Nostr

The incentives go against the rationality of the people, like with statism.

If you live in a 300k house and you go travel for ten months while the abandonment criteria is settled at one year in this community, there is a massive incentive for others to collude (especially if they fdon't like you), witness that you are out more than a year and squat your house. If 6 people collude, its a 50k bounty each. This is just one scenario where it fails, there probably are many.

Yes you can protect yourself by keeping a provable log, but what kind of society is that where you have to keep a log where you are to not lose your house, which is arguably one of the worst things that can happen.

In short: To enforce these arbitrary rules, you need surveillance, otherwise the court can't make a proper decision.

The Beave 5mo ago

Yup. The other part of this is the gross nature of all of that. Everything about that whole scenario is obviously disgusting. And it would happen.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

for my taste it's way too socialist and would not be enforcable without a government, also, whereas common law property claims are able to be adjudicated with a decentralized system of jurisprudence services.

anyway, ultimately leaving property abandoned is not very sensible from an economics standpoint. you wouldn't even do it without the context of constantly inflating prices from banksters printing money.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

what i mean is, it's a false argument in the first place, you don't need "help" to make your property produce wealth for you - you literally need to work it, or from it, or in it.

i mean, forget about the idiocy of focusing in only on residential and rural property for a moment as well - would anyone with a functioning brain buy a factory and then leave it idle? duh. so the agorist arguments are non-sequiturs. they put the cart before the horse. you own property for its services in facilitating production. the end.