spirited and racist discrimination – addendum!!: being legally allowed – as well as the kind of intelligent gay-on-straight discrimination so vividly described by mike above is not that I am myself mean spiritedly racist, but because I don’t think that the right to behave like this would result in a world in which everybody actually would.
Has this libertarian attitude actually been attempted anywhere? My impression is that, in the manner of the “black liberation” struggle in the Southern States of the USA, they went (and did so very deliberately) from a world in which anti-black discrimination of the worst possible sort (i.e. including murder) was allowed, and anti-black discrimination of the “no blacks allowed” sort was impossible to defy legally, to a world in which anti-black discrimination was illegal. Bus companies, in other words, went straight from being compelled to discriminate to be forbidden to.
What might have happened if they had stopped at just allowing everyone to discriminate with their own property and money, but not to murder anyone?
My understanding of capitalism, and especially what you might call “big city capitalism”, is that it erodes “de facto apartheid” and that the reason they invented and enforced legal apartheid was precisely for this reason.
And as for “small town capitalism”, well, I like the idea of towns being different from each other. If you don’t like the small town you’re in, find another that you prefer.
S Weasel,
Your logic is 100 % compliant with your ideological background.
Still, would it be desirable?
Kodiak: it is not the purpose of law to enforce desireableness.
Brian,
“My understanding of capitalism, and especially what you might call “big city capitalism”, is that it erodes “de facto apartheid” (…)”
De facto apartheid is still flourishing in big cities. Especially if you spot housing areas according to income, race, ethnicity etc.
Isn’t it true that in some parts of the US some suburban areas are being fenced off to prevent any interference from unwanted company?
S Weasel,
Shouldn’t be the law the exact expression of what the community (nation, etc) deems desirable?
Susan, forcing people to associate the way you think they should associate is not moral. You may think it is because it fits your politcal beliefs, but you are deceiving yourself.
By your model, where does the forcing of people to behave stop? You either leave people to be free and associate however they wish with their property, or you are a thug using the state as your enforcer. There is no middle ground.
Isn’t it true that in some parts of the US some suburban areas are being fenced off to prevent any interference from unwanted company?
Kodiak, for the umpteenth time, what the fuck are you talking about?
Shouldn’t be the law the exact expression of what the community (nation, etc) deems desirable?
Nope.
Brian, thanks for the thoughtful reply. What your argument seems to boil down to is this:
1. We should have the right to do whatever we please with our property, even if motivated by mean-spirited racism.
2. But anyway, “big city” capitalism erodes de facto apartheid, so it’s a win-win situation.
3. Yes, small towns may be prone to de facto apartheid, but you can always move somewhere else.
That doesn’t answer my basic question which is: are property rights such a fundamental entitlement that they apply independent of the consequences, even if the consequences are demonstrably bad? Even if “big city” capitalism erodes de facto apartheid that doesn’t answer the principle of the question, and in any case I think it’s a dubious proposition. In many large cities in the States, there exists an almost absolute apartheid where blacks and whites don’t mix at all, don’t use the same amenities, and belong to very different socio-economic groups. As for small town de facto apartheid I’ve seen it at close quarters in outback Australia and it makes life pretty horrific for Aborigines who are forced to congregate and live in shantytowns outside the towns.
Dear most suavely urbane Alfred,
I was referring to a quote by Brian.
He was saying that de facto apartheid tended to diminish in big cities capitalism.
I was questioning him about the very assertion, & also adding an example of small closed suburban communities in the US who chose to fence off the perimeter of the area they’re inhabiting (most of the time out of fear of external violence). For instance you or I couldn’t get in without being allowed by the guard. It’s like you privatised a part of the city.
S. Weasel,
What should the law be then?
Or is it there shouldn’t be any?
That doesn’t answer my basic question which is: are property rights such a fundamental entitlement that they apply independent of the consequences, even if the consequences are demonstrably bad?
Yes. Yes. And again, yes.
Kodiak, as always you fail to answer the question. Here, I’ll make it simpler for you:
Post a link for proof of the fenced off communities (which may exist, I’m not saying they don’t) so we can discuss them, or STFU. Please.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a campus radical–you never answer a direct question, and you sure as hell never back up your statments.
Kodiak, as always you fail to answer the question. Here, I’ll make it simpler for you:
Post a link for proof of the fenced off communities (which may exist, I’m not saying they don’t) so we can discuss them, or STFU. Please.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a campus radical–you never answer a direct question, and you sure as hell never back up your statements.
Whoops, excuse the double post.
S. Weasel,
QUESTION That doesn’t answer my basic question which is: are property rights such a fundamental entitlement that they apply independent of the consequences, even if the consequences are demonstrably bad?
ANSWER Yes. Yes. And again, yes.
Allow me a neophyte’s question.
Why do you (or does libertarianism) esteem property rights’ inviolability more significant than possible or probable bad consequences?
Alfred,
May be my phrasing is not idiomatic: I was actually referring to gated communities. Does this expression tell you something?
Alfred,
Google “gated communities”.
There’s aplenty.
Variously:
1. I’m puzzled by the idea that it makes a difference whether it’s a minority discriminating against a member of a majority or vice versa. Particularly since the classes to which discrimination might apply (or might be deemed to apply) vary in size and application from place to place and time to time.
2. The case here is yet another industrial tribunal where something is being offered as unreasonable employment policy to found a claim for constructive dismissal. Note he didn’t “get the boot”, he resigned. It was legal to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in employment or services at the time, though it shortly won’t be in employment (if I have my dates right) in the UK.
3. Con Tendem’s approach doesn’t work. Banning an arbitrary class of customers as a matter of policy is not the same as banning difficult individuals. Having a notice that says “no X” might cause problems as it might be indirect discrimination against a protected class. If I’m prejudiced against moustaches–as I am, bitterly–then I may still be stuck because there are (stereotypically) a high proportion of mustachioed gays, even though I have nothing against gays and wouldn’t be seeking to discriminate against them, per se.
4. I like Kodiak taking the “let the market decide approach”.
5. On the de facto arpartheid point, how do we feel about restrictive covenants? Ought I be able to sell my property, or part of it, subject to restrictions on its use that amount to enforcing discrimination? Racial covenants were quite common in the States at one time (though long since voided by the Supreme Court). Of course you can move–as others have pointed out–to avoid synchronic barbarism–but how does one deal with private attempts to enforce it on others and fix it in the landscape?
