Dating extremerestraints com
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).However, we honour their preferences to establish credibility for the living that we will continue by honouring their preferences too. 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...") 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).As long as I have the liberty to refuse to sign such contracts, I guess i'll survive a libertarian law world.I'll also enjoy the liberty to avoid meeting or having to deal with people who did commit themselves to such restrictive orders or contracts.I've read enough of them to know that at least some reject the notion of an association having legal personality apart from the legal personality of its members (e.g., through limited liability incorporation).It seems to me that there are practical problems in the law of associations, agency, and trust.By 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. 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.
The owner would abandon it, and someone else could homestead it without any strings attached.[I]n a fully free society restrictive covenants in deeds would be unenforceable because they are feudal in nature and thus violate fundamental libertarian principles.A restrictive covenant constitutes a prohibition that "runs with the land" in perpetuity, permitting rule by the dead hand of the past.unbundling this set of rights we call "ownership" and alienating one of them (unrestricted right to resell - ius disponendi).
But there are issues with that, and in jurisdictions I am familiar with it is usually impossible among private parties. Well, standard explanation is that would undermine the notion of ownership and its social utility - you would never know whether the seller transfers to you "full bundle" or just a "limited option".
[Tracked on June 30, 2010 PM] A 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. 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.