Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[<Patrick>]

Quote from Morpheus:

If I am denied exit from any property that I did not consent to being trapped upon by another, or others, then those individuals are intiating force against me. If they do not allow me to exit, even if I must pass through their property, then I think that I should have the Right to use whatever force which would be necessary- even deadly.

Who is in the right? Morpheus or the property owners who do not let him pass through?

[BillG]

there can not be self-ownership if there is no freedom of movement and there can no freedom of movement without the concept of the commons...

[<Patrick>]

there can not be self-ownership if there is no freedom of movement and there can no freedom of movement with the commons...

With the commons or without the commons?

[BillG]

there can not be self-ownership if there is no freedom of movement and there can no freedom of movement with the commons...

With the commons or without the commons?

sorry changed it...

[<Patrick>]

there can not be self-ownership if there is no freedom of movement and there can no freedom of movement without the concept of commons...

What about the concept of right-of-passage?

[BillG]

there can not be self-ownership if there is no freedom of movement and there can no freedom of movement without the concept of commons...

What about the concept of right-of-passage?

everyone has equal access right of passage thru the commons...

[RhythmStar]

By designating some commons areas, sufficient for reasonable access to any deeded property, the community avoids the imposition of individual landholders' privacy and/or property rights.   Thus, the protection of individuals against trespass on their deeded lands is feasible.  Otherwise, I could just claim I was exercising my 'right of passage' and simply walk on in, expecting the State to back me.

RS

[<Patrick>]

By designating some commons areas, sufficient for reasonable access to any deeded property, the community avoids the imposition of individual landholders' privacy and/or property rights.   Thus, the protection of individuals against trespass on their deeded lands is feasible.  Otherwise, I could just claim I was exercising my 'right of passage' and simply walk on in, expecting the State to back me.

RS

But wouldn't this involve condeming a portion of previoulsy privately owned land to create the common access road?

The landowner says his property rights are being violated. The person who demands access says his rights are being violated because he is trapped in a landlocked property.


Again the question is: who is right?

[BillG]

the state should never grant a title to a landlocked piece of land (or land that landlocks) that does not have assurances for right of ways to common use roads...

[<Patrick>]

the state should never grant a title to a landlocked piece of land (or land that landlocks) that does not have assurances for right of ways to common use roads...

Why do you always end your posts with "..." ?

Ok then. What if there is no state?

[BillG]

Why do you always end your posts with "..." ?

dunno...does it matter?

Ok then. What if there is no state?

dunno...I am not an anarchist!

whoever has the bigger gun and is willing to use it first???

[<Patrick>]

Why do you always end your posts with "..." ?

dunno...does it matter?

Not really. But anyway, what if no state existed?

[BillG]

Why do you always end your posts with "..." ?

dunno...does it matter?

Not really. But anyway, what if no state existed?

see above...I modified my post.

[<Patrick>]

Why do you always end your posts with "..." ?

dunno...does it matter?

Not really. But anyway, what if no state existed?

see above...I modified my post.

Question answered. Thanks.

But my real question is this: Wouldn't the landowner's right to property be infringed by forcing him to allow a commonly owned access road to be made on his land?

[BillG]

Why do you always end your posts with "..." ?

dunno...does it matter?

Not really. But anyway, what if no state existed?

see above...I modified my post.

Question answered. Thanks.

But my real question is this: Wouldn't the landowner's right to property be infringed by forcing him to allow a commonly owned access road to be made on his land?

well, what do you think?