Why do you (or does libertarianism) esteem property rights’ inviolability more significant than possible or probable bad consequences?
Describe to me a bad consequence that isn’t itself a violation of property rights.
And again, Kodiak sidesteps the request for proof, a link, anything that could actually fuel discussion.
It’s a good thing that you are somewhat amusing, Kodiak, because you otherwise contribute nothing. Dance for me, and earn your motley coat.
S. Weasel,
Were you educated in a Jesuit background ?
😉
I don’t expect any answer…
I was just asking a question that can surely be expected from a neophyte.
OK Alfred,
If it’s too hard for you to google an adjective & a noun combined, here’s a site for you.
http://www.privatecommunities.com/Virginia/
Excuse me: it’s an advertisement.
It is easy to enact laws prohibiting de jure segregation. It is fairly easy to enforce those laws, just wander around looking for No Irish Need Apply signs. The question is, how do you fix de facto segregation, those businesses which discriminate by making particular clients uncomfortable? How do you do it without creating the morass of racial profiling, reflexive cries of racism, and Departments of Divining the Innermost Motivations of Everyone, in which the U.S. (and from what I see in this forum, Britain as well) finds itself mired.
I agree that some discrimination is distasteful. However, the decision to allow some and prohibit some inevitably makes the business of daily life ever more political. Is it acceptable for a private golf course to exclude women as members? If this is ok, then why not gays? Are single sex gyms, schools, religious orders, etc ok? Are exlusively ethnic social clubs ok? What about schools? When some of these are legal and some not, it becomes very difficult to have a rational discussion about the issue. In the U.S. for instance, some employers penalize their managers, not for being racist, but simply for questioning the rationale for and efficacy of affirmative action.
The problem in the American South, was not so much that discrimination was legal, but that it was mandatory. Plessy vs. Ferguson, the case legalizing racial division in the U.S., was in part about forcing the railroads to conform to Southern prejudice. Even if discrimination is illegal, nothing will change if popular attitudes don’t. When discrimination is mandatory, however, nothing can change.
The real question, IMO, when making law, is how will things look long term. Short term fixes may not only have unintended consequences later, but may not fix the original problem. It is patently impossible to prevent all discrimination, (though this will not prevent people from trying) short of racial or gender quotas for everything. “I’m from the Census Bureau, have you made your required number of transgendered Kurdish friends this year?” This being the case, I believe it is extremely short sighted to bring into being protected classes who will remain protected long after the original need has vanished.
RK Jones
Er… 6. I don’t know what to think about the cultural de facto apartheid that exists in the US despite the quoshing of Jim Crow laws and racial covenants, except that I find it very disturbing. I’d like to live in a society where individual qualities matter, and group identities are weak (where they are granted meaning at all) and overlapping.
Susan:
I don’t think that we should have the right to do whatever we like with our own property. If someone murdered you, it would not be a defence that I would want legally recognised that they did it in their own living room with a gun that they owned.
It’s just that keeping someone out on the gounds of colour doesn’t strike me as remotely as bad as that, especially if he has an equal right to discriminate back against his tormentors on the same basis. Lynching, on the other hand …
On the subject of “big city capitalism”, a phrase which seems to be useful, I agree that there are city districts which are de-facto apartheid-ised (pardon my ugly language), but I know of no big city where there is no racial or cultural mingling even though different races and cultures are present. What disgusted South Africa’s racists wasn’t just that they were finding it harder to discriminate (although they were); it was that others who positively wanted to were finding it so much easier to mingle racially. It was, as always, the cities that allowed this, even if they didn’t (de-facto) compell it.
Racially or culturally uniform ghettoes which I only visit rarely, and racially mixed places which would appeal to me more. That’ll do me, and ought to do for lots of other people. The law should allow both, but should enforce neither.
RK Jones,
“I’m from the Census Bureau, have you made your required number of transgendered Kurdish friends this year?”
EXCELLENT !!!
Finally.
Let’s return to your inital statment, Kodiak:
Isn’t it true that in some parts of the US some suburban areas are being fenced off to prevent any interference from unwanted company?
Now, first of all, what is your point? If I put up No Tresspassing signs on my property, or a fence, am I also not keeping out unwanted company?
Secondly, where on the website do they discuss keeping out your vague “unwanted company”?
Guy,
“I’d like to live in a society where individual qualities matter, and group identities are weak (where they are granted meaning at all) and overlapping”
Come to Europe !
Even if the heavy trend goes (very) slowly but surely (?) like the US one…
I have real issues with both sides of this debate. Too many libertarians buy into this “my property, my rules” argument too easily. And the critics too often bring up arguments that can be too easily used to support wild expansion of government or other forms of power.
We do not live in a world today where people disgusted with some aspects of the companies they work for (and, make no mistake, most people do work for someone else today) can easily pick up and leave. Saying “my property, my rules” cuts an enormous amount of slack to people (managers, owners, college professors, others) who use institutional power to dominate large groups of people for the benefit of the people in charge. This doesn’t seem true to the spirit of libertarianism. After all, what kind of freedom is it if only a tiny minority people are actually free? On a more practical note, this kind of libertarian society is not likely to be of long duration. People in the dominated group — especially if they’ve been infected a bit with libertarian ideas — are not likely to tolerate such status and treatment.
On the other hand, people screaming about morality and justice (or some other idealistic standard) all too often manage to damage liberty in their own way. And, sometimes, do other harm as well. The dysfunctionality of contemporary U.S. schools can be traced in part to earnest efforts to combat racism.
I suspect what we need is more thinking along lines “how will this benefit liberty or humanity?” and less devotion to possibly erroneous ideas. Ideas can be wrong. People can hold correct ideas and incorrect ones at the same time. Let’s try sorting these things out, rather than simply sticking to one dogma or another.
Alfred,
The website is just an ad. Sorry I’ll try to find a PhD thesis for you. What I meant is I know there are “gated communities” within US big cities limits where Mr Soandso cannot freely walk around like in Wardour Street or Fifth Avenue because the community is fenced off.
It’s OK if a house or a garden or a piece of land is prohibited from unwanted strangers.
Privatising a bit of a city is something of a different nature (IMO).
I was merely pointing that fact (gated ciommunity) to show that “de facto apartheid” was not necessarily diminishing in big cities.
Anything else Alfred?
I suspect what we need is more thinking along lines “how will this benefit liberty or humanity?” and less devotion to possibly erroneous ideas.
Oh, yeah. Benefitting liberty or humanity. That narrows law down to bedrock principles that won’t be abused.
in a town or country where all bars were owned by racist whites…
This is the argument I encounter most frequently when talking to people about freedom. “Sure, I’m in favor of less law and regulation” they say, “but what if they all use their freedom to gang up on me?”
So, what happens if all the whites spontaneously and unanimously decide to exclude blacks? Well, the answer is simple, you’re screwed. It doesn’t really matter what sort of system you are living in. Libertarian or not, blacks lives in such a place would be miserable. No amount of legislation and enforcement can force a racist white to befriend blacks. They’ll be hated to the limit of the law wherever they go.
Also, don’t overlook the fact that mass racist hysteria widespread enough to create apartheid in a libertarian system would represent a voting majority.
To sum up, if the entire population goes mad there’s nothing you can do about it. Thus, it is better to plan for the average case.
Kodiak,
They are not “privatising a bit of a city”. The link you provided, for example, is to what basically amount to private resorts outside of any city. How can you “privatise” already private property?
As always, you are not arguing. You are trying to intimate racism in America in the form of gated communities keeping out “unwanteds”, with you implying the poor or minorities. Your Eurostupidity is showing again.
As always, you have no point, no proof, and no knowledge of what you are talking about.
But thank you for amusing me; otherwise I’d have to be mowing the lawn and I don’t feel like it.
Why after almost 350 years of close cohabitation is this latent racism or mutual mistrust/misunderstanding so pervasive among US citizens of black & white colours?
Why after almost 350 years of close cohabitation is this latent racism or mutual mistrust/misunderstanding so pervasive among US citizens of black & white colours?
It isn’t.
What Weasel said. He’s got it right for dealing with you, Kodiak; anything more than 2 words is a waste of effort.
“Describe to me a bad consequence that isn’t itself a violation of property rights.”
I can describe one which, while not a violation of a right of free movement is a great impediment to it. I think it is an example of an unintended consequence that is at the crux of what bothers Susan and the others above who seem to sympathize with property rights but have reservations about their absolute supremacy.
In almost all subdivisons/residential developments in the Houston Texas area, we have ‘deed restrictions’. These are the local substitute for zoning laws which are standard over most of the US. Because of an independent streak here, zoning laws have been voted down over and over. (We have our own sort of Blunketts who keep bringing them up to a vote, but so far they have been kept at bay.)
Instead, because a lot of people seem to want their neighbors to be told what to do, private builders have bought large tracts of land, build houses and sell them with restrictive covenants in the deeds. Many of the real estate advertisements commonly tout oxymoronic “Good Restrictions”, meaning that you are prohibited from running a business from your home (even if you are suddenly unemployed and desperate), building a fence, painting your house differently from your neighbors, converting your garage into a utility room and so forth. Most of these areas have also established a “Civic Association” comprised of the local busybodies and wannabe Gauleiters who enthusiastically enforce these rules. They levy fees and there have been enough recent scandals in which they have seized homes for non-payment of a few hundred dollars of fees that a law restricting these seizures is now pending in the state legislature.
I trust that by now, most of the libertarians among you are beginning to see red. Of course, I will hasten to agree that everyone who bought one of these houses put themselves in this situation voluntarily.
Except for one thing. Around Houston, if you want to live in a neighborhood, with friends and neighbors close by -especially important if you have children- you really don’t have any other choice. My wife and I refused. After living in one of these places for a few years, we got out. We bought some unrestricted land outside town with an old house. In consequence, I commuted for 3 hours a day for 20 years. My children grew up with few friends. We were limited in knowing who those friends were. I rarely got to eat supper with my family. And now they are grown and gone. The Gauleiters have moved outward as Houston has expanded so last year we moved again. The road system has improved so the commute is still only a little more that 3 hours.
So, you can say that is my choice. That is correct. And I would make the same choice again. But shouldn’t there be some minimal right of living more or less where one desires? I’m not asking to be able to raise hogs in Manhatten, just for the Big City capitalism mentioned above to work.
In fact, once the restrctions I have described become general -as they in essence now are- they are no longer strictly voluntary. One is coerced by necessity of living reasonably near one’s job into accepting them. I refused, but at a cost that may have been foolish.
After writing this out, it occurs to me that the problem may be in allowing people to make agreements that limit their ESSENTIAL liberties. When, for example, one is prohibited from working for pay from one’s own home, that is a violation of the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is our basic law.
An acid test question for libertarians is: “Should a person have the right to sell themselves into slavery?” And before answering in the affirmative too quickly, please consider as sort of catagorical imperative – what if everyone did?
But shouldn’t there be some minimal right of living more or less where one desires?
No, of course there’s no right to live wherever you want. How on earth would that work?
Sure, Kodiak, Europe is a positive haven of racial and ethnic tolerance. Why, it has been at least two or three years since the Americans had to bomb you (and not for the first time) into a no doubt temporary suspension of ethnic cleansing or genocide or whatever the fashionable name for mass European murder is these days.
Doug Collins asked:An acid test question for libertarians is: “Should a person have the right to sell themselves into slavery?” And before answering in the affirmative too quickly, please consider as sort of catagorical imperative – what if everyone did?
Those interested in considering this question at greater length might find helpful, a book called Happy Slaves: A Critique of Consent Theory, by Don Herzog.
RK Jones
Of course my link is broken. In any event, Amazon has several copies used.
My Apologies,
RK Jones
Kodiak, you seem to have found a soulmate in Mr. Collins (at least in terms of aversion to gated communities). Somehow I do not anticipate a true conjunction of spirits. You question whether anyone should have the right to form a protective association concerning private property (as does Mr. Collins) but it seems that you are opposing that right (it is an enumerated right in the US) from the statist side while Mr. Collins approaches it from the side of “individual freedom of choice must trump all other rights”.
Having served as a “Gauleter” (such a charming turn of phrase) in a property owners association I have had the most assuredly minimal pleasure of attempting to educate individuals of Mr. Collins persuasion as to the meaning of “volontary association”. I have also seen the benefits of volontary association on a daily basis. There are streets without such associations within a mile of where I live and those streets have a charactor all their own (think Tobacco Road).
In reply to Mr. Collin’s question of whether an indivdual should be allowed to “sell himself into slavery” (or even to act foolishly) I would say that the libertarian answer must be yes, he must be allowed and that all consequences arising from his decision should be born by him. Otherwise one is left with a “cost-free” freedom that would be worth every penny of its price.
Mr Joseph has had the “no straight couples kissing” rule for a number of years. I worked for him as a contract “bouncer” for a while and on one occasion Jeremy asked me to tell a straight couple to take a recess from their tonsil tennis match. This was at his club, which is around the corner from the bar. I didn’t work the door very much so I can’t speak about his policy in that respect, however G.A.Y. (the club) was probably one of the most mixed gay clubs in London at that time, and probably still is.
I understood this rule was made on the basis that gay couples would certainly, at the very least, be prevented from snogging in just about any straight place you could mention, so why should straights be able to get away with it in a gay establishment?
Jeremy Joseph is – how can I put it – a difficult person to work for and is widely disliked (let’s just leave it at that), so I suspect there might be more to this story than meets the eye. I suspect Mr Vigil couldn’t (or is it ‘could’ these days?) care less about “discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation”, but is invoking this PC incantation to further his attempt to get back at Joseph for relieving him of his job, and he wouldn’t be the first person to want to do that.
I think my point was a little more subtle than S. Weasel and RDB understood it to be.
S. Weasel-
I was not asking whether one should have a right to live anywhere one wanted. I was asking whether a defacto situation – in which essentially all possible living areas were excluded, regardless of markets(I would be willing to pay and someone would be willing to sell to me) – was reasonable. If public government laws that violate rights are wrong, why are private government laws violating rights acceptable?
(I am not concerned with gated communities. They exist. They are silly pretentious marketing ploys in our current real estate market. No self respecting thief or mugger would give them a second thought as a deterent. I knew a veneral disease health officer who prided herself on never having to use the gate to enter any of them in Houston when visiting ‘clients’. If people want to pay extra to feed their egos, that’s fine with me.)
Deed restrictions, with which I am concerned, are a case in which communal property rights trump individual (property) rights. That this situation has been brought about by a semi-voluntary agreement makes it more problematic. I brought up the sell-yourself-into-slavery argument to suggest a point- I don’t think you can sell something that you can’t separate from your person. In other words, if a right is inalienable, you can’t deprive me of it and I therefore can’t sell it to you. Yes, obviously you and I can agree to let you murder me, but that shouldn’t save you from the hot squat afterward.
So I think that SOME of the deed restrictions, particularly the ones absolutely restricting the operation of home businesses, are wrong and should be illegal.
RDB-
Sorry you don’t like the term Gauleiter. I trust that you have been far less inflexible and unfeeling in your administration of these regulations than some of your fellows, but frankly, in the time I lived in one of these ‘paradises’ I ran into people who made me question the ‘it can’t happen here’ argument. I now know where Hitler found good help. Your comment about ‘Tobacco Road’ is an example of the attitude of many of the civic associations. A face-brick house in the latest architectural fashion with a manicured lawn is nice, but it is neither a moral nor an esthetic absolute. All you have really said is that you don’t like the way those people are living. If it is, in fact, squalid and not simply differently from you, then you should consider the wisdom of allowing higher income people who cannot abide deed restrictions somewhere to live nearer to town. You could still have your standards in your neighborhood and you could live near a better class of Tobacco Road. Most of the ‘Tobacco Road’ areas are either in a poor part of town (not around the restricted neighborhoods) or else are a few holdouts who were probably there before you were. They were living in a rural setting and saw no need to get rid of their old barn, goats and cow to please you. Many of you were attracted by ‘Country Settings’ in real estate advertisments, but aren’t so enamored of the “country life’ when it is a half mile down the road from you. When these people finally die off, the property will typically be developed into yet more deed restricted townhomes.
(I have to add that in Houston, the squeeky wheel gets the paving, sewer and drainage maintainance, which may be why the civic association areas get paved and the others will eventually…maybe.)
Perhaps what Houston needs is zoning .. to balance the number of deed restricted and unrestricted areas. 🙂
Doug: your point isn’t a bit subtle. You’re all for the libertarian point of view until you want something you can’t have.
If there were a law saying you had to live and work in Houston, I might be more sympathetic. Absent that, “all possible living areas” covers a hell of a lot more territory than Houston (I know this is a difficult concept to sell to a Texan). If enough people fled the area to avoid the property situation, the market would bury the notion of restricted deeds. As they haven’t, it either appeals to a significant number of people, or Houston appeals to them enough to put up with it.
I’d hate to hold a restricted deed. I’d also hate to sign a leasehold, a condo agreement or a lease. But they aren’t violations of any rights I recognize.
Wow, Alfred. Have you never learned what “polite discourse” means? Play nice, and address the substance of what Kodiak is saying, rather than sniping at him out of hand. If, indeed, you have a point to champion, this kind of childishness only detracts from your credibility.
By the way, Kodiak is quite correct about the existence of gated communities. My home town of Phoenix is replete with them. I’ve been in a number of them. There is one a stone’s throw from my house in Chandler (suburb of Phoenix). I am hereby providing testimony based upon personal experience that they, in fact, do exist.
However, I happen to disagree with Kodiak on the ramifications of their existence. I believe the communities are established on private property with the idea of maintaining security for those who live in them (e.g., minimizing burglaries, car thefts, and drug deals in the streets). Many of them have a guardhouse at the gate and, when you arrive in your car, the guard calls the appropriate house to verify that you are a legitimate visitor. All as part of what Doug Collins noted was “voluntary association.”
I’m not keen to give up my own sense of personal space and privacy to that degree, so I’d rather not live in a gated community. But, as Ralf Dahrendorf noted, each person makes the choices which seem to give them the best life chances, while minimizing their life ligatures.
My personal calculus would not have me living in such a community. But others may value the sense of prestige or security which comes from it that they are willing to make that trade. And, if I may be presumptuous, I think they should be allowed to make that decision.
As it happens, my subdivision has a stern Homeowners’ Association when it comes to weeds and other junk in the front yard. But the rule is not there to “tell me what to do.” It’s there, by mutual assent, to protect property values in the neighborhood.
The “Tobacco Road” analogy is all too real and, when you’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a piece of property, you get a little touchy about neighbors putting cars up on blocks or negleccting their lawn. Especially because, when it comes your time to sell the property and make money from your investment, a negative visual impact on a neighborhood can cost you tens of thousands of dollars in the sale.
So while CCRs (Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions) can seem like Big Brother sometimes (and believe you me, I have vented some serious steam after receiving a couple of “weeds in the front yard” notices), they are really there to protect against third-party negligent damage of your (our) individual personal property, which is about as healthy a capitalist use of “voluntary association” as there can be, as far as I’m concerned.
Doug, a few questions:
“If public government laws that violate rights are wrong, why are private government laws violating rights acceptable?”
What rights of yours are being violated, again? You have no right that I know of to buy a particular piece of property, or to live in a particular neighborhood, or to force a voluntary association to waive its rules for you.
“Deed restrictions, with which I am concerned, are a case in which communal property rights trump individual (property) rights. That this situation has been brought about by a semi-voluntary agreement makes it more problematic.”
What is “semi-voluntary” about choosing to buy a piece of property subject to deed restrictions?
“All you have really said is that you don’t like the way those people are living.”
Why shouldn’t he have the right to act on this preference by living in a gated community?
T. Hartin: Oh…man…I nearly pissed myself laughing over that.
Kodiak: You *were* being sarcastic, right? *EUROPE*???
The problem with this whole idea is that equality legislation has grown up to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against… (this is libertarian in a way in that it operates to prevent one group taking away the rights of individuals of another group) and this necessarily cuts both ways. If you can’t discriminate against one then they can’t be allowed to operate backwards discrimination in their own favour.
The thing I want to know is – what is the test for telling who is and who isn’t???
If you say you operate on one sort of sexual preference- how do they disprove it?
What about people who have chosen a bisexual existence- are they only allowed half in?
The mind boggles!!!
I wonder if a property-owner has sovereignty to exclude certain people from his/her property, but not to advertise this publicly – in case he seems to offend them or seems to give support to people who want to commit violence against that group?
Does this sound like a tortured compromise?
Thank you Joe for returning us to the direct topic. I presume that the bar in question is not a club (another voluntary association) but a licensed public establishment (I think the Brit’s may call them ‘pubs’). Being a licensed establishment by definition means that compliance with the license rules is a condition of retaining said license. If those license rules proscribe discrimination (as defined within the rules) then Mr. Joeseph has waived his right to discriminate ( as defined etc.) and will have little legal (or moral) recourse.
This returns us to Mr. Collins “semi-voluntary” proposition. An agreement to abide by a set of rules proscribing or prescribing conduct is the essence of libertarianism because it is an agreement. One may argue as to the necessity of such agreements but Mr. Collins description of conditions in Houston regarding a lack of zoning restrictions is evidence of at least one very well known example of unfettered economic freedom having a cumulative negative effect.
Discussions among libertarians should be about trying to define the acceptable limits of coercion required to maximize free choice. Is there a libertarian “manifesto” in existence?
By the way, I do not live in a gated community (although I have absolutely no problem with them). For Kodiak’s benefit – Federal Fair Housing statutes bar discrimination on the basis of race, creed, etc. Discrimination is practiced on the basis of economics and works very well.
T Hartin-
To begin with- I am not concerned with gated communitys.
And to S. Weasel and Geo.-
I am not objecting to all deed restrictions or to the concept of deed restrictions. Nor am I objecting to deed restrictions that respect basic liberties. I am objecting to 1.) the property rights of the more wealthy or better organized trumping the property rights of those who are not. 2.)Realistically, and not theoretically, there is a high cost to choosing not to live in one of these areas; there are few if any other options; so the agreement is not a free choice. 3.)The specific restrictions that I object to are those that require me to make a cotract giving up rights that I do not believe can be given up.
1. Many of the ‘Tobacco Roads’ were there first, at least in the fast growing Houston area. If one doesn’t want to live near them, why move there and then complain? RDB took exception to my Gauleiter crack, but the arrogance of many who move into an area and expect everyone else to change to suit them is an indication that they see different kinds of property rights: theirs which require protection and restrictions to maintain monetary values and others which should change to suit the more prosperous.
As I said in my first post, I did choose not to continue to live in one of these places. It cost me a great deal. Agreeing would have cost me only my right to make a living as I choose. There were no other realistic options. Now they are moving in around me again, and like RDB, they don’t like people who don’t live as they do so I’m moving again. So much for my property rights. These developments tend to drive out everyone else. They tend to be better organized and more vocal with the local government, as well as paying a bigger tax revenue so they are able to push smaller landowners around. Even if you haven’t agreed to their restrictions, As RDB’s response shows, they tend to think you should live as they do.
2. Choosing to make one of these agreements is semi-voluntary because it is not a free choice. There are few other options reasonably near town. I for example am an independent petroleum geologist. Living somewhere beside Houston is not realistic. Sure, I could change my profession, but I thought the right to work as I please is pretty fundamental. What is the point of most of the articles on Samisdata if you posit just accepting something as a way around a restriction of liberty. There’s nothing wrong with the EU, just don’t be so rigid about having a British nation. Don’t complain about ID cards, just stop being so concerned with your privacy. Or else move somewhere else you like better. There is nowhere else? Tough. You can justify anything this way.
3. If the restrictions were merely matters of sanitation or of cleanliness, I would have no objection. They are more than that. As I wrote before, they require one to give up rights that I do not believe can be given up. It is logically impossible for me to sell myself into slavery if I have an inalienable right to not be enslaved. If it is inalienable, neither I nor anyone else can seperate it from my person.
My contention is that SOME deed restrictions restrict human actions that they have no right to restrict. The most glaring example is prohibiting (not just limiting) home businesses. My advice to civic associations would be to show some caution in the use of their power, lest it one day engender a reaction that limits their legitimate restrictions also. For example, if sufficient numbers of people are out of work in a severe market downturn, mortgages are being foreclosed right and left, and property values are tanking anyway, the public attitude to restricting home businesses could change. That change would be unlikely to be reasonable. It would be quicker to outlaw all restrictions rather than to take the time to pick and choose.
Samizdata is “A ‘blog’ for people with a critically rational individualist perspective.” I understand that to be among other things a realistic and not utopian perspective. Property rights, like equality should exist to safeguard liberty. When their net result is to diminish liberty, they should bend.
Mr. Collins, I did not say (or imply) that I liked or disliked anyone. Nor have I ever had any inclination to complain about the ‘Tobacco Road’ type properties. I would not risk (except at an extremely advantageous price) the purchase of property adjacent to one nor would I risk purchasing property in a subdivision not covered by a property owner’s association. My observations concerning ‘Tobacco Road’ type properties were meant only as a well known illustration.
The decision not to purchase an adjacent property is my voluntary choice because I perceive that the risks involved outweigh the dubious value of being able to have the only polka-dot house on the block. I know exactly what I am giving up and why.
By the way, my objection to the term Gauleiter rests on its definitional failure. A Gauleiter was appointed – not elected and not responsible to those over whom he exercised control. Election to a property owners board is pretty pathetic but one does become responsible to an electorate (the overwhelming majority of whom are outstandingly apathetic). The vocal minority do tend to make one’s service less than a joy. I took the job as an excercise in participatory democracy (unpaid) and not as an opportunity to excercise control over my neighbors. I have read horror stories concerning “rogue” associations but I have been fortunate enough to have never had to deal with one.
I wish you success in locating a property that meets all your desires.
RDB-
Upon reflection, I apologise for the Gauleiter crack. I don’t know you and you sound much more reasonable than those I have dealt with. I do maintain that there are unnecessary flaws in the deed restriction system that may ultimately be fatal. (If you ever lose a constitutional lawsuit, you may be toast.)
If I ever find myself looking for another profession, I may look into developing a non-deed restricted community. I can’t be the only one who resents some of the rules. Perhaps there is a profit to be made here.
And to everyone else, my apologies for taking this so far off topic. I’ll stop now.
Kodiak,
I live in London, which is already in Europe — and about as mixed a town as you’ll find anywhere. That’s part of the dilemma in looking for somewhere to run to as the country becomes less free.
Others,
Thanks for some interesting discussion.
Glad that the topic of local authority licensing has been raised. Licensing authorities are inclined to impose all sorts of arbitrary rules over premises they license. But I’d claim this is more pernicious than private restriction because more universal–and authorities copy one another–driven by politics rather than individual taste, and backed by state power. It is not a voluntary restriction if there’s no way you can do business without accepting it.
So there’s an additional demand that we ought to be entitled to make of a licensing authority that can’t be asked of the private covenantee: the license restriction must be relevant to the reason for the power to license. Controling social mixing in places of public resort is not usually regarded (even by non-libertarians) in the west as a legitimate object of public intervention. (Though it doesn’t stop authorities trying.)
Interesting too that you mention Houston as a place where racial covenants were common, because it is also famous as a city without zoning.
Oops– missed an important (and even more interesting) part of the thread on Houston, please ignore the last sentence.
T. Hartin,
“Europe is a positive haven of racial and ethnic tolerance”
No, it isn’t.
If you consider the furious, barbaric mass murders that happened in former Yugoslavia, Europe is surely the scariest & most contemptible place on Earth.
I was talking about western Europe where the Welsh don’t slaughter the Scots & where the Alsatians let the Basques leave in peace.
Even so, there is racism within each western European country: the despicable electoral scores of Fr Le Pen & Austrian Haider (both quasiNazi) being the most appalling instances of that.
But what I mean is that races do intermingle & mixed marriages are not just curiosities. Even if the migratory process’s impact is relatively recent (not even 100 years).
I think Doug Collins has made an interesting point. Libertarians define a few liberties for individuals – right to life, limb, property etc. – as essential or natural, which should not be compromised by legislation. Hence, in a libertarian utopia a property owner should have the right to run a business from his property if he or she wishes, as long as it doesn’t disturb the rights of other property owners. But restricted deeds are also a manifestation of the right to use one’s property as one pleases. If deeds restricting the right to run a business become widespread in a certain area, then the effect is exactly the same as if a local council had imposed such a restriction – which a libertarian would oppose. What follows from that is that the libertarian’s concern is theoretical, and not pragmatic. A libertarian doesn’t care about anyone’s means to implement a right, or the fact that the right can be de facto eliminated, only that such a right should theoretically exist. If something is impeding your implemententation of a right, that’s OK as long as it’s not the government.
It’s similar to what I was positing earlier: to a libertarian, apartheid enforced by law is unacceptable, but apartheid enforced by practice is acceptable. If a black person legally can’t buy property, that’s wrong, but if a black person can’t practically buy property because no one will sell it to black people, that is, from a practical perspective, exactly the same.
T.Hartin writes: “you have no right to force a voluntary association to waive its rules for you.”
On the other hand, think of the libertarian complaint against democracy: that six people should not be able to tell another five people what to do. Again, for libertarians that argument only seems to work when it comes to government and not private restrictions.
Strange examples, Kodiak. Theres a fair space between between Wales and Scotland, Alsace and the Bay of Biscay. They would have to go quite out of their way to slaughter one another.
Great thread – compelled me to de-lurk.
Susan T.: there is a fundamental difference between rules imposed upon an individual by the state and rules imposed upon an individual by a voluntary association with which that invididual has voluntarily chosen to associate. In the first instance, the individual has no choice (or at best the indirect and chancey choice of the ballot – not really a choice at all when the individual is in the political minority); in the second, he has made his choice in advance, (hopefully) with full knowledge of its details and consequences. The crucial difference, the difference that changes everything, is individual choice. If you decided to buy a deed-restricted home because it was in a nice neighborhood, or you liked its proximity to work, or you liked the price, then your belated discovery that there were subsequent restrictions on your behaviour does not merit my sympathy.
