walling people into their own property

[thenelli01]

In a pure capitalist society with full private ownership of all property , what would be the legal principle which encumbers future holders of contracts?

You include a provision in the contract you have with the owner of the property that states the owner must include provisions in any future contracts to ensure your access to that property by future owners and future owners must do the same.

[Devil's Advocate]

You seem to be the one that isn't being honest as you excluded and ignored the most important part of that quote by J.

"The point of the OP is that Jim did not have a contract with the private road companies, or with the other neighbors, which stipulated future buyers' sharing of egress"

We don't know what the details of Jim's contract were other than providing legitimate egress, which was replaced without notice or negotiation by a 30' wall. To argue that confining Jim is justified because he failed to stipulate all future roads owners would continue to share egress is absurd. Are we to presume that property owners in Objectland who wish to travel coast to coast are negligent if they fail to require in advance that every future property owner along their route will continue to guarantee passage?!

[tadmjones]

You include a provision in the contract you have with the owner of the property that states the owner must include provisions in any future contracts to ensure your access to that property by future owners and future owners must do the same.

huh? Why couldn't a future owner of the wallee's property say in effect nah, don't care you negatiated with Jim , I don't care to in the future. What recourse would Jim have?

Edited December 6, 2012 by tadmjones

[thenelli01]

huh? Why couldn't a future owner of the wallee's property say in effect nah, don't care you negatiated with Jim , I don't care to in the future. What recourse would Jim have?

Because everytime ownership is transferred, the new buyers will have to sign a contract with Jim if they want to buy the property via the provisions in the first contract Jim had with the first owner. It is a perpetual contract.

[thenelli01]

We don't know what the details of Jim's contract were other than providing legitimate egress, which was replaced without notice or negotiation by a 30' wall.To argue that confining Jim is justified because he failed to stipulate all future roads owners would continue to share egress is absurd.

You are not getting it. Jim had no right to assume access to others' property and he made the mistake of not ensuring his access to private roads. He confined himself.

Are we to presume that property owners in Objectland who wish to travel coast to coast are negligent if they fail to require in advance that every future property owner along their route will continue to guarantee passage?!

You are now going onto another topic. This is not a private road vs. public road discussion, although many here seem to be advocating for public roads.

[tadmjones]

Because everytime ownership is transferred, the new buyers will have to sign a contract with Jim if they want to buy the property via the provisions in the first contract Jim had with the first owner. It is a perpetual contract.

Perpetual contracts, in a capitalist society? Please explain the legal/ moral principles involved and why this not different from easement as principle, or perpetual egress. And if you could explain which principles aknowledge the contiguousness of land.

Edited December 6, 2012 by tadmjones

[Devil's Advocate]

You are not getting it. Jim had no right to assume access to others' property and he made the mistake of not ensuring his access to private roads. He confined himself.

There's nothing in the OP's scenario that suggests Jim assumed illegitimate access to others property. In fact the OP clarified this point in post #4 by stating that the prior owners of the private road contracted for the right to use it. Therefore Jim is presumed to have the right to use it. The point is, the OP isn't presenting Jim as anything other than a rightful owner of property with legal egress who's been confined without notice or any ability to negotiate.

You are now going onto another topic. This is not a private road vs. public road discussion, although many here seem to be advocating for public roads.

It's not going on to another topic to follow the logic of your argument to its conclusion. If the only way to avoid being confined in Objectland is to have some perpetual contract with your immediate neighbor not to wall you in, then obviously one must expand the radius of the doughnut to cover everywhere you want to go, or risk being confined by anyone's wall anywhere. Such a necessary contractual clause, if it could even be implemented, would certainly be standard to any title to property in Objectland.

So again, It calls to question the sincerity of responding to the OP by either altering the original scenario, or asserting some negligence on Jim's part not to have secured such a fundamental right to travel to and from his property.

[Jonathan13]

Your post began with a direct contradiction of the OP's recorded statement.

That's a lie. My post did not begin with a contradiction of the OP's recoded statement. In your post # 296, you edited my statement to make it appear to contradict the OP's statement.

J

[Jonathan13]

We don't know what the details of Jim's contract were other than providing legitimate egress, which was replaced without notice or negotiation by a 30' wall.

We do know that the OP refers to the surrounded property owner no longer being allowed to trespass, and therefore we can logically conclude that he did not contractually establish a covenant of egress with his neighbors.

To argue that confining Jim is justified because he failed to stipulate all future roads owners would continue to share egress is absurd.

No, it's not absurd. What's absurd is the result of your position on this issue, which is the fact that no one would be able to do anything with their property because anyone from miles around could come forward and claim that they had previously been given permission by past owners to use a property, and therefore had established a "right" to continue using it.

Are we to presume that property owners in Objectland who wish to travel coast to coast are negligent if they fail to require in advance that every future property owner along their route will continue to guarantee passage?!

Yes. Living in Objectiland would require people to think differently, and to use their imaginations to solve new problems in new ways. Just as people who live under communism often have a difficult time imagining how they will survive if the government isn't in charge of grocery stores, people in Objectiland will have to overcome their fears of freedom (from having become accustomed to living in a statist society and receiving its benefits), and start seeing problems as opportunities. In Objectiland, this thead's initial scenario would quickly become very unlikely to happen, if not impossible. Land contracts and road systems would quickly make egress and future egress standard operating procedure. Road companies would be competing to provide access, not prevent it. Much in the same way that social networking has reversed the revenue mindset, road companies would also not necessarily generate their funding directly from users, but from the businesses to whom they are delivering users.

J

[Jonathan13]

There's nothing in the OP's scenario that suggests Jim assumed illegitimate access to others property. In fact the OP clarified this point in post #4 by stating that the prior owners of the private road contracted for the right to use it. Therefore Jim is presumed to have the right to use it. The point is, the OP isn't presenting Jim as anything other than a rightful owner of property with legal egress who's been confined without notice or any ability to negotiate.

False. Re-read the initial post, and pay attention to the fact that it uses the word "trespass." That word has meaning and relevance to the scenario. It's not a word that you can selectively ignore or edit out because you want to make the post say something that it doesn't.

J

[Devil's Advocate]

That's a lie. My post did not begin with a contradiction of the OP's recoded statement. In your post # 296, you edited my statement to make it appear to contradict the OP's statement.

It's certainly not true for you to assert Jim had no contract with the prior road owner that contained whatever stipulations were necessary to legitimize his travel on it. Clearly the OP is relying on Jim's belief that he can use the road in order to trap him. One presumes under objectively defined law in Objectland that all parties are aware of the law and act accordingly. However your posts presume Jim is unaware and negligent, which appears to contradict the OP's actual statements. Your post doesn't appear contradictory because I only pointed to the beginning of it; the entire post contradicts what the OP presented.

[Devil's Advocate]

We do know that the OP refers to the surrounded property owner no longer being allowed to trespass, and therefore we can logically conclude that he did not contractually establish a covenant of egress with his neighbors.

What we can conclude is that Jim had a contract to use the road, was allowed to return to his property based on knowledge of that fact, and was subsequently confined without notice or negotiation.

No, it's not absurd. What's absurd is the result of your position on this issue, which is the fact that no one would be able to do anything with their property because anyone from miles around could come forward and claim that they had previously been given permission by past owners to use a property, and therefore had established a "right" to continue using it.

Somewhere between the absurdities of requiring rightful owners of property to beg permission to leave it, and requiring rightful owners of property to allow trespassers, is the actual problem presented by the OP. I look forward to getting to discuss that with you at some point...

Yes. Living in Objectiland would require people to think differently, and to use their imaginations to solve new problems in new ways. Just as people who live under communism often have a difficult time imagining how they will survive if the government isn't in charge of grocery stores, people in Objectiland will have to overcome their fears of freedom (from having become accustomed to living in a statist society and receiving its benefits), and start seeing problems as opportunities. In Objectiland, this thead's initial scenario would quickly become very unlikely to happen, if not impossible. Land contracts and road systems would quickly make egress and future egress standard operating procedure. Road companies would be competing to provide access, not prevent it. Much in the same way that social networking has reversed the revenue mindset, road companies would also not necessarily generate their funding directly from users, but from the businