![]() ![]() Caplan suggests would mean a “real” effect of a contract not to resell, ie. The sell in question is valid and legal nevertheless. Obligation not to resale your property without third party’s consent is merely an obligation, which generally would mean that you are allowed to sell your property without this consent and only then, compensate this third party for breach of contract (assuming that there was one in the first place). There is one problem with Bryan Caplan’s argument – it presupposes that you can somehow “unbundle” ownership as a legal right. I happen to think this means that libertarianism (at least minarchism/anarcho-capitalism) is either impossible (coercive forces eventually arise) or superfluous (governments similar to contemporary ones form because they’re beneficial). If you have to start violating libertarian principles to protect libertarianism, then it’s really not that difficult to eventually arrive at a highly interventionist state (“We need welfare to prevent revolution, a strong military to defend against invaders, censorship to stop revolt…”) So much the worse for libertarianism then. However, we honour their preferences to establish credibility for the living that we will continue by honouring their preferences too.Ī larger problem is restrictive covenants that follow land become an easy way to form non libertarian governments within libertarian societies, making libertarianism that enforces restrictive covenants non-equilibrium. Why does it matter whether we obey the dead’s preferences? Technically, in the end period at least, it doesn’t (unless you believe that dead people can see what happens on Earth from the afterlife). If I create a restrictive covenant, I am either increasing the value of the property somehow (in which case the next owner presumably won’t want to remove it) or more likely, reducing my property’s resale value in exchange for the comfort of knowing it will be used how I like. If the restriction is violated, who has been wronged or deprived of just property? The former owner? How so? What if he dies? Or to be more realistic, the builder gave the HOA limited resale rights before it sold the homes in the first place, so no owner ever held unlimited resale rights in the first place. Run with the land? If A sells his home to B, why does B have anīy assumption, A gave/sold limited resale rights to the HOA before he sold to B, so he can’t sell B an unlimited resale right. But what if my criticism calls homeownersĪssociations into question? Does the obligation to join an association Update: In the comments, Sheldon responds:įair point, Bryan. ![]() If the law ignores naked promises, parties who want them enforced can switch to, “If I refuse to marry you on this date, you owe me $1,000,000.” Non-libertarians can readily invalidate contracts as “contrary to public policy” or “unconscionable,” but libertarians don’t have that luxury. As long as contracting parties know the details of the legal theory, they can manipulate them to approximate whatever outcome they want. The more general lesson is that using libertarian legal theory to undermine unsavory private agreements doesn’t really work. It could just as easily be a racist charity that collects resale rights, and pays for itself by suing violators. Note further that this need not be a geographically-based HOA. Contractually agree to let the HOA limit resale, and you’re done. Wronged or deprived of just property? The former owner? How so? What ifīut if that’s how the law works, there’s a simple loophole for racists: instead of relying on restrictive covenants, use a home owner’s association. Then changing your mind? If the restriction is violated, who has been ![]() How is it different from promising to marry someone and The appearance of a naked promise to perform or not perform some action Never selling to a black person he is also supposed to pass the Under the covenant the buyer is said toīe obligated not only to abide by the restriction himself, say, by A restrictive covenant constitutesĪ prohibition that “runs with the land” in perpetuity, permitting ruleīy the dead hand of the past. Unenforceable because they are feudal in nature and thus violateįundamental libertarian principles. N a fully free society restrictive covenants in deeds would be Over at Cato Unbound, my old friend Sheldon Richman denies that restrictive covenants are kosher in libertarian terms: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |