Libertarian crew: would you live in a private city?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Sugar Land Town Square is a pedestrian-oriented, main-street city center and a central business district that is within walking distance of stores, services, mid-rise office buildings, mostly chain restaurants, sidewalk cafes, entertainment and a Marriott Hotel and conference center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Land,_Texas

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p174/gunter_s/privatecity2.jpg

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p174/gunter_s/privatecity1.jpg

[toth8]

Unless it would totally secede from the Union and tell Bush to fuck off, then yes.

People should have NO unchosen rulers, since people own themselves.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Unless it would totally secede from the Union and tell Bush to fuck off, then yes.

People should have NO unchosen rulers, since people own themselves.let's say it would. what would be different in your private city vs the public ones?

[toth8]

Freedom from government and being able to live life according to your OWN needs, desires and wants.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I like the idea of a pedestrian city, like say Venice. Centralized government planning has made a disaster out of most cities, especially in SoCal, where you need a car to do everything.

[Ruiner]

Freedom from government and being able to live life according to your OWN needs, desires and wants.
Like the desire to hit people? ;) I kid.

What kind of laws would this city need to have to establish expectations of conduct - what would these laws be protecting? How would punishment be meted out? Who enforces and writes the laws?

[toth8]

Different protection agencies that compete within a free market.

[general_koffi]

I don't know. Maybe. It would depend upon the situation.

I think the idea has a lot of potential, though.

The only private town we have is "Orania", and it's there for racist reasons. It's not exactly a hotspot of economic potential, in any case.

What kind of laws would this city need to have to establish expectations of conduct - what would these laws be protecting? How would punishment be meted out? Who enforces and writes the laws?

Operating within a currently relevant legal framework...

A private city would be the same as any other piece of private property. Just bigger. Certain laws of the land would apply regardless... (You can't physically assault people, or steal from them.) But other restrictions would be up to the owners of the place. If they said that it would be illegal to wear purple hats on a Thursday, then so be it. They could chuck you out for wearing a purple hat, because it's their property.

Assuming the whole thing got much bigger, you might see other "punishments" develop. For instance, someone would rather pay a "fine" to the "authorities" than leave the city.

Ultimately, if many of these cities developed, then you'd see competition between them to attract citizens - assuming they charged "taxes" to residents, or whatever.

It's an interesting idea.

[chapka]

Different protection agencies that compete within a free market.

Yeah, that worked so well in Sicily...

[general_koffi]

Yeah, that worked so well in Sicily...

Admittedly the situation would probably get out of hand if there was no "real" central government to keep people playing nicely, or if that central authority was too weak - as the case in Sicily.

[chapka]

Admittedly the situation would probably get out of hand if there was no "real" central government to keep people playing nicely, or if that central authority was too weak - as the case in Sicily.

I think the problem is deeper, actually. What would make the most profit for a private protection agency - a safe town where most people could free ride on the efforts of the protection agencies, or Dodge City? Companies don't maximize profits just by working the supply side of the equation.

A private city would be the same as any other piece of private property. Just bigger. Certain laws of the land would apply regardless... (You can't physically assault people, or steal from them.) But other restrictions would be up to the owners of the place. If they said that it would be illegal to wear purple hats on a Thursday, then so be it. They could chuck you out for wearing a purple hat, because it's their property.

But a truly libertarian city would have to transcend this. Getting rid of the police is very different from just adding a second layer of regulation. In that sense, shopping malls, the closest American equivalent of what you're talking about, are actually less libertarian than most places. You have to abide not only by the laws of the land, but by an extra layer of restrictions placed on the land by the property owner. And, of course, the property owner can only do so because of the implied threat that if you don't behave, they will call the government and have them force you to behave.

I'm not a hardcore libertarian myself, but if I were I doubt I'd see the shopping mall as any sort of libertarian paradise, and this kind of private town strikes me as pretty much the same thing.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Operating within a currently relevant legal framework...

A private city would be the same as any other piece of private property. Just bigger. Certain laws of the land would apply regardless... (You can't physically assault people, or steal from them.) But other restrictions would be up to the owners of the place. If they said that it would be illegal to wear purple hats on a Thursday, then so be it. They could chuck you out for wearing a purple hat, because it's their property.

Assuming the whole thing got much bigger, you might see other "punishments" develop. For instance, someone would rather pay a "fine" to the "authorities" than leave the city.

Ultimately, if many of these cities developed, then you'd see competition between them to attract citizens - assuming they charged "taxes" to residents, or whatever.

It's an interesting idea.the bolded part is key for anyone who thinks that private cities will automatically be draconian.

I would imagine they could attain vacation resort level.

also i don't think taxes are neccessary, but rather user fees.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I'm not a hardcore libertarian myself, but if I were I doubt I'd see the shopping mall as any sort of libertarian paradise, and this kind of private town strikes me as pretty much the same thing.a private city could control zoning. i want to see the return of city squares, like Traflager square in London, instead of highway cities.

[BioBeing]

I've been to a private city: The Woodlands, Texas. I almost took a job there, but there was no way i would actually have ever lived there. They had layers and layers of extra rules on top of anything else. It was worse than the strictest of Historic Distric regulations I've ever seen. It was so unimaginative though, so repetitive, so full of middle of the road, it was so blah. Reminded me of Stepford.

[chapka]

the bolded part is key for anyone who thinks that private cities will automatically be draconian.

I would imagine they could attain vacation resort level.

Vacation resorts often have very nice civic amenities; they get these amenities by attracting tourist money, having tourists spend it at local businesses, and then taxing the hell out of those businesses. There is no way to get "resort-style" public amenities like boardwalks, parks, and such, without taxing either the residents or the local businesses. You can do this in the guise of user fees if you prefer, and you can call it a homeowner's association or chamber of commerce with user fees, or even a developer's master plan where a single owner finances the improvements in common areas. But at that point you're working pretty hard to replace the original style of organization, which does just fine at that kind of job - local government.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I can see different cities taking shape. hippy ones, castle fun parks, historic, ranch style, etc.

[chapka]

a private city could control zoning. i want to see the return of city squares, like Traflager square in London, instead of highway cities.

In a public city, if this was important to people, they would vote for it. They don't, so it doesn't happen unless local government cares about it and thinks it's important to the greater good.

In a private city, the same people who wouldn't vote for it (for free) it stands to reason wouldn't volunteer to pay for it, either, and so it won't happen. All you've done is remove the possibility that public-minded individuals will try to make it happen anyway.

People are already voting with their pocketbooks, and around here, at least, they're voting for gated communities and 100% residential developments. Private developers are driving this trend. Put them in charge of cities and there is absolutely no reason to think they'll suddenly change course.

What you want isn't a city designed by market forces; it's a city designed by you. Market forces are driving the very trends you're fighting against.

[Nice Squirrel]

A private city:
Celebration, Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida)

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Vacation resorts often have very nice civic amenities; they get these amenities by attracting tourist money, having tourists spend it at local businesses, and then taxing the hell out of those businesses. There is no way to get "resort-style" public amenities like boardwalks, parks, and such, without taxing either the residents or the local businesses. You can do this in the guise of user fees if you prefer, and you can call it a homeowner's association or chamber of commerce with user fees, or even a developer's master plan where a single owner finances the improvements in common areas. But at that point you're working pretty hard to replace the original style of organization, which does just fine at that kind of job - local government.
Every libertarian knows that the local government is an anathema to free market choice, budget, and freedom. The cities that do over tax their patrons probably waste a lot of it. I remember reading somewhere that the IRS takes only 33 cents of every dollar they collect, the rest going to bureaucracy. Remember, they are stealing, and they are a monopoly. Hardly comparable to what we’re talking about here.

In a private city I wouldn’t doubt that the various businesses could get together and create a town square or something similar. In Germany a lot of business owners were at first indignant about the fact that downtown would be limited to pedestrians only. In time it became the right choice because people could walk into any shop that caught their eye, rather than driving past it and having to consider where to park. Business increased dramatically.

Another source of income could be “citizens insurance”. Analogous to car insurance, this would be used to pay for the private police, the arbitration process (in place of the courts), and also the general infrastructure. This insurance would also serve as a means of risk assessment, giving everyone a rating and thus cutting down on things like vandalism and crime (those bad people never being allowed in the city in the first place).

The advantages here are a) saved money, b) having a design actually based on the people it would serve the most (i.e. patrons of a restaurant or café), rather then being decided by disconnected politicians who generally have no idea what they’re doing.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

In a public city, if this was important to people, they would vote for it. They don't, so it doesn't happen unless local government cares about it and thinks it's important to the greater good.since when are we allowed to vote for such specific items?

In a private city, the same people who wouldn't vote for it (for free) it stands to reason wouldn't volunteer to pay for it, either, and so it won't happen. All you've done is remove the possibility that public-minded individuals will try to make it happen anyway.user fees. those who want it, pay for it.

People are already voting with their pocketbooks, and around here, at least, they're voting for gated communities and 100% residential developments. Private developers are driving this trend. Put them in charge of cities and there is absolutely no reason to think they'll suddenly change course.

What you want isn't a city designed by market forces; it's a city designed by you. Market forces are driving the very trends you're fighting against.like someone else pointed, competition among the private cities will in the end result in a superior product. At the moment, cities do not 'compete' for citizens, and so they don't need to try.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

i want my city to look like Salzburg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/raichu4u/salzburg1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/raichu4u/salzburg3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v709/raichu4u/salzburg2.jpg

but with a bigger castle, a moat, and mayan temple with a giant water slide :D

http://z.about.com/d/travelwithkids/1/0/b/h/atlmayantemple.jpg

[Nice Squirrel]

I can see different cities taking shape. hippy ones, castle fun parks, historic, ranch style, etc.

And this does happen as cities look to differentiate themselves and market themselves to attract tourists and investment. Currently my metropolitan area is seen as an arts and learning center and one of the "funnest" places in the US to live. (Hence the large numbers of IIDBers here.) Yes, we pay a premium in taxes to maintain this image and it seems to work as few corporate headquarters ever leave our cold climate and we have such things as more theatre productions than New York. The only thing needed here for your play to be produced is for you to finish writing it. :p

[/boosterism]

[Nice Squirrel]

like someone else pointed, competition among the private cities will in the end result in a superior product. At the moment, cities do not 'compete' for citizens, and so they don't need to try.

Of couse cities don't compete for citizens. They compete for tax bases.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Of couse cities don't compete for citizens. They compete for tax bases.well private cities will be more competitive.

we should go back into self sufficient city-state mode.

http://www.microsoft.com/Games/conquerors/img/ss_b_1.jpg

[Fedor Emelianenko]

A private city:
Celebration, Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/100_1616.JPG

"machine for leaves falling in downtown Celebration, also used for nightly snowfalls in December."

lol

[DietCoke]

I'm confused. I read the wiki link about Sugarland, and it's not a private city. Moreover, my understanding of Libertarianism is limited, but the way this city developed seems, to me, to be somewhat antithetical to Libertarian ideals. I don't get it. Can someone fill me in on how this place is Libertarian utopia?

[Bonniedundee]

Different protection agencies that compete within a free market.Or militia, don't forget militia and the armed populace.

[Bonniedundee]

Every libertarian knows that the local government is an anathema to free market choice, budget, and freedom. Local government is by far the best government.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Or militia, don't forget militia and the armed populace.in the US, private security outnumbers the police by 3 to 1

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Local government is by far the best government.only if it arises in a totally freemarket/libertarian situation.

[Bonniedundee]

only if it arises in a totally freemarket/libertarian situation. Someone has to choose the property rights used in the local area, there are many types, communist, syndaclist, geoist, mutualist and lockean that are conducive to the self-ownership principle and equally valid.

Local direct democracy or common law needs to do this.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I'm confused. I read the wiki link about Sugarland, and it's not a private city. Moreover, my understanding of Libertarianism is limited, but the way this city developed seems, to me, to be somewhat antithetical to Libertarian ideals. I don't get it. Can someone fill me in on how this place is Libertarian utopia?well the zoning of the city square are "libertarian" but it's true not everything is private. For example you still have public schools there.

[J842P]

I like the idea of a pedestrian city, like say Venice. Centralized government planning has made a disaster out of most cities, especially in SoCal, where you need a car to do everything.

Well, I know that in the case of Loudoun County out here in Virginia unregulated sprawl has made it completely impossible not to drive everywhere. I'm in the county right next to it, Fairfax, which is almost as bad. I don't really see how a free market system would encourage more pedestrian friendly city at all.

EDIT: Nevermind. I guess the idea of private cities is intriguing, I'd like to see it experimented on somewhere to a larger extent.

I want to move to a hippie city. Imagine an American Christiania.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Well, I know that in the case of Loudoun County out here in Virginia unregulated sprawl has made it completely impossible not to drive everywhere. I'm in the county right next to it, Fairfax, which is almost as bad. I don't really see how a free market system would encourage more pedestrian friendly city at all.Perhaps the most important function of the community association is enforcing deed restrictions. Deed restrictions are a form of private "zoning," in which developers establish certain rules to prevent undesirable buildings and land use. Like zoning, deed restrictions provide continuity within a given area; unlike zoning, deed restrictions are governed by market considerations.

"When you are developing a master-planned community you are essentially trying to make it so the [homeowner] doesn't have to leave the area to get what he wants," explains Dennis Guerra, a project manager for the First Colony master-planned community near Houston. This requires a careful marketing study to determine the amenities homeowners want. Retail shops, grocery and convenience stores, doctors, dentists, animal clinics, and other frequently visited businesses are often located within the community.

Most PUD's consist of a number of villages -- subdivisions within the PUD -- separated by the community's major roads. Business areas are located along these thoroughfares, which helps "keep cars essentially out of the residential areas," says Guerra. In planning a community, the developer must work closely with the business community to construct a plan which benefits businesses and future homeowners.

This does not mean that businesses dictate a community's plan. For many years, Guerra says, First Colony resisted attempts by various fast-food chains to build restaurants in the community. The locations sought by the chains would have drawn excessive traffic and disrupted the developer's master plan. Because developers must be concerned with the long-term economic success of their projects, such considerations are essential. Conversely, zoning boards are generally motivated by short-term political expediency. More significantly, deed restrictions eliminate zoning bureaucrats and the accompanying taxes.

http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903phil.html

[DietCoke]

well the zoning of the city square are "libertarian" but it's true not everything is private. For example you still have public schools there.


Ok. I'm sorry. I guess I didn't understand that there was such a thing as Libertarian zoning. What I was getting at was that this was a company town that got to a certain point and the people got together and elected a government.

I don't see anything especially Libertarian about a company town because living in a company town, in a company house, for a company wage and buying my groceries at the company store doesn't really strike me as breaking free of restrictions imposed by a central authority. And, after they elected a government, it looks like any other small town.

So I don't understand where the Libertarianism is.:huh:

[langseax]

yes, i would love to live in Hong Kong

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Ok. I'm sorry. I guess I didn't understand that there was such a thing as Libertarian zoning. What I was getting at was that this was a company town that got to a certain point and the people got together and elected a government.

I don't see anything especially Libertarian about a company town because living in a company town, in a company house, for a company wage and buying my groceries at the company store doesn't really strike me as breaking free of restrictions imposed by a central authority. And, after they elected a government, it looks like any other small town.

So I don't understand where the Libertarianism is.:huh:here's a good primer:

==============

* PRIVATE CITIES: Tired of bad roads, dismal service from city employees, and skyrocketing local taxes? Move to a private city instead.

According to the Wall Street Journal, 10 million Americans -- 100,000 in Irvine Ranch, California, alone -- now live in so-called "master-planned communities" (MPC), which are privately developed and privately operated towns.

What's the appeal? Strict covenant and deed restrictions (which are the free market alternative to zoning laws); resident-friendly planning; generous parks, jogging trails, and wooded areas; tight security; and community associations that allow all property owners to share in decision-making, say residents.

"Within their enclaves these associations perform all the functions of a small government," reports The Economist, and "work to assure that the communities' amenities, public facilities and other areas are supported and maintained."

Planned communities are so popular that they account for 30% of all the new-home sales around Houston, Texas.

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9901-triumph.html

[Fedor Emelianenko]

yes, i would love to live in Hong Kongwe probably should have had a working definition of what a private city was first :D

[spamandham]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Land,_Texas

Sugarland is not a private city, but it's a nice place nonetheless.

In direct answer to the OP question, sure, I'd consider living in a stateless city, as long as it was a nice place to live. I think I'd rule out Mogadishu, but if Sugarland really were a private city, why not? A lot of master planned communities come close to being private cities, and they're typicaly nice communities.

[DietCoke]

here's a good primer:



Ok, thanks. I also read the other link, from your earlier post. I guess I'm still a bit befuddled because I live in a planned community that includes all of the considerations mentioned in the article. My home is in a strictly residential area, with quiet streets and I have 3 developed park/playgrounds within 1/4 mile from my home, and I can walk a short distance along a wooded path from my home to a large grocery store, doctors offices, bank, post office, laundry, pet store, pretty much anything I need. Most of the urban development done in my area since the late 1970s follows this model. This is pretty standard stuff around here, and I've never heard anyone mention the term "Libertarian."

[chapka]

In a private city I wouldn’t doubt that the various businesses could get together and create a town square or something similar.

Well, if all of them did, and all of them contributed, then sure. As long as they had some way of ensuring honesty among contributors. And keeping out free riders. And some sort of democratic decision making apparatus. Congratulations! You've just formed a local government.

In Germany a lot of business owners were at first indignant about the fact that downtown would be limited to pedestrians only. In time it became the right choice because people could walk into any shop that caught their eye, rather than driving past it and having to consider where to park. Business increased dramatically.

So what you're saying is, the free-market choice was a bad choice, and the choice imposed by city planners turned out to be good for everyone. I'm not sure how this supports your thesis.

Another source of income could be “citizens insurance”. Analogous to car insurance, this would be used to pay for the private police, the arbitration process (in place of the courts), and also the general infrastructure. This insurance would also serve as a means of risk assessment, giving everyone a rating and thus cutting down on things like vandalism and crime (those bad people never being allowed in the city in the first place).

Yes, that would work, as long as everyone was required to have this insurance to avoid free-rider problems--in which case, what's the difference between this and paying taxes?

[chapka]

here's a good primer:

==============

* PRIVATE CITIES: Tired of bad roads, dismal service from city employees, and skyrocketing local taxes? Move to a private city instead.

I fail to see anything libertarian about a "private city."

For the average citizen, the only difference between a "private city" and a non-private city is that public services are imposed by a single corporation which is completely unaccountable to individual citizens rather than being imposed by a local government with some degree of transparency. Either way, it's simply another layer of government, not a removal of any existing layers of government.

Ironically, what people like about these communities, and the reasons they're flocking to them, is their (1) central planning, and (2) rigidly enforced rules against any individuality. How on earth is that a Libertarian paradise?

[chapka]

well the zoning of the city square are "libertarian" but it's true not everything is private. For example you still have public schools there.

"Libertarian" zoning would be no zoning. Period. Let landowners do whatever they want with their property. House, store, strip club, factory. Is that how Sugarland's zoning works?

[general_koffi]

One has to think of private cities in the context of a larger country, to understand how they might fit into libertarian ideology.

Maybe a specific city would have its board of directors dominated by old, retired people who would ban loud music, anything associated with sex etc etc...

But no one would be forced to live there, or even entitled to live there, as the entire place would be owned privately. They could live somewhere else - whether that would be another private city, or a regular city made up of thousands of pieces of private property, and public property.

[chapka]

One has to think of private cities in the context of a larger country, to understand how they might fit into libertarian ideology.

Maybe a specific city would have its board of directors dominated by old, retired people who would ban loud music, anything associated with sex etc etc...

But no one would be forced to live there, or even entitled to live there, as the entire place would be owned privately. They could live somewhere else - whether that would be another private city, or a regular city made up of thousands of pieces of private property, and public property.

Right now, if you don't like the people who run your city, you can (1) leave, or (2) try to vote them out.

All a "private" city does is remove option #2.

Even worse, if there are economies of scale in city-owning, as there most likely would be, then you will inevitably own up with large, consolidated city holdings, severely restricting option #1 as well.

[general_koffi]

Right now, if you don't like the people who run your city, you can (1) leave, or (2) try to vote them out.

All a "private" city does is remove option #2.

Even worse, if there are economies of scale in city-owning, as there most likely would be, then you will inevitably own up with large, consolidated city holdings, severely restricting option #1 as well.

Well, one imagines a situation where the city will want to keep you as a paying customer...

Free market, and all.

Currently, my taxes go to the central South African revenue service who then distribute it amongst national, provincial and then local government.

[DietCoke]

"Libertarian" zoning would be no zoning. Period. Let landowners do whatever they want with their property. House, store, strip club, factory. Is that how Sugarland's zoning works?

Thank you for coming along with this comment, as I was pretty much lost trying to understand how this community was any different from my own community. I'm beginning to wonder if this is simply a case of Libertarians wandering around looking for something that seems nice, in order to claim it as "Libertarian."

I'm not seeing how living in a company owned city is Libertarian utopia. By logical extention, migrant farmers living in work camps are "Libertarians."

[Nice Squirrel]

Side comment:

What I get a kick out of it the use of the term: Master Planned Community. The spin makes it sound like top AIA scholars got together to plan the "ultimate comminuty", sad to say not true. All it basically means is that it conforms to the city's/regional planning commision's master zoning plan. Thus the houses are located in a residential zone and not an industrial zone or in the middle of the airport.

Master planned cities are hardly libertarian.

[DietCoke]

Well, one imagines a situation where the city will want to keep you as a paying customer...


Sorry to keep harping the same point, but my local government is interested in keeping me as a paying customer too. They also want to attract more paying customers.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

"Libertarian" zoning would be no zoning. Period. Let landowners do whatever they want with their property. House, store, strip club, factory. Is that how Sugarland's zoning works?well in this case they signed up for an association type deal. so it's a collective agreement.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I fail to see anything libertarian about a "private city."

For the average citizen, the only difference between a "private city" and a non-private city is that public services are imposed by a single corporation which is completely unaccountable to individual citizens rather than being imposed by a local government with some degree of transparency. Either way, it's simply another layer of government, not a removal of any existing layers of government.

Ironically, what people like about these communities, and the reasons they're flocking to them, is their (1) central planning, and (2) rigidly enforced rules against any individuality. How on earth is that a Libertarian paradise?it's libertarian in the fact that they bypassed one of the government's roles, i.e. zoning and city planning.

http://smiliesftw.com/x/redface.gif (http://smiliesftw.com)

[nixon]

I would live in a city that was comprised of only private property owners (As in not controlled by a private corporation. In other words no local government. And the state or political unit it was in was actually governed by the US constitution and it's amendments. And that government had only the powers granted by that document and no others. And the people could only give them more power by amending that document, not by fiat as has happened here in the actual US.

What this OP's problem is: 1)Conflating libertarian ideals with private corporations ideals. The 2 are very distinct! And 2)Assumes for some reason that libertarians are anarchists. It's real simple. Libertarians want simple straightforward US constitutional Republican style gov't. We don't want the extreme of no gov't, and we don't want the extreme of a dictatorship, and we don't want the extreme of oligarchy or corporate control (The current US model), and we don't want the tyranny of the masses known as straight democracy. It's one of the reasons I've grown to cring everytime I hear some dumbass politician call the US a democracy. It's not. It's a Republic that uses limited representational democracy. And while I think some things should be voted on closer to the people (I support direct presidential elections, not the electoral college), on other things - especially local regulations (Of which there should be only the bare minimum to protect ones life and property) need to be locked away from the people who seem to always learn the bad lesson of using gov't to beat their neighbors over the head.

I voted no due to the reasons I pointed out above that show the private cities being refered to in this poll are really only large condo associations that like another poster mentioned only add another layer of restrictions on top of the restrictions imposed by the US and the relevant state in the current age.

[chapka]

it's libertarian in the fact that they bypassed one of the government's roles, i.e. zoning and city planning.

http://smiliesftw.com/x/redface.gif (http://smiliesftw.com)

No, they didn't.

+ The corporation that runs the town acted the same way any private homeowner in an unincorporated area would, complying with the same local laws and regulations.

+ The individual homeowners have to put up with more severe restrictions from the "private" government than they would have from the "public" government, and have less say in how that government is run.

It's a lose-lose situation from a theoretical libertarian standpoint; you lose control over your own local township but have to put up with increased regulation anyway. These communities are not supported by people who love freedom; they're supported by people who value conformity. Conformity and tight central control are (allegedly) good for stable real estate values.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

The city square then? surely that's libertarian

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I would live in a city that was comprised of only private property owners (As in not controlled by a private corporation. In other words no local government. And the state or political unit it was in was actually governed by the US constitution and it's amendments. And that government had only the powers granted by that document and no others. And the people could only give them more power by amending that document, not by fiat as has happened here in the actual US.

What this OP's problem is: 1)Conflating libertarian ideals with private corporations ideals. The 2 are very distinct! And 2)Assumes for some reason that libertarians are anarchists. It's real simple. Libertarians want simple straightforward US constitutional Republican style gov't. We don't want the extreme of no gov't, and we don't want the extreme of a dictatorship, and we don't want the extreme of oligarchy or corporate control (The current US model), and we don't want the tyranny of the masses known as straight democracy. It's one of the reasons I've grown to cring everytime I hear some dumbass politician call the US a democracy. It's not. It's a Republic that uses limited representational democracy. And while I think some things should be voted on closer to the people (I support direct presidential elections, not the electoral college), on other things - especially local regulations (Of which there should be only the bare minimum to protect ones life and property) need to be locked away from the people who seem to always learn the bad lesson of using gov't to beat their neighbors over the head.

I voted no due to the reasons I pointed out above that show the private cities being refered to in this poll are really only large condo associations that like another poster mentioned only add another layer of restrictions on top of the restrictions imposed by the US and the relevant state in the current age.For me libertarianism is synonomous with free market. Opponents to that will agree while the freemarket is good, certain things will always remain gov't bastions because only they can do it properly, or 'better', such as roads, hospitals, schools, and even city planning.

I should've posted the other articles in the OP, but the main idea is that groups of people can get together and handle their own zoning issues without the gov't bearing down on them.

[DietCoke]

The city square then? surely that's libertarian


In what way? My town has a city square that looks just like that.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

In what way? My town has a city square that looks just like that.a private entity built that with it's own money. they didn't need to tax people for it. it was done at the speed and care of business instead of gov't bureaucracy :huh:

[DietCoke]

....but the main idea is that groups of people can get together and handle their own zoning issues without the gov't bearing down on them.

Groups of people getting together and handling zoning issues is government.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Groups of people getting together and handling zoning issues is government.government, at least the definition we're used to, is something that compells others to do something by force, such as taxing. A private city could not tax it's people unless they agreed to it. Meaning the people running things have to earn their keep. I know you're gonna say they can be 'voted' out, but the speed of business is much faster and direct.

[chapka]

The city square then? surely that's libertarian

I think I see the problem. "Town square" in this context doesn't mean what it does in Europe. Town square is a fancy marketing name for "shopping mall."

A private company bought some land near the center of the city and built an outdoor shopping mall. Happens all the time despite government regulation.

[chapka]

government, at least the definition we're used to, is something that compells others to do something by force, such as taxing. A private city could not tax it's people unless they agreed to it. Meaning the people running things have to earn their keep. I know you're gonna say they can be 'voted' out, but the speed of business is much faster and direct.

And this is different how? If you violate the "zoning" rules of one of these planned communities, they will evict you from your home, just like the government would. In fact, you'd probably have fewer recourses to avoid this than you would in an incorporated area.

And if you really think taxes in a private town are any more consensual than residential taxes, just move into one and then refuse to pay the first time the common fees they charge residents increase.

[DietCoke]

a private entity built that with it's own money. they didn't need to tax people for it. it was done at the speed and care of business instead of gov't bureaucracy

How do you think a private corporation makes money? They include profit in the selling price of the things they sell. Presumably the corporation you are imagining sells homes to the citizens, or something? If so, the cost of the roads, light poles, electric lines, sewers, and, yes, the town square, are included in the price of the homes. Just because people aren't paying taxes, doesn't mean that they are getting this stuff for free.

Also, you just introduced a new element: efficiency. I would need to see some evidence that corporations are always more efficient than governments.


government, at least the definition we're used to, is something that compells others to do something by force, such as taxing. A private city could not tax it's people unless they agreed to it. Meaning the people running things have to earn their keep. I know you're gonna say they can be 'voted' out, but the speed of business is much faster and direct.

I'm not forced to pay taxes to my local goverment. I agree to pay the taxes to live in my community of choice. I could choose to go elsewhere. Your situation is no different. Your Libertarian chooses to pay the cost of living in the private community. Whether it's called "taxes" or not is beside the point.

And, you are again using the efficiency argument.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sugar Land, Texas is not a privately-operated city. I grew up there and I live there during the summer. It's just like anywhere else. The town square is a new addition to the larger city, too add some "culture" to the endless suburbia.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

okay I'm done defending sugarland. How about the idea of private cities itself?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

How do you think a private corporation makes money? They include profit in the selling price of the things they sell. Presumably the corporation you are imagining sells homes to the citizens, or something? If so, the cost of the roads, light poles, electric lines, sewers, and, yes, the town square, are included in the price of the homes. Just because people aren't paying taxes, doesn't mean that they are getting this stuff for free.

Also, you just introduced a new element: efficiency. I would need to see some evidence that corporations are always more efficient than governments.




I'm not forced to pay taxes to my local goverment. I agree to pay the taxes to live in my community of choice. I could choose to go elsewhere. Your situation is no different. Your Libertarian chooses to pay the cost of living in the private community. Whether it's called "taxes" or not is beside the point.

And, you are again using the efficiency argument.whatever the case, according to the article PUD's are becoming the new thing.

[DietCoke]

okay I'm done defending sugarland. How about the idea of private cities itself?

I think we've already moved beyond Sugarland to establish that the idea of private cities doesn't immediately stand out as Libertarian.


EDIT: ....but to respond to your OP, no, I wouldn't live in a private city. Corporations come and go too quickly for my tastes. I hate the idea that I could be mowing my lawn one day, listening to the radio, and discover that Walmart bought my town in a hostile take-over bid.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

okay I'm done defending sugarland. How about the idea of private cities itself?

lol, I posted before I read the rest of the thread. Always jumping the gun, I am.

I don't see how 'private cities' would work out any differently than the ones we have now, to be honest. Or 'private' countries. You still have shareholders employing people to make the big decisions. Specialization is a necessity for any modern community... there have to be top-down managers, or nothing functions.

If anything it's the fault of the people that the local governments don't do more, because local governments are in the perfect position to do an enormous amount for the average citizen, yet Joe Blow could give less than a shit about local governance. Hell, I'm a fairly civically knowledgable, and I couldn't name one person on the city councils of either city I live in during the year. Of course, I'm a student, and not invested in either system, so I am justifiable apathetic. But ask any person on the streets of Sugar Land to name the head of the City Council and you get blank stares from 75%.

Anyway, I ramble.

I would self-identify as a libertarian.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I think we've already moved beyond Sugarland to establish that the idea of private cities doesn't immediately stand out as Libertarian.
what would be a libertarian city then?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

MODS, can you move my two articles about private cities to the OP?

i done messed it up

[DietCoke]

what would be a libertarian city then?

Sorry, I'm not qualified to answer that, as I'm not a Libertarian. I only learned enough in the last 20 hours to shoot down your ideas. ;) I really wasn't intending to derail your poll. I just couldn't make sense of the OP. I would be interested to read a description of what a Libertarian community would look like, and how things like police and fire protection and would get paid for, though. Also, I'd want to understand how people negotiated hooking up to the services (water, sewer, electric, gas) from the main source (i.e., the grid powered by the coal plant or hydroelectric dam or whatever). Very interested. Perhaps that is a different thread?

[chapka]

what would be a libertarian city then?

A libertarian city would be one in which a small, democratically elected local government provided essential collective services but did very little else.

In a libertarian city, there would probably be no zoning and no building codes. Private associations of neighbors would set up covenants to prevent overdevelopment, if they could convince their neighbors to cooperate, and private certification agencies would rate how well homes were constructed without government interference except to ensure that the information was accurate and properly disseminated.

No public utility monopolies would be provided except for natural monopolies like "last mile" water and sewage hookups, and to the extent possible those would be deregulated to allow competition. No public schools or hospitals would be provided.

[Nice Squirrel]

I guess the problem I have with the libertarian city is that basically we had that type of a city throughout the United States pre-Chicago World's Fair in the 1890's. (Daniel Burnham's ideas of urban planning took hold.)

Before urban planning cities were basically* run on libertarian principles. Several power companies could compete for business and run lines cross the city, etc. You could put a rendering plant next to city hall, but red light districts were kept in certain neighborhoods through selective enforcement of laws.


*as always use with grain of salt.

[Nice Squirrel]

A libertarian city would be one in which a small, democratically elected local government provided essential collective services but did very little else.

In a libertarian city, there would probably be no zoning and no building codes. Private associations of neighbors would set up covenants to prevent overdevelopment, if they could convince their neighbors to cooperate, and private certification agencies would rate how well homes were constructed without government interference except to ensure that the information was accurate and properly disseminated.

No public utility monopolies would be provided except for natural monopolies like "last mile" water and sewage hookups, and to the extent possible those would be deregulated to allow competition. No public schools or hospitals would be provided.:eek: Wow sounds even more expensive and redundent.

[DietCoke]

No public schools or hospitals would be provided.

Thanks for that description. Presumably, then, the community would pool together to build schools and hospitals, and attract quality staffing. I suppose if there were only a few families with young children, they would be expected to simply move elsewhere if they wanted a place that could support an elementary school. So far so good. No one is "entitled" to anything in this community, so, if it doesn't fit their needs, they can simply leave. I don't have tremendous difficulty imagining such a community. Where I do run into more difficulty is in imagining how this community fits into the larger community.

Isn't such a community dependent upon the absence of a larger Libertarian community surrounding it? I mean, to focus on just one issue, hydroelectric dams cost a fair amount of money, and if my inbred neighbors with 6th grade educations can just burn old tires for fuel, how could I convince them to pony up for the cost of a hydroelectric dam? Certainly, powering a small community with existing services presents a sizable challenge to even the most silver-tongued orator. But hydroelectric dams power entire regions in the U.S.. How could one possibly imagine getting universal consent from widely dispersed Libertarian communities with varying socio-economic factors?

Or do some people have less say in the process?

Scratch that. I'll just repeat: How do you get universal consent. And, if you don't, how do get a dam built, and if you don't, how do you justify not providing the juice to run my hot tub?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

http://www.thornber.net/england/photos/castlecombe10.jpg

just imagining my private city again :blush:

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Sorry, I'm not qualified to answer that, as I'm not a Libertarian. I only learned enough in the last 20 hours to shoot down your ideas. ;) I really wasn't intending to derail your poll. I just couldn't make sense of the OP. I would be interested to read a description of what a Libertarian community would look like, and how things like police and fire protection and would get paid for, though. Also, I'd want to understand how people negotiated hooking up to the services (water, sewer, electric, gas) from the main source (i.e., the grid powered by the coal plant or hydroelectric dam or whatever). Very interested. Perhaps that is a different thread?for utilities you could do a contract bidding war

[Fedor Emelianenko]

In a libertarian city, there would probably be no zoning and no building codes. Private associations of neighbors would set up covenants to prevent overdevelopment, if they could convince their neighbors to cooperate, and private certification agencies would rate how well homes were constructed without government interference except to ensure that the information was accurate and properly disseminated.this is what was stated in the article that I should've put in the OP :banghead:
No public utility monopolies would be provided except for natural monopolies like "last mile" water and sewage hookups, and to the extent possible those would be deregulated to allow competition. No public schools or hospitals would be provided.yep

[Matt the Medic]

Sugar Land Town Square is a pedestrian-oriented, main-street city center and a central business district that is within walking distance of stores, services, mid-rise office buildings, mostly chain restaurants, sidewalk cafes, entertainment and a Marriott Hotel and conference center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Land,_Texas

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p174/gunter_s/privatecity2.jpg

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p174/gunter_s/privatecity1.jpg

The whole concept for Sugarland's town square is based on the sucess of a master-planned community created by oil tycoon George Mitchell, 15 miles North of Houston called The Woodlands. As for whether or not I'd want to live in such a place, I already do. :)

Matt

[Matt the Medic]

I've been to a private city: The Woodlands, Texas. I almost took a job there, but there was no way i would actually have ever lived there. They had layers and layers of extra rules on top of anything else. It was worse than the strictest of Historic Distric regulations I've ever seen. It was so unimaginative though, so repetitive, so full of middle of the road, it was so blah. Reminded me of Stepford.

How long ago did you visit The Woodlands? A ton of stuff has been added and it's a regular tourist destination now.


It has all the regulations to preserve the trees and greenbelts.

Have you visited the rest of Houston? If so, you would realize why this is so important. Houston doesn't have any zoning whatsoever and aside from small areas is nothing but concrete.

What do I know, though? I'm just a snobby stepfordish Woodlandite. :)

Matt

[Hawkeye]

http://www.thornber.net/england/photos/castlecombe10.jpg

just imagining my private city again :blush:Is this a part of a "private city"?

[Matt the Medic]

Here's pics of my private city:

http://www.marketstreet-thewoodlands.com/visualtour/index.lasso
http://www.town-center.com/photo.cfm
http://www.woodlandsartfestival.com/Graphics/Art%20Festival%20Waterway%20Site%20%20from%20Town%20Green%20Park%20to%20Mar riott.jpg

Matt

[Hawkeye]

this is what was stated in the article that I should've put in the OP :banghead:
yep

This sounds like what we already have, but with less regulations. :)

Edit: How do I add Chapkas qoute in this post? The post looks odd without them.

[DietCoke]

Is this a part of a "private city"?

I cannot resist the temptation to seize the delicious irony in pointing out that this is, in fact, Castle Comb, Wiltshire, England.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

I cannot resist the temptation to seize the delicious irony in pointing out that this is, in fact, Castle Comb, Wiltshire, England.
I said "imagine" just like my mayan temple/water slide picture :)

[DietCoke]

I said "imagine" just like my mayan temple/water slide picture :)

The irony isn't in the imagining, it's in the choice of places. Castle Comb stands as testimony of what Libertarianism isn't.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

The irony isn't in the imagining, it's in the choice of places. Castle Comb stands as testimony of what Libertarianism isn't.i like the pretty trees

[DietCoke]

i like the pretty trees

Excellent answer. :)

Seriously, I do appreciate this thread because it inspired me to get off my butt and do some reading about Libertarianism, something I've been meaning to do for years and just never got around to.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

BTW, how do they get that checkerboard pattern with the lawn?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Here's pics of my private city:

http://www.marketstreet-thewoodlands.com/visualtour/index.lasso
http://www.town-center.com/photo.cfm
http://www.woodlandsartfestival.com/Graphics/Art%20Festival%20Waterway%20Site%20%20from%20Town%20Green%20Park%20to%20Mar riott.jpg

Matt
wow, what's it like living in Pleasantville?

[DietCoke]

BTW, how do they get that checkerboard pattern with the lawn?

metasmerism


...and lawn mowers.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

The whole concept for Sugarland's town square is based on the sucess of a master-planned community created by oil tycoon George Mitchell, 15 miles North of Houston called The Woodlands. As for whether or not I'd want to live in such a place, I already do. :)

Matt
on a scale of 1 to 10, how libertarian is your city?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

This sounds like what we already have, but with less regulations. :)

Edit: How do I add Chapkas qoute in this post? The post looks odd without them.
well you're wrong

[Matt the Medic]

on a scale of 1 to 10, how libertarian is your city?

Define libertarian. We have a ton of rules and regulations, but the entire town was founded and is managed by a private investor. For some people, this may be considered libertarian, but not for others. The private investor situation isn't going to be sustainable in the long run- but only because Conroe to the north of us and Houston to the south of us are eagerly wishing to annex the area (it is unincorporated). We're going to have to incorporate and form a real town to avoid this.

Matt

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Define libertarian. We have a ton of rules and regulations, but the entire town was founded and is managed by a private investor. For some people, this may be considered libertarian, but not for others. The private investor situation isn't going to be sustainable in the long run- but only because Conroe to the north of us and Houston to the south of us are eagerly wishing to annex the area (it is unincorporated). We're going to have to incorporate and form a real town to avoid this.

Mattprivate investor works for me. only the 'socialist libertarians,' (oxymoron) the ones who believe in abolishing property, would take issue with you there.

Any other private cities that you've checked out?

I wonder when we'll get one that's hotel resort level.:D

call this the local rec center

http://www.gleneagles.com/uploads/images/desktops/640/spa_640.jpg
http://www.gleneagles.com/uploads/images/desktops/640/bar_640.jpg

[Bonniedundee]

private investor works for me. only the 'socialist libertarians,' (oxymoron) the ones who believe in abolishing property, would take issue with you there.It is not an oxymoron, they invented the word, you clearly don't understand the word.

Being a mutualsit I'm in the middle of libertarian socialism and American style libertarianism so I'm used to this kind of stuff but it is a very ignorant and arrogant attitude that many American style libertarian exhibit.

[chapka]

Thanks for that description. Presumably, then, the community would pool together to build schools and hospitals, and attract quality staffing.

Actually, I think the city would collapse on itself into class warfare and chaos, and only the rich would get health care or education. I'm just saying that the ideal of such a city is something that you could label "libertarian," unlike the privately owned centrally planned facilities we've been talking about so far.

I mean, to focus on just one issue, hydroelectric dams cost a fair amount of money, and if my inbred neighbors with 6th grade educations can just burn old tires for fuel, how could I convince them to pony up for the cost of a hydroelectric dam?

Why would you need to do so? If there's a good spot for a hydro dam, in a Libertarian world, someone owns that spot. That person can sell it to whatever person or group of people has the capital to build a dam. And whoever has the capital to build a dam then can recoup their investment by selling electricity over an enormous area.

How do you get universal consent. And, if you don't, how do get a dam built, and if you don't, how do you justify not providing the juice to run my hot tub?

Universal consent isn't necessary, because the dam isn't being funded publicly. Private corporations build enormous, expensive products all the time - think of offshore drilling platforms, hundred-story buildings, enormous resort complexes, or supertankers. No consent is necessary from anyone, unless there are ecological or water use regulations to contend with (with are not incompatible with libertarianism, by the way, because they address well-understood market failures). The main problem in a totally deregulated world is how to make sure someone else can't build a dam a mile upstream.

And nobody has to justify not providing you with electricity, anyway. In a libertarian worldview, electricity is not an entitlement. If you want it badly enough, you'll pay me enough to make it worth my while to generate it for you.

[general_koffi]

And nobody has to justify not providing you with electricity, anyway. In a libertarian worldview, electricity is not an entitlement. If you want it badly enough, you'll pay me enough to make it worth my while to generate it for you.

Libertarian worldview? I have to do that, and I live in a self-proclaimed "social democracy". I don't know what it's like where you live, but over here they switch you off if you don't pay the bill...

[chapka]

Libertarian worldview? I have to do that, and I live in a self-proclaimed "social democracy". I don't know what it's like where you live, but over here they switch you off if you don't pay the bill...

Yes; but the difference is, they can't build you a house (at least in most parts of this country) without hooking it up to the grid and making sure there are power lines run from some utility or other to your house.

[DietCoke]

No consent is necessary from anyone, unless there are ecological or water use regulations to contend with (with are not incompatible with libertarianism, by the way, because they address well-understood market failures). The main problem in a totally deregulated world is how to make sure someone else can't build a dam a mile upstream.


Yes, the mile upsteam thing was my next question. Hopefully, wealth would be so concentrated in the hands of a few that no one else would be able to secure funding. ;)

And speaking of concentrated wealth, let's return to those communities of impoverished, inbred tire burners living in shanty towns scattered across the region. What if they don't want to hook up to the grid? What if they are content to keep burning old tires? Would it be necessary to return to a system in which only certain citizens could vote, in order to pass regulations against tire burning?

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Yes, the mile upsteam thing was my next question. Hopefully, wealth would be so concentrated in the hands of a few that no one else would be able to secure funding. ;)

And speaking of concentrated wealth, let's return to those communities of impoverished, inbred tire burners living in shanty towns scattered across the region. What if they don't want to hook up to the grid? What if they are content to keep burning old tires? Would it be necessary to return to a system in which only certain citizens could vote, in order to pass regulations against tire burning?

those people would live outside the city gates.

[DietCoke]

those people would live outside the city gates.

:D


Ok, true. The gates would keep them from getting their sooty fingerprints all over your Lexus, but there would still be the pesky problem of the smoke, which would eventually block out the sun and make it impossible to grow crops. (Not to mention the problems with trying to wash the small particulate from your Lexus with polluted groundwater).

[Nice Squirrel]

Remember, those gates and houses need staff.

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes; but the difference is, they can't build you a house (at least in most parts of this country) without hooking it up to the grid and making sure there are power lines run from some utility or other to your house.

You can get disconnected from the grid at your request. (See Lehman's (www.lehmans.com) for non-electric products.) Nobody is forcing you to be on the electric grid. Water, trash and sewer are collective public heath issues, and you will be forced to move if you fail to dispose of your waste and let it build up. (Vermin and pathogens.)

[Fedor Emelianenko]

Remember, those gates and houses need staff.if their insurance rating clears them, fine

[Fedor Emelianenko]

:D


Ok, true. The gates would keep them from getting their sooty fingerprints all over your Lexus, but there would still be the pesky problem of the smoke, which would eventually block out the sun and make it impossible to grow crops. (Not to mention the problems with trying to wash the small particulate from your Lexus with polluted groundwater).
in a libertarian society I consider the private cities to be the inner temple, and maybe entire provinces or states to be the outer temple, and so on. We'd probably push the tire burners and other undesirables into the ocean at that rate. :grin:

[Nice Squirrel]

if their insurance rating clears them, fine

And thus another layer of beuracracy.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

And thus another layer of beuracracy.risk assessment. we don't want any bad people in the private city. better for insurance companies in the long run if they don't have to pay for someone getting stabbed, raped, killed, robbed, etc.

[DietCoke]

in a libertarian society I consider the private cities to be the inner temple, and maybe entire provinces or states to be the outer temple, and so on. We'd probably push the tire burners and other undesirables into the ocean at that rate. :grin:

That would be effective in putting out the fires. I can't argue against your logic, there. Now that we've explicated this a bit, I must say that your choice of Castle Comb is becoming less and less ironic because liberalism is looking more and more like feudalism.;)

[Nice Squirrel]

in a libertarian society I consider the private cities to be the inner temple,
How does this differ from an oligarchical "elite"? This sounds less like libertarianism and more like "eliteism". I really don't see how your vision of the "ideal" reflects any libertarian thinking. Those who want to live in your "city" (a.k.a. country club) are not in any sense free as they would have to tow the line or be kicked into the ocean.

[Fedor Emelianenko]

How does this differ from an oligarchical "elite"? This sounds less like libertarianism and more like "eliteism". I really don't see how your vision of the "ideal" reflects any libertarian thinking. Those who want to live in your "city" (a.k.a. country club) are not in any sense free as they would have to tow the line or be kicked into the ocean.okay i went a bit far :D

I'm just saying that it would go towards making where we live safer.

[nixon]

It does seem hard to imagine a truely libertarian city or country because people are so asshole-y to each other. If everyone or even most people had a live and let live attitude, libertarianism would work just fine. However it, and the present American system for that matter, have no real recourse to deal with assholes. They deserve to die because they are nothing but pests, but it's illegal to kill them in either system.