Print

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

[<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?

well, what do you think?

I think that discussions of this kind must go back to first principles. We need to define our terms. We must take this a step further and ask: "Where do property rights come from in the first place?"

[<Patrick>]

I contend that if only a single person existed on earth, he would have no need for the concept of "property rights" or even "rights" at all. The context that makes possible the concept of "rights" is the introduction of other people into the equation.

So...

Let's start by seeing if we can agree on first principles.

I hold that the value of one's own life to oneself is the deepest moral principle. There is nothing more fundamental.

[BillG]

I contend that if only a single person existed on earth, he would have no need for the concept of "property rights" or even "rights" at all. The context that makes possible the concept of "rights" is the introduction of other people into the equation.

So...

Let's start by seeing if we can agree on first principles.

I hold that the value of one's own life to oneself is the deepest moral principle. There is nothing more fundamental.

yes, self-ownership is the first principle.

[RhythmStar]

I contend that if only a single person existed on earth, he would have no need for the concept of "property rights" or even "rights" at all. The context that makes possible the concept of "rights" is the introduction of other people into the equation.

So...

Let's start by seeing if we can agree on first principles.

I hold that the value of one's own life to oneself is the deepest moral principle. There is nothing more fundamental.

Regardless of that, without reciprocity among your fellows, your voice is alone in the vastness of space-time and devoid of any material relevance.  By itself, your principle is empty.  Only the compassion of others can breath life into it.

RS

[<Patrick>]

I contend that if only a single person existed on earth, he would have no need for the concept of "property rights" or even "rights" at all. The context that makes possible the concept of "rights" is the introduction of other people into the equation.

So...

Let's start by seeing if we can agree on first principles.

I hold that the value of one's own life to oneself is the deepest moral principle. There is nothing more fundamental.

Regardless of that, without reciprocity among your fellows, your voice is alone in the vastness of space-time and devoid of any material relevance.  By itself, your principle is empty.  Only the compassion of others can breath life into it.

RS

Could you be a little less poetic and a little more clear?
What is it that you are saying? What is the point you are trying to make?

Please don't take offense to the above, I'm just asking for clarification.

[Terry 1956]

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?

                                                                             
    I can't see that there is a blanket right to leave your property and cross  anothers property or in the case of a  neighborhood association cross out of your property through the neighborhood. Now of course the association should not enforce its rules on the disenting property owner, if they want their rules enforced and he is in the middle of the neighborhood they should at least let him leave otherwise he can remain as long. So as long as he does not come off the property he does not have to obey the neighborhood rules unless it actually harms the other property owners or renters. Of course a property owner may have a historical right to use the road but  you might check an area to see if that would include more than walking the road.

[Terry 1956]

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...

                                                                             
  Well the commons aren't in a lot of cases commons to every human on earth, there might be local commons and they might have a right to exclude passage to outsiders. locals may have bargined certain fees, rights and exclusions to local commons as well.

[Terry 1956]

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?

                                                                             
     As far as road and other passegeways there is not one answer in all areas.

[Terry 1956]

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?

                                                                           
   Yes unless he had previously agreed to allow it or the deed allowed it. Of course the deed may be fought if the state  forced a person to get a deed.

[Tracy Saboe]

Purchase an easment.

It's really not that big a deal.

And in the free market it's quite unlikely that, that somebody will be wealthy enough to purchase all the property surounding you.  (For what purpose? Spite? That's not a good use of money? That's not in his self interest?)

So more then likely even if you are bordered only by land that is not made for the facilitating of travel (like roads, and things) which is very unlikely in an of itself, you'll have a choice of who to purchase an easement from somebody.

It's no reason to question the viability of private property rights.

Tracy

[Terry 1956]

Purchase an easment.

It's really not that big a deal.

And in the free market it's quite unlikely that, that somebody will be wealthy enough to purchase all the property surounding you.  (For what purpose? Spite? That's not a good use of money? That's not in his self interest?)

So more then likely even if you are bordered only by land that is not made for the facilitating of travel (like roads, and things) which is very unlikely in an of itself, you'll have a choice of who to purchase an easement from somebody.

It's no reason to question the viability of private property rights.

Tracy

                                                                             
 Of course someone would have to be willing to sell you an easment if you did not have it already from the deed or from an unwritten historical agreement.

