A city that is completely privately owned in Minnesota

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Then everyone else in town will tell that guy that he may not trespass on their property.

Wouldn't that essentially force him into staying on his property unless he was willing to break the law and trespass? I don't think that's reasonable

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Oh, and he'd likely be in violation of private contracts. I'd imagine that these guys have contractual obligations to maintain their roads.

Probably, but some dispute between neighbors could potentially disrupt the entire community. I remember in my neighborhood in Texas we had a few people have disputes because of tree branches and fence lines.

Obviously it's a gigantic 'if', but should other people really be subjected to that kind of uncertainty instead of the roads being owned and maintained by a separate organization since they're essential for the entire community?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I would like to point out A_C_E's reaction is funny to me. I don't know if he specifically has said this in the past, but other liberals on the board have said "why don't you go to a town and buy up all the property and start your own libertarian utopia" (or something like that, I'm paraphrasing). Then there IS a town that owns none of the property which doesn't say anything about their local government other than their desire to maintain property rights to individuals, and someone says "well, the only reason something like this can work there is because the population is small and the people are rich!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Maybe they are rich because they observe the idea of private property

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

Wouldn't that essentially force him into staying on his property unless he was willing to break the law and trespass? I don't think that's reasonable

That's exactly what might happen, and I don't see how that's unreasonable.

Probably, but some dispute between neighbors could potentially disrupt the entire community. I remember in my neighborhood in Texas we had a few people have disputes because of tree branches and fence lines.

Obviously it's a gigantic 'if', but should other people really be subjected to that kind of uncertainty instead of the roads being owned and maintained by a separate organization since they're essential for the entire community?

The reason why there are disputes between neighbors is because people don't establish contracts and figure out their legal property lines when moving into a place. This particular group seems to be well organized and I'd imagine that they wouldn't have such problems.

[thewise1]

It would be pretty easy to enforce an open road actually, when you think about it, because if one neighbor decides to be a dick about it, the other neighbors can block him in.

Unless he lives at the end of the street I suppose