BTC_P2P on Nostr: So if a city was ALL privately owned, then ownership could decide individually, ...
So if a city was ALL privately owned, then ownership could decide individually, “Hey, I don’t want these drug addicted criminals living on my property. They’re banished.” And that could be easily enforced by private ownership. Which is very likely since these people are criminals living from theft and violence and providing no value to anyone.
But since municipalities actually own the ground, all of the pseudo-owners (renters from those with the monopoly on violence) can’t make those decisions for themselves. The drug addicted / criminal transient population can retreat to the “public” slices of land (streets and alleys and parks) and circumvent the enforcement of land “owners” (renters).
Violation of true ownership by the state and impeding the rights of owners to enforce rules on private property has created compounding problems that have spiraled violently out of control.
This is the tragedy of the municipality - an unenforced no man’s land that perverts incentives of private ownership.
But since municipalities actually own the ground, all of the pseudo-owners (renters from those with the monopoly on violence) can’t make those decisions for themselves. The drug addicted / criminal transient population can retreat to the “public” slices of land (streets and alleys and parks) and circumvent the enforcement of land “owners” (renters).
Violation of true ownership by the state and impeding the rights of owners to enforce rules on private property has created compounding problems that have spiraled violently out of control.
This is the tragedy of the municipality - an unenforced no man’s land that perverts incentives of private ownership.