[Tracy Saboe]

Yeah.

But most people are fairly amecable.

People who gain their wealth in the free market typically have to be people persons. Not only to entrapreneurs (people who amass wealth) half to be, competent, and honest, they also have to be compasionate -- if they're not, customers can tell that you don't genuinly care about them and they'll go someplace else.

You won't amass long term wealth if you don't genuinely care about your customers and people in general.

That means that if somebody, somehow, by some fluke has decided to purchase all the surounding property around you, and has ammased the wealth to do it, he'll probably sell it to you the easement at a resonable price.  But it's astronomically unlikely. Even being land-locked by multiple property owners is unlikely. But then, you'd have some competition. The surounding property owners would half to compete for the best price for the easement.

But in the free market, with a free market in ROADS as well, entraprenuers would want to provide transportation services.

Most "land-locking" that has occured, can be traced to the lack of free markets in transportation.

So as such, the worry about "land locking" is a ltheoritical "life boat" enquiring and isn't worth worrying about.

It sounds more like a socialist worrying about "what if children can't afford school?" or whatever.

What If, What if, What if?

What if Purple Rhinos, stampeded through downtown New York?

The world isn't fair. And that's a good thing. Deal with it.

Certainly if you were completely cut of and it was a matter of survival, you'd have a right to fight for your survival.  Rand's "Survival exception" or whatever you want to call it. But land locking, really isn't something to worry about.

Tracy

[LeopardPM]

I was wondering about this supposed 'right of passage' and 'right of movement' or whatever you said BillG.... if denied movement off of your own property, that does not mean you die - that depends on the amount of property you have (will it support you?)...

I posit there is no need for right of passage and such... they will come about through purchases in the free market if needed, but to equivicate a desire with a right is a bad fork in the road to take...

fork your road too,
michael

[Terry 1956]

Yeah.

But most people are fairly amecable.

People who gain their wealth in the free market typically have to be people persons. Not only to entrapreneurs (people who amass wealth) half to be, competent, and honest, they also have to be compasionate -- if they're not, customers can tell that you don't genuinly care about them and they'll go someplace else.

You won't amass long term wealth if you don't genuinely care about your customers and people in general.

That means that if somebody, somehow, by some fluke has decided to purchase all the surounding property around you, and has ammased the wealth to do it, he'll probably sell it to you the easement at a resonable price.  But it's astronomically unlikely. Even being land-locked by multiple property owners is unlikely. But then, you'd have some competition. The surounding property owners would half to compete for the best price for the easement.

But in the free market, with a free market in ROADS as well, entraprenuers would want to provide transportation services.

Most "land-locking" that has occured, can be traced to the lack of free markets in transportation.

So as such, the worry about "land locking" is a ltheoritical "life boat" enquiring and isn't worth worrying about.

It sounds more like a socialist worrying about "what if children can't afford school?" or whatever.

What If, What if, What if?

What if Purple Rhinos, stampeded through downtown New York?

The world isn't fair. And that's a good thing. Deal with it.

Certainly if you were completely cut of and it was a matter of survival, you'd have a right to fight for your survival.  Rand's "Survival exception" or whatever you want to call it. But land locking, really isn't something to worry about.

Tracy

                                                                           
  Your are right about a lot of people in business being caring people persons but some are snakes in the grass, cut throats and every chance they get doing the political thing, they and the big unions, especially the government employee or government contractor employee unions are the majority of the political class. Hey ultrilights are getting cheaper- a la Berlin airlift. Can you imagine having a pizza delvered by a small remote control aircraft?

[Terry 1956]

I was wondering about this supposed 'right of passage' and 'right of movement' or whatever you said BillG.... if denied movement off of your own property, that does not mean you die - that depends on the amount of property you have (will it support you?)...

I posit there is no need for right of passage and such... they will come about through purchases in the free market if needed, but to equivicate a desire with a right is a bad fork in the road to take...

fork your road too,
michael

                                                                           
  Michael these are things when the division of labor comes in handy, sounds like a job for legal real estate historical researchers ,  mediators and  keen but respected business people. Yes dirty deeds where done dirt cheap but if we had nothing to do with the deed reasonable people should  negotiate in good faith.      
   Am I making any sense?