On that note, Mr. Collins: I am curious as to why the purchase of land adjacent to yours by a “voluntary association” would compel you to move … Are you implying that you would be forced to accede to the bylaws of the association once a certain critical mass of your neighbors joined? I have never heard of any person, already in possession of a piece of real estate, being subsequently compelled to sign restrictive covenants by his neighbors.
Susan T – you wrote:
“It’s similar to what I was positing earlier: to a libertarian, apartheid enforced by law is unacceptable, but apartheid enforced by practice is acceptable. If a black person legally can’t buy property, that’s wrong, but if a black person can’t practically buy property because no one will sell it to black people, that is, from a practical perspective, exactly the same.”
Turn that on it’s face and see how absurd it is: what if no whites would buy property from blacks? Do you propose that whites be compelled to purchase their property from a black homeowner if such a home is available, because to do otherwise would make it practically impossible for a black homeowner to sell their property?
I believe that the state should not forbid whites from buying property from blacks. I am interested to hear whether you believe that the state should compel them to do so. And if so, should the state also compel blacks to buy property from Asians? Asians from Pacific Islanders? Pacific Islanders from Arabs?
The only solution that is ultimately workable, the only one that does not slowlyrob us of our right to make our own choices for our own reasons (be they noble or nasty) is to let individuals dispose of their own property as they will, entering into agreements freely and exchanging their property freely – no state nannyism required or desired.
Apologies for the Fisking Style – it seemed the easiest way to respond to some of these points. No resemblance, real or imagined, between Mr. Collins and Robert Fisk is intended or implied.
Mr. Collins wrote:
2. Choosing to make one of these agreements is semi-voluntary because it is not a free choice. There are few other options reasonably near town. I for example am an independent petroleum geologist. Living somewhere beside Houston is not realistic.
On the contrary, it is not semi-voluntary at all. It is completely voluntary. You choose to live with the convenience and advantages that deeded communities in your area offer, or you choose not to do so. Enjoying the freedom to choose does prevent you from incurring the costs of your choices. Imagine that some preposterously wealthy land baron had purchased all the available land around Houston and simply refused to sell it at all – are you arguing that you have some fundamental right to compel him to sell to you because you desire to work in the Houston area?
Sure, I could change my profession, but I thought the right to work as I please is pretty fundamental.
Huh? There is absolutely no “right to work as you please” whatsoever … if there were, who would ever work at McDonalds? Who would (to pull an example from my own past) repair tarpaper roofing in central Texas during the ridiculously hot summers? You have a right to pursue work in whatever field you choose … but no guarantees of success are given to you. If you cannot work as an indendent petroluem geologist in the Houston area you might be compelled (by your financial circumstances, mind – not by the iron hand of the State) to seek another line of work.
What is the point of most of the articles on Samisdata if you posit just accepting something as a way around a restriction of liberty. There’s nothing wrong with the EU, just don’t be so rigid about having a British nation. Don’t complain about ID cards, just stop being so concerned with your privacy. Or else move somewhere else you like better. There is nowhere else? Tough. You can justify anything this way.
Note that each and every example you just gave was a restriction imposed by the state – with the concomitant threat of police, guns, etc. Those restrictions simply don’t compare.
If you don’t like a deeded community, don’t move there. If you can find a way to buy a piece of property without being subject to the bylaws of the voluntary association, more power to you. If you voluntarity choose to take the bad along with the good, trading some of your homeowner’s sovereignty in exchange for a shorter commute, then fine, live with that. Or don’t. Or buy up some land and create your own non-deeded community. Or create a community that requires the other residents to take turns mowing your lawn.
Just don’t bring the force of the State into it.
Cracking thread! I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that restrictions made by a voluntary association are different in principle from those enforced by the State. Consider the obvious point, – one can exit from a voluntary association. That surely is the crucial thing. It may of course be
mighty inconvenient and expensive to exit a place where, for example, blacks or other groups were encountering discrimination, but that is not the same as saying such groups were being coerced.
On a slightly different point, though, I think although folk are entirely entitled to do what they like with their own freely acquired property, I think that a healthy and pleasant libertarian society requires the bulk of its inhabitants to be decent, tolerant folk. I don’t think such a society could really operate if most folk were bigots. Also, it should be noted that many of the most successful businesses, for example, have made a clear policy of tolerance.
The great thing about capitalism is that ultimately, bigotry costs you money, while enlightnment doesn’t.
Bombadill, let’s imagine a small country governed by libertarian principles. And let’s imagine that the real estate is all owned by one person or one corporate body. Let’s further imagine that this person or body will only rent or sell property with absurd deed restrictions – imposing, for example a tithe on the earnings of all tenants, or the sexual services of all female tenants. Wouldn’t this situation be exactly the same as if a government had imposed such restrictions? And wouldn’t you see this as a conflict between the rights of property ownership and the rights of tenants to the fruit of their labour?
Obviously my example is a reductio ad absurdam, but it demonstrates that one large property owner or the concerted action of several property owners can significantly impact on the ability of others to enjoy the fruits of their labour or even on the worth of their property.
Here’s a very minor, personal case: in my neighbourhood in Paris, the textile industry has taken over most of the commercial space over the past 10 years. It is operating as a de facto collective, and once someone’s secured the lease of one commercial space, they only ever pass it on to another textile trader. The result is that there are no more neighbourhood stores in my road, no cafés, grocers, convenience stores, etc. And the road is always full of trucks eternally loading and unloading clothes, even very late at night. The neighbourhood is less pleasant to live in, and the value of my property has probably decreased. The population has complained to the Mayor. He agrees in principle that mixed commerce would be better but can legally do nothing about it. My personal feeling is that it’s annoying but that it would be difficult to legally impose mixed commerce. Nonetheless, the fact remains that I’ve sunk the fruits of my labour into the purchase of my apartment, which is now worth less since the textile industry moved in en masse. OK, it’s all pretty minor stuff, but you can imagine that on a much larger scale, there might be such conflicts of interest on such a scale that you may which to limit the rights of property owners.
Guy,
OK (Wales – Scotland – Alsace – Basque country).
The Holborn people don’t slaughter their Greenwich neighbours.
