Puzzle Peddler

Well, I regret to announce that moderators have indeed put me on the posting queue. As such the number of posts I will be making (for better or worse) will be dramatically reduced (I'm not fond of delay). I will try to use this opportunity to clean up a few final issues: 1) In terms of a 'clean' principle approach, I was actually thinking of something like this: If you force people to bite the bullet and accept an otherwise seemingly extreme legal position, sometimes people can actually come up with their own solutions to mitigate the problem. For example, people might start contracting with their neighbours to require mutual consent before real estate sales so as to prevent encirclement. In this way we might be able to end up with a simplified/consistent set of principles on paper, and we'll be able to avoid absurd scenarios on the ground (or something like that, might work or might not work for this situation, I'm just speculating). 2) While it would have been nice to have kept up with libertarian literature on the subject, one has to admit that this kind of stuff is not prevalent in our current academic environment, so there are exposure difficulties. But I will try to look into it more if I have time. 3) of course I'm not abandoning my own kid, are you insane? 4) yes I admit my posting style can be peculiar, but my hope has always been that people would find it to be more amusing than offensive.

It is not, I only raised it because you said "I had no right" to do it, I was addressing the possibility that you meant I was intentionally claiming some kind of right to impose an expense. Look, the problem is this: my property right vs your right to mobility. I don't think it will be disagreeable that people shouldn't be allowed to invade another person's home in the name of right to mobility, but the question is: what if you run into this kind of extreme situation? does the scale tip over? intuition would suggest it does, so even if I do own all the land around you, you should still be allowed to leave. so what does this mean? it means you have to balance property rights and the right to mobility. But that means determining whether the correct balance, which seems only doable on case by case basis, which is not a very principled approach. So on a practical level the problem can be fixed, but in my view it just can't be done using a 'clean' principle based approach.

I never intended to impose anything, I'm just building a wall. It's actually to prevent my own farm animals from wondering onto your land, so you should actually thank me.

to inspire curiosity and thinking. (they are in question form because I like using the Socratic method) edit: plus I'm on vacation right now, so I'm bored.

or maybe it means the other guy should call in a helicopter, because he doesn't have the right to pass through my property.

au contraire, I'm actually an attorney in real life (whether if you believe me is up to you), I object to what they said exactly because I do know the contents of what they have pointed to.

this is exactly my point, if the mere exercise of my own right (building a wall) means the negation of your right (trapped), then isn't there something seriously problematic about the co-existence of said rights?

It's a sustainable business at air ports and train stations. You can even mix in creative ideas and set ups once you get an investor's attention. Check these guys out: back to the same problem, why 18? is there scientific evidence that something magical happens around 18? if so where is it? exactly, so get creative with your begging. I once met a beggar who said this to me while holding a cup: "I take visa, mastercard, and american express", I had a good laugh and gave him 5 dollars. Why can't children be entrepreneurial beggars?

Would you like to enlighten me? (I'd accuse you of dodging if you don't)

alright, if begging is much be too much, how about shoe shining? some thoughts on the links: problem: if my kid chooses to be a lawyer, do I now have a duty to pay all of the tuition from undergrad through law school before I can let him go? what if the options are limited? Does that stop you from being creative? or not?

problem is we need to use other people's property without owning it.

it solves the problem by infringing on my property rights, as far as I'm concerned that is unacceptable. if someone has no right of way, that is their own problem, if there is a wall around their house with no exit, why don't they just call in a helicopter? If they can't afford a helicopter, why don't they just blame themselves for not being rich?

how do you propose to define 'independence allowing for productivity'? if not based on past evidence?

certainty based on what? Based on personal experience? I'm not sure if I'd buy that kind of evidence. Don't forget that the life expectancy 5000 years old was extremely low, and yet people were able to operate independently.

I'm not taking issue with when it is applicable or what problem it solves under the current law. My issue is with what 'justifies' the existence of the entire concept on a philosophical/legal basis.

Any thoughts on dealing with this kind of problem from the opposing side? As in something like the following (this is kind of from personal experience): Let's say one has a boss, who's a fairly rational and very competent business person, but is also very arrogant and likes talking smack to his subordinates. What is one to make of that? Should it be: 1) good for you, you worked hard to get to where you are, have some fun verbally abusing me if you want, its only talking after all. 2) something else more negative?

I was worried that someone might go on a tangent and say that they are "not real capitalists" or something (because of certain things they've done/said in the past). But yes, doesn't have to be John Galt. *see explanation above

would you care to elaborate?

well you can understand my concern here, it opens the question of how much you have to give them before they are 'independent/productive'. there are also people who started off as beggars and ended up as millionaires, so I'm not sure if being a beggar necessarily stops you from having opportunities. Or do we want to say that those beggars who became millionaires must have gotten lucky?

yes but would it be justified to create an easement in this case?

10 year old children in India can survive by begging for food. If they can survive economically by begging, why do we have to give them education?

I'm not sure if I agree. People can act rude just for fun it seems. Also what about this: if you knew a competitor recently lost their spouse, and you decide to walk them really often while constantly showing off your spouse... and they see it and become depressed, and their business suffer as a result... that's not really a matter of bolstering self-esteem, that just seems like a business strategy to me. Is there a general rational requirement to not be an ass? I guess that's the question.

so what is the proper age of adulthood? if it can be something really low (3,4,5), then what's the difference? if it's going to be something higher, then what is the principle/evidence behind it? (it just leads back to the above discussion)

I know what easements are. They don't necessarily solve the problem because: 1) what if there are no pre-existing easements on the land? (the land was previously own by private road companies which granted the right to travel by contract, not easements) 2) if the walled in person is going to use "coming to the nuisance" he has two problems: 2.1) he is admitting that his previous use of the road was a nuisance rather than by contract with the private road company. (which doesn't line up with reality) 2.2) "coming to the nuisance" is a defence, which means it is only useful if the trapped person is the defendant in the lawsuit, but what if person who put up the wall simply builds and doesn't sue? the trapped person has to sue, but it means he's now the plaintiff and not a defendant.

what if I think my child should be his own man?