Roads.
Jesus07312
privately owned? I do not recal Ayn talking about this in much detail from what
I have read, but I have not read everything she has written.
It would seem to me that every single person who owned a small segment of road
would want to have people stop there and pay a tax in order to use it. so you'd
be driving along and every 100 feet or so someone would flag you down and
charge you 5 dollars. Usualy things are much better handled in the private
sector.. but roads? No. Private companies should build and design roads, but
the contracts and the details ought to be worked out by a central agency. Roads
are something which by their nature need the cooperation of a large area to be
effective. They do not work if everyone builds their own little road section
and tries to profit the most off of it.
-Jesus
Edward O'Connor
> It would seem to me that every single person who owned a small
> segment of road would want to have people stop there and pay a tax in
> order to use it. so you'd be driving along and every 100 feet or so
> someone would flag you down and charge you 5 dollars. Usualy things
> are much better handled in the private
This would be a very innefficient allocation of resources.
> sector.. but roads? No. Private companies should build and design
> roads, but the contracts and the details ought to be worked out by a
> central agency. Roads are something which by their nature need the
> cooperation of a large area to be effective. They do not work if
> everyone builds their own little road section and tries to profit the
> most off of it.
Roads function much more efficiently when you have 'the cooperation of a
large area'. On this I agree.
How does this preclude private ownership? Remember that 'Private' does
not necessarily mean 'individual'. Certainly there would not be barriers
against individuals from owning roads, but a bunch of companies could
definately do a better job.
Given the nature of this market, I expect that it would be dominated by
a small number (>1) of corporations.
________________________________________________________________________
Ted O'Connor t...@george.rose-hulman.edu
You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tune a fish.
-- HP/UX tunefs(1M)
Jesus07312
>against individuals from owning roads, but a bunch of companies could
>definately do a better job.
But an individual could profit much more. There would be huge incentive for
individuals to own parts of roads. The busier the better.
Companies could do a better job than government? I think with a central
government that just planned things at a very abstract level, who then hired
private, competing companies to work out the exact plans and construct the
roads, the difference would be negligable and it would cost individuals far
less money. This is not really sacraficing freedom in any significant way,
because everyone who pays for the roads in gas taxes uses them.
Also, with this concept of no public property. Men would be fenced into certain
areas and would have to die. If neither of my neighbors on all 4 sides of me
allows me on their property, and the even own the sidewalks, I must sit in my
home and starve to death.
-Jesus
Edward O'Connor
> Also, with this concept of no public property. Men would be fenced
> into certain areas and would have to die. If neither of my neighbors
> on all 4 sides of me allows me on their property, and the even own the
> sidewalks, I must sit in my home and starve to death.
I encountered this problem as a high school student, and described it in
an email to ARI[1]. Harry Binswanger replied to this email, and here is
the substance of that reply, which cleared up some issues for me:
I first heard it [this problem] in 1964, and call it the problem
of the "donut." It comes from the fallacy of context-dropping.
One's property rights do not extend to using that property to
harm another's life. So the owner of the surrounding land does
*not* have the right to imprison the guy in the center of the
"donut." I believe this is even recognized in the common law of
land, though the idea that even in less extreme cases the owner
of nearly surrounding land has to grant an "easement" for
reasonable ingress and egress.
Note that the same principle would be involved if I walked up to
you and extend my arms around you to encircle you without
touching you. Could I make you pay me to let you out of the
circle? Of course not. Someone (not an Objectivist) once aptly
said that my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.
It's context dropping because the origin and source of the right
to property is the right to life, so you can't claim your
property right gives you the right to deprive me of my life,
which would be what happens in the donut case.
________________________________________________________________________
Ted O'Connor t...@george.rose-hulman.edu
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the
system, but too early to shoot the bastards. -- Claire Wolfe
[1]: Note that at the time, I had not encountered the issues involved in
the latest 'schism', and that after considering said issues and
forming my own take on the whole thing, withdrew my sanction from
ARI. That, of course, does not change the legitimacy of this
particular solution from Mr. Binswanger.
Robert J. Kolker
Jesus07312 wrote:
> Also, with this concept of no public property. Men would be fenced into c
> ertain
> areas and would have to die. If neither of my neighbors on all 4 sides of me
> allows me on their property, and the even own the sidewalks, I must sit in my
> home and starve to death.
This is simply not true. Under Common Law one cannot be surrounded
by private property and prevented from moving about. The adjoining
property owners are required to provided an easement, a small opening
that prevent corralling anyone. Private property is not a license to
prevent others from earning a living.
You have a view of private property that amounts to a straw man.
Bob Kolker
lu...@earthlink.net
Jesus07312 <jesus...@aol.com> wrote:
> Also, with this concept of no public property. Men would be fenced
into certain
> areas and would have to die. If neither of my neighbors on all 4 sides
of me
> allows me on their property, and the even own the sidewalks, I must
sit in my
> home and starve to death.
No. There would most likely be rights to access of your property in the
deed of your property. Some sort of mutually profitable agreement would
be made between you and your neighbors.
(Also, please include who you are responding to in your posts. Thanks.)
-Luka Yovetich
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Bogdan
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
> This is simply not true. Under Common Law one cannot be surrounded
> by private property and prevented from moving about. The adjoining
> property owners are required to provided an easement, a small opening
> that prevent corralling anyone. Private property is not a license to
> prevent others from earning a living.
>
> You have a view of private property that amounts to a straw man.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
What you are saying makes sense, but is it in accordance with
Objectivist principles? Does Common Law have priority against private
property? To answer to the question you must specify exactly where the
law was broken. Let's say I start buying land. Will there be a
government agency which can stop me from owning all the land around the
land owned by another individual? If not, I buy the land that I want
and I say to John who lives in the center of my doughnut "Sir, with all
due respect, I don't want on my land". Will there be a law saying that I
cannot forbid individuals from entering my property? You are saying
<Private property is not a license to prevent others from earning a
living> If I come with a better and cheaper product than you and you go
broke, can you claim that I prevented you from making a living? Would
this be part of Common Law also? We all create products and compete in
a common place after all. You cannot bring the Common Law argument to
answer all questions which need a real, practical answer. Who makes
this Law? According to what principles? In which cases does it apply? I
don't recognize this law if it is against Objectivism.
Someone in this thread gave an example in which I surround you with my
arms and ask you for money to let you out. I believe this can be beaten
by considering this act as use of physical force. You can then push me
away to escape, which is an act of self defense. I don't believe that
you're right to swing your fist ends at my nose, because starting the
swing is a threat to use force and I can kick you before your fist
reaches my nose. I wonder if this doesn't apply in the doughnut case
also.
--
Bogdan
Robert J. Kolker
Bogdan wrote:
>
> What you are saying makes sense, but is it in accordance with
> Objectivist principles? Does Common Law have priority against private
> property? To answer to the question you must specify exactly where the
> law was broken. Let's say I start buying land. Will there be a
> government agency which can stop me from owning all the land around the
> land owned by another individual?
No, you will not be stopped. You will be required to provide an easement,
so the inside people can get out. All it requires is a minimum passage that
will not deprive you of any essential use of your property.
The interesting thing about Common Law is that evolved over a long period
of time and has largely withstood an empirical test for justice and
practicality.
One may argue that a just order should be derivable from reality and logic.
In effect Common Law is one such derivation. While it was done within
the context of a Christian realm, it has served the folks it government
rather
well and stands comparison with positive law (the kind that Congress
passes).
Bob Kolker
ftb
ftb
ftb
Betsy Speicher
> In article <3771A8F9...@usa.net>,
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > This is simply not true. Under Common Law one cannot be surrounded
> > by private property and prevented from moving about. The adjoining
> > property owners are required to provided an easement, a small opening
> > that prevent corralling anyone. Private property is not a license to
> > prevent others from earning a living.
> >
> > You have a view of private property that amounts to a straw man.
>
> What you are saying makes sense, but is it in accordance with
> Objectivist principles? Does Common Law have priority against private
> property?
Common law IMPLEMENTS property rights and it does a usually excellent job
of it. You might enjoy listening to the lectures on "The Rationality of
the Common Law" available from Second Renaissance Books
<http://rationalmind.com>.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Steve Davis
> Can someone explain to me how exactly objectivists plan on having roads
> privately owned?
Objectivists don't plan on having roads privately owned.
JLH1942
maximize his profits? He wouldn't. Companies will find a way to collect the
money owned them. Bar codes on cars liscense plates could be read without
stopping the car and actually making a physical payment. One would get a bill
in the mail at the end of the month.
Jesus07312
> harm another's life. So the owner of the surrounding land does
> *not* have the right to imprison the guy in the center of the
> "donut."
But suppose you have 7 neighbors, all having property around you. They are not
in collaberation to harm you. They just all, individualy, would not like you on
their property. When you go ask one of them to let you on his property, so that
you may escape, he says "No, you can't be on my property, it is mine and I have
a right to it. How is it my fault that 6 other people bought land that just
happens to connect to my land and entrap you? Go ask someone else." Say
everyone says this. None of them are actively working to keep you there, and
none of them are in colaboration with any others. What happens then?
> Note that the same principle would be involved if I walked up to
> you and extend my arms around you to encircle you without
> touching you. Could I make you pay me to let you out of the
> circle?
I don't think it is exactly the same principle. First of all, it would be clear
that you are trying to prevent me from moving if you just held your arms around
me. There are not many other possibilities for your action and in any court of
law it'd be pretty obvious what your intent was. But it is possible for someone
to just not want people on his land, without actively harming them, or trying
to harm them. This case gets much stronger when there are a lot of people
surrounding one person, instead of just one. They all have a right to their own
property, because not a single one of them is doing anything to keep you in the
circle. But, through the unfortunate facts of reality, you end up trapped. This
is not their fault and they should not have to compromise. Just as if you fell
into a hole and couldn't get out, unfortunate things happen, and you can't make
exceptions for reality. The reality is men have rights to their property, and
as long as they don't use it to harm you, or for other malicious purposes, you
do not have a right to demand that they set a part of it aside for you to walk
on. None of the men are using the property to harm you, you are just caught in
an unfortunate circumstance and must rely on their generosity, but if they are
not generous, they have every right to keep you there until you die.
-Jesus
Jesus07312
>by private property and prevented from moving about.
What is this "Common Law" based on? Convenience?
>Private property is not a license to
>prevent others from earning a living.
Of course not, not actively, if it can be proven that that is your purpose. But
otherwise, people do not have a right to be unaffected by other people's right
to property when it becomes inconvenient for them.
>
>You have a view of private property that amounts to a straw man.
I don't think so. I am just abiding by the princple of absolute individual
rights. It sounds like you discard rights when they are inconvenient.
-Jesus
Jesus07312
>No. There would most likely be rights to access of your property in the
>deed of your property. Some sort of mutually profitable agreement would
>be made between you and your neighbors.
This would probably happen quite often, but it may not happen all the time. The
situation I described could arise. There is no moral obligation to grant others
a right to use your property.
-Jesus
Robert J. Kolker
Jesus07312 wrote:
>
> I don't think so. I am just abiding by the princple of absolute individual
> rights. It sounds like you discard rights when they are inconvenient.
>
Not so. Having rights must be consistent with others having
their rights. That is why property cannot be used in a way
that would deprive another person of his rights.
Common Law evolved by implementing the common sense
of fairness through a set of procedures and protocols that
would ensure each person could be secure in his property
and life. It took a long time for common law to evolve, but
evolve it did. It is the underlying law for the U.S. system of
laws and the doctrine of rights.
The object of common law is to enable english speaking
people to live in a civil order without carving each other
up for dinner.
Bob Kolker