The people from the XVIIIth arrondissement leave the ones from the VIIIth leave in peace.
😉
Susan T. wrote:
Bombadill, let’s imagine a small country governed by libertarian principles. And let’s imagine that the real estate is all owned by one person or one corporate body.
I might be tempted to argue that no condition of liberty could exist in such a state, regardless of its governing principles. Nevertheless …
Let’s further imagine that this person or body will only rent or sell property with absurd deed restrictions – imposing, for example a tithe on the earnings of all tenants, or the sexual services of all female tenants.
In your example there is no available property whatsoever, other than that held by the rapacious landowner. In this implausible situation, where people have literally no place to lay their head, I will concede that basic human necessity would trump the property rights of the Evil Landlord. I am not sure what this proves. If a disease was wiping out all of humanity, and one person alone possessed a rare plant which cured the disease, would I say that he should be allowed to demand that title to the whole world be handed over to him before he gave others access to his miracle plant? Nope. Private property is not the highest cause; its only one of the highest.
Wouldn’t this situation be exactly the same as if a government had imposed such restrictions? And wouldn’t you see this as a conflict between the rights of property ownership and the rights of tenants to the fruit of their labour?
Again, in the situation where all land is controlled by a single rapacious landlord, yes I would indeed see it that way. Are you suggesting that there is no non-deed restricted property to be had in Houston, or simply none that was desirable to you? Your argument is considerably weakened if the rapacious landlord doesn’t own all the property, merely all the property with a nice view of the beach. (And just for fun, let me follow that by saying that if the RL merely owned all the nice property, I would say he should be allowed to demand sexual services or tithes as part of his rent 😉 )
Obviously my example is a reductio ad absurdam, but it demonstrates that one large property owner or the concerted action of several property owners can significantly impact on the ability of others to enjoy the fruits of their labour or even on the worth of their property. Here’s a very minor, personal case: in my neighbourhood in Paris, the textile industry has taken over most of the commercial space over the past 10 years. It is operating as a de facto collective, and once someone’s secured the lease of one commercial space, they only ever pass it on to another textile trader. The result is that there are no more neighbourhood stores in my road, no cafés, grocers, convenience stores, etc. And the road is always full of trucks eternally loading and unloading clothes, even very late at night. The neighbourhood is less pleasant to live in, and the value of my property has probably decreased. The population has complained to the Mayor. He agrees in principle that mixed commerce would be better but can legally do nothing about it. My personal feeling is that it’s annoying but that it would be difficult to legally impose mixed commerce. Nonetheless, the fact remains that I’ve sunk the fruits of my labour into the purchase of my apartment, which is now worth less since the textile industry moved in en masse. OK, it’s all pretty minor stuff, but you can imagine that on a much larger scale, there might be such conflicts of interest on such a scale that you may which to limit the rights of property owners.
Why have your property values gone down? Because potential buyers find your property less desirable now that there are commercial owners next door, and they choose to buy elsewhere.
Can there be legal limits on the behaviour of your neighbors in a libertarian system? Certainly. When their behaviour creeps over your property line you should have some action of resort. For example, if trucks come and go, making a racket and shining headlights in your windows at all hours, that is an infringement on your property and your rights.
I don’t understand how this goes to arguing against deeded properties, however. The very point of covenants is to prevent exactly the situation you describe: the loss of a neighborhood’s “flavor”, the decline of property values.
You mention limiting the rights of property owners – but you propose to do so by limiting the rights of property buyers to choose deeded communities. If A, B, and C contractually agree to paint their houses pink, and to require future buyers to agree to those terms before they sell their property, whose rights have been diminished? Now suppose I approach Mr. B and propose to buy his house. He informs me that he is willing to sell, but that the house must remain pink – I must sign a covenant agreeing to maintain the hideous color forever.
“Pink!” I cry. “I cannot abide it! I must be free to live in a chartreuse home or I will die.”
“So be it,” he replies. “Live elsewhere; you cannot live here.”
Whose rights have been violated? I am free to live elsewhere – perhaps not so close to my job, perhaps not in such a delightfully quaint and colorful neighborhood. But still free to move on.
Now suppose that somehow I break the power of the convenant that A, B, and C have made. I force B to sell his home to me (suppose that he was trying to sell it anyway, so that I am merely forcing him to sell it to me in particular) regardless of the fact that I intend to paint my home chartreuse.
The right of A,B, and C to contract together in whatever way they choose has been undeniably violated. I have intruded myself into their contract by forcing B to sell his home to me in violation of their agreement.
The governing principle here must be that buyers are free to buy or not buy, and sellers to sell or not sell, for any reason at all or for none whatsoever.
Telling someone that if they propose to sell their home they must sell it to anyone who wants to buy, or telling buyers that if they propose to purchase they must do so from anyone who sells, is not a workable system.
There are some great jobs in my field in New York City, but I can’t possibly afford to buy property there. I don’t want to rent – too restrictive. Commuting’s a pain. What’s government going to do to ensure my right to buy a home anywhere I please is not violated?
S. Weasel,
Are you complaining about Anglospheric economic freedom & regulation-free housing?
Kodiak: no.
(No, Kodiak; but corresponding bits of Belfast I wouldn’t be so sure about.)
It has just occurred to me that I live in a semi-gated development. You can all see how restricted I feel by it, since I’d forgotten.
The London equivalent of Houston’s complex of restrictive covenants (though we have them too, hence Leicester Sq, which must remain a garden), is provided by the so-called great estates, the owners of which didn’t sell freeholds but long leases, so the heirs of the original owners of the land retain some control over what goes on there through lease agreements. The advantage (or disadvantage) of this over a co-operatively or competitively enforced set of restrictions, is that in each estate there’s a single enforcing entity, whose policy can adapt over the years. The character of the estates varies, and they together control only a part of the town (mostly in central and west London).
Unfortunately for the general discussion, this is just another model. I’m not aware of an instance when any of the estates has ever attempted to control the race or sexual orientation of its tenants (maybe this has been hopeless in London for centuries); though I’ve known them make some pretty strange requirements, and there was a recent case about properties reserved for the use of “the working class”.
BTW – Toulson Caffrey: thank you for corroborating my initial suspicion about the employment dispute that started all this.