Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Poll

Do you agree that there are natural limits to land ownership Rights that mandate splitting large lots and allowing freedom of travel along the borders?

Definitely.
- 4 (44.4%)
Probably.
- 0 (0%)
Maybe.
- 1 (11.1%)
Nope.
- 4 (44.4%)
WTF?!
- 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 8


Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Freedom of travel along property borders  (Read 6879 times)

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Freedom of travel along property borders
« on: September 13, 2011, 06:47:54 am »

I'm exporting this conversation from the Global Warming hoax thread, so as to keep the parent thread on-topic.

This is also a continuation of a particularly promising thread from my former my ikigai, that fraudulent honeypot BBS that was run into the ground by book-burning idiots...   :'(


Tax resisters who don't drive on the government road monopoly and follow my Tax Resister Diet should have some of the lowest carbon footprints in the world.  I live in a small room, I walk everywhere, and I don't even have a fridge (I need the exercise of walking to store every day).  Government and pollution tend to go together, so if you avoid the former you'll avoid the latter as well.


good for you for walking, but aren't you walking on "government owned" sidewalks

One doesn't need license / registration / insurance in order to walk down the street, and cops have less of an excuse to stop me for questioning (which still occasionally happens at night).  I don't benefit much from government-funded asphalt, I am simply walking as I would if it was unpaved ground, and I patronize enough local businesses to more than offset my share of any sidewalk maintenance costs they'd have to carry.

And (here's where we get to the topic of this new thread), I think that land ownership Rights have a natural limit, at least at civilization level prior to affordable flying cars.  It's a small limit, affecting only a fraction of your land (the more land you own, the smaller that fraction).  A strip of land along the borders of each property must allow "easement of way" to anyone who needs to travel through it, in effect creating a "public domain" road.  Large continuous plots of land also must be split into portions (ex. maximum crossing distance of 3 miles) to allow such roads to go through them.

What do y'all think?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 06:55:41 am by Alex Libman »
Logged

devilsadvocate

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2011, 07:49:41 am »

So if my neighbor and I want to fence our property we have to put up double fences so the rifraf may tresspass in peace?

In Alaska there are a lot of perimeter easements that allow access within 10 or 20 feet of your property line, but buyers of these tracts know this when they buy so it's voluntary.  Forcing people to allow tresspassers on their land is a security risk to landowners. It would make it easy for lowlifes to case potential targets.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2011, 08:43:42 am »

Quote
What do y'all think?

I love it - another so-called libertarian who gets that property rights in land HAVE TO BE limited.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2011, 08:45:37 am »

Quote
So if my neighbor and I want to fence our property we have to put up double fences so the rifraf may tresspass in peace?

only if you care about the equal freedom of others...
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2011, 09:53:22 am »

Quote
What do y'all think?
I love it - another so-called libertarian who gets that property rights in land HAVE TO BE limited.

Libman also thinks that killing innocent people is okay, if you are trying to kill a dictator or such.  "Collateral damage," eh?

I think those of us who don't think murder is okay, have the moral high ground.

Joe
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2011, 10:46:31 am »

I'm not very convinced about this idea myself, which is why I'm encouraging this discussion.


So if my neighbor and I want to fence our property we have to put up double fences so the rifraf may tresspass in peace?  [...]

First of all, we are talking about this on a large scale - a private neighborhood / charter city would have to be a couple of square miles (ex. a thousand acres) in size (or smaller if irregularly shaped) before an easement pathway would be necessitated.  Most residential lots are less than 1-2 acres.  It is highly doubtful that your and your neighbor's property would create many requests for easement of way.  Most places would find it in their best interest to voluntarily provide sufficient open-access roads, this issue deals with rare situations where they don't.

Yes, having a couple of easement paths crossing through your 10,000 acre ranch may be an inconvenience, assuming that you don't want a road there anyway.


I love it - another so-called libertarian who gets that property rights in land HAVE TO BE limited.

(1)  This is just a theory I'm exploring.

(2)  Like I said above, this would only be needed as a stopgap solution for that narrow gap between when a civilization develops absolutist land property Rights and the availability of cheap flying cars / taxis / buses / whatever.  I don't think this gap would be so big even in places like Africa, and it would be small to non-existent in wealthy high-tech places like New Hampshire.

(3)  There are very few limits to Property Rights.  One thing I believe in as more than just a theory is that terrestrial Property Rights don't extend down to the center of the planet or up to the endless universe. Your Property Rights end above a certain flyover height or tunneling depth, just as long as your terrestrial property isn't damaged by fumes, sinkholes, etc.  (Nude sunbathers may want to consider a one-way-transparent patio roof, which could have solar energy and other benefits as well.)  Another theoretical limit would have to do with rescue of victims in an emergency, or evidence subpoena for a trial.  And that's pretty much it.

(EDIT - 4)  And I don't prefer to describe myself as a "libertarian", even though it's a very popular and appealing term.  I am a "rationalist", and after several years of study I've come to hold certain current positions, which are subject to change with new evidence coming to my attention and/or my mind achieving better conclusions.


Libman also thinks that killing innocent people is okay, if you are trying to kill a dictator or such.  "Collateral damage," eh?

I never agreed that people standing between a dictator and justice are "innocent", and I never said it was "OK", only necessary for the defense of others.  Your theory of justice is dysfunctional, and would doom billions of people into slavery.  (We can discuss that on the appropriate thread.)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:38:02 am by Alex Libman »
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2011, 11:24:58 am »

Quote
this would only be needed as a stopgap solution for that narrow gap between when a civilization develops absolutist land property Rights and the availability of cheap flying cars / taxis / buses / whatever.

what specific issue are you addressing with this "stopgap" solution that violates libertarian "absolute"property right rules?
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2011, 11:31:33 am »

The highly improbable horror scenario that critics of libertarianism like to use (and I've deconstructed and answered many times in the past) - that a neighboring neighborhood association you're not a part of, or some other large property owner, will box you in and impede your travel / access to your property.

And I didn't use the term "absolutist land property Rights" with any mocking in the word "absolutist" - in the ideal world those Rights would indeed be very strong.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:39:36 am by Alex Libman »
Logged

ahammer

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2011, 02:59:13 pm »

The highly improbable horror scenario that critics of libertarianism like to use (and I've deconstructed and answered many times in the past) - that a neighboring neighborhood association you're not a part of, or some other large property owner, will box you in and impede your travel / access to your property.

And I didn't use the term "absolutist land property Rights" with any mocking in the word "absolutist" - in the ideal world those Rights would indeed be very strong.


this gets back to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons whos going to maintain the road clear brush, pick up trash if they dont want are you going to do force them to? . also who defines how big the travel lanes need to be human size, car size, mega buss size.

people will want other to travel because otherwise they can not get there goods out and work out in the world to make money or good in to get food and other living items.
Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2011, 03:43:31 pm »

I'm exporting this conversation from the Global Warming hoax thread, so as to keep the parent thread on-topic.

This is also a continuation of a particularly promising thread from my former my ikigai, that fraudulent honeypot BBS that was run into the ground by book-burning idiots...   :'(


Tax resisters who don't drive on the government road monopoly and follow my Tax Resister Diet should have some of the lowest carbon footprints in the world.  I live in a small room, I walk everywhere, and I don't even have a fridge (I need the exercise of walking to store every day).  Government and pollution tend to go together, so if you avoid the former you'll avoid the latter as well.


good for you for walking, but aren't you walking on "government owned" sidewalks

One doesn't need license / registration / insurance in order to walk down the street, and cops have less of an excuse to stop me for questioning (which still occasionally happens at night).  I don't benefit much from government-funded asphalt, I am simply walking as I would if it was unpaved ground, and I patronize enough local businesses to more than offset my share of any sidewalk maintenance costs they'd have to carry.

And (here's where we get to the topic of this new thread), I think that land ownership Rights have a natural limit, at least at civilization level prior to affordable flying cars.  It's a small limit, affecting only a fraction of your land (the more land you own, the smaller that fraction).  A strip of land along the borders of each property must allow "easement of way" to anyone who needs to travel through it, in effect creating a "public domain" road.  Large continuous plots of land also must be split into portions (ex. maximum crossing distance of 3 miles) to allow such roads to go through them.

What do y'all think?

What you are describing is not easement. Easements are explicitly granted by a property owner, not forcefully extracted to be put in the "public domain". And there's certainly no maximum plot size to ensure that public roads can be built through someone's land.

The current system is better. An easement to access a "locked" property is only implied by absolute necessity. And those easements certainly aren't "public domain".
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2011, 07:46:13 pm »

I'd like to coin a new term to explain my fascination with this particular issue, which clearly isn't very relevant in light of likelihood of flying cars.  That term is "Steampunk Anarcho-Capitalism".  These thought experiments restrain me from relying on 21st century technologies to make an AnCap society functionally attainable, and rely on retro methods instead.  This is sort of like imagining Wikipedia run as a giant filing system of paper markups transported via pneumatic tubes.   :D

Also, since everyone here has a policy of "criticize and insult first, read later (or never)", I will quote the first post from the older thread, since it is a bit more verbose in presenting all my usual "thought experiment" disclaimers:

Quote
First, a disclaimer: this is yet another one of my experimental borderline-minarchist  (no pun intended) idea threads along the same lines as many other thought experiments I've started in the past (ex. Parents Tax).  It might seem like a copout to the "who will build the roads" nonsense, but it's more of a contingency plan / safety valve just in case we are wrong, so please don't call me a statist just for contemplating this.  This is also more of a 19th century idea than a 21st century one, because flying cars would solve the vast majority of transportation access issues, but it nonetheless may be an idea worth considering.

Now, this idea, in its entirely, is that there are natural limits to ownership of land imposed by other people's Right to travel.  Every piece of property of sufficient size must be surrounded by an "unownable" perimeter area about as wide as a modern highway.  Continuous pieces of property larger than X acres must also be separated into pieces of property X acres or less by allowing such "unownable" transport corridors.  Let's call those perimeter areas "open roads".

The rules of the "open road" would be analogous to other environments where property ownership is presently impossible, including air flyover rights above several hundred yards.  No one can homestead this property except perhaps by buying up the surrounding property and providing a different "open road" that fits the geographic criteria of other people's Right to travel.  NAP still applies, obviously, but any action that impedes other people's Right to travel constitutes an act of aggression.  People may leave pieces of their property on the "open road" only when it doesn't interfere with other people's Right to travel, which means nearby residential and business interests would be interested in leaving things like pavement, electrical / communications wiring, light poles, cameras with "open source" video feeds to ensure law and order, and so on.  Damaging those privately-added road infrastructure components would constitute an act of aggression against the person who left them there, or against the Rights of a subsequent traveler.  A lot of the ideas of how automotive road rules can be facilitated without a centralized authority have been discussed elsewhere (ex).
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #11 on: September 13, 2011, 09:00:07 pm »

this gets back to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Commons is indeed a tragedy, which is why we'd like to have as little of it as possible.  The vast majority of land would still be privately owned, with just tiny perimeter strips being subject to legalized trespassing.  Sea / underwater territory and airspace could be privately owned as well, with a similar need for open corridors to ensure that travel will still be possible.

There wouldn't be any central government telling people to submit their building plans for approval and allow adequate "open roads" running through their property ahead of time, but those needs aren't a new concept and can thus be anticipated.  Without those considerations, they would not be able to evict a trespasser from their property, because an arbitration agency would rule that his "right to travel" was being violated, making any aggression to evict him from their property unjustified, with restitution owed.  It would thus be cheaper to plan in advance.


whos going to maintain the road clear brush, pick up trash if they dont want are you going to do force them to?

