For an example, consider an HOA taking a home from someone over unpaid fees.
(Incidentally, if one were looking for a crystal ball into what private/libertarian governance would actually start out looking like in the first world, I'd guess that the problems of HOAs would probably give a pretty good idea.)
Absolute nonsense....I can't think of a single Rand writing that would support this notion in the slightest. One of her primary principles was that the desire for the unearned was a "sin" (or whatever equivalent word she used).
Taking someone's home over a small tax bill is definitely unearned.
If someone who's halfway through paying their mortgage stops making payment, has the bank earned the equity the borrower has put in? You might argue they haven't, but this isn't absurd.
If nothing else, advocates for the lender -- and, in general, libertarian voluntarists -- would argue that if both parties have agreed on the conditions, execution of them is justly earned.
And if you want Rand cite for that, read the Roark/Rand courtroom soliloquy where it's explained why it's OK for him to blow up a building (sure, other people may have put in sweat and equity, but that's nothing compared to his contract).
Well, why not the same thing for an HOA? Nobody held a gun to your head to move into a property that's part of a private collective. If Roark can uphold his aesthetic conditions, surely an HOA can uphold whichever please them, and ask for their fees, and blow you out of your building if you don't comply.
Now, if you think that there's a flaw here -- perhaps that "as agreed" is not necessarily the same thing as "earned" -- I might agree with you. Perhaps Rand even says something to that effect elsewhere. But at the same time, the entire climax of her second most famous book turns on a different principle.
(Also -- I have my doubts that anybody has any true claim to have earned most of what they have. We all have a heck of a free ride as far as life and resources go.)
Exactly, and that's the difference. Nobody held a gun to you head to move into the HOA collective. You knew the terms and consented to them when you moved in. Conversely, you are held to the laws of the state by the force of, ultimately, guns.
It's pretty logically and mathematically definitive, only in present society with bankers gone wild could it be terribly questionable who owns what. Common sense is usually sufficient.
> And if you want Rand cite for that, read the Roark/Rand courtroom soliloquy where it's explained why it's OK for him to blow up a building (sure, other people may have put in sweat and equity, but that's nothing compared to his contract).
Honestly, it's been ages since I've read that book so I can't comment intelligently. That sounds pretty crazy, but I have a feeling you're taking a negative interpretation, although I may be wrong. I tend to find Rand's larger principles correct, if not practical, while I differ on some of the smaller ones (Food Safety / restaurant inspections come to mind).
I could see it if MAYBE the HOA had that as part of a written agreement consented to the homeowner at the time of home puchrase. Of course, that's exactly not how government works.