No one will "have to" do anything.  Those open access strips will be surrounded by private property, whose owners will have a vested interest in keeping those roads maintained, as would the people who travel on those roads often.  Those roads represent a survival safety valve to make sure people can walk out of a tough situation, and do not necessarily require all the luxuries that would be provided by private roads - unless of course the vested interests will choose to provide them.

I don't think anyone will starve to death because of "brush and trash" as they walk out of their entrapment, not would it prevent charitable organizations from getting to those who are trapped.


also who defines how big the travel lanes need to be human size, car size, mega buss size.

Many standards pertaining to more complicated rights (ex. Property Rights and Parents' Rights) inevitably require certain standards that would seem arbitrary.  Some examples:  If your land ownership Rights don't extend upward into the endless spinning universe, which they obviously do not, then who decides at what altitude I can fly over your property without it being trespassing?  What constitutes a "clearly posted" rule that is enforceable against people who enter your property (ex. the "no shouting fire" rule in a theater)?  Who decides what constitutes a sufficient homesteading claim - if you can land a beacon transmitting your signature on an asteroid to claim it as your property, would the same also apply to an entire planet?  Etc.  I've written extensively about all of those questions in the past.  A system of polycentric jurisprudence would have to guide those emergent rulesets into being, starting with reasonable assumptions that would be adjusted over time.

There has never been much of a concept of a "human size" road, as since the dawn of civilization people often traveled by animal power.  I guess by that you mean something like the Roman road width minimum of 2.4m (8 feet), but that only describes the paved portion, as carts could always pull over to the siding to pass each-other, with similar ius eundi ("right of going") concepts applying to some strip of land on the either side of the paved road.  (Interesting side-reading:  Was standard railroad gauge (4' 8½") determined by Roman chariot ruts?)  So the width of a skinny country road where two cars can pass each-other with no luxury of room to spare is a reasonable assumption.


people will want other to travel because otherwise they can not get there goods out and
work out in the world to make money or good in to get food and other living items.

This will probably be true in >95% of the situations, but I wouldn't bet my life that there wouldn't be exceptions.  Those exceptions -- people who are trapped in by malicious neighbors -- will be highly publicized by the commies, and used to undermine land ownership Rights altogether.  Natural Rights are not based on simplistic absolutes, but on functional solutions that provide the greatest competitive advantage.  A society where you compromise 1% of property Rights to assure freedom of travel would have the advantage - unless of course this becomes a slippery slope to ever-less-reasonable exceptions...


What you are describing is not easement.  [...]

I know, I am introducing a new concept.  Notice that I avoided use of the word in the subject of this thread, and only referenced it in descriptive analogy.  I was very eager to reference it, because in the prior thread it was suggested by John Shaw, which for him is a remarkable intellectual accomplishment that should be celebrated and cherished.   I mean, if someone like John Shaw can contribute something almost-relevant to a serious discussion of AnCap theory, then there's truly hope for us all!  >:D
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 08:03:01 am by Alex Libman »
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2011, 02:07:22 pm »

The government is what handles property disputes on ownership.
During historic periods... this would be done by sword and fire.

Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2011, 02:31:19 pm »

... and in a civilized society, this function will be demonopolized via polycentric jurisprudence.

-- AnCap Theory 101
Logged

Rifle_Ranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: Freedom of travel along property borders
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2011, 12:22:45 am »

I find tyranny over movement, in the name of 'property rights', to be quite funny.
"Yeah, it's my right to eliminate your freedom of movement through this two-square-mile property that is right between two
populated areas." Please...
« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 01:17:15 am by Rifle_Ranger »
Logged
The fundamental right is the right of an individual to punish and kill pathological aggressors.
When that right is granted, all other rights follow.
When that right is denied, all other rights are prone to collapsing, like a building that has no foundation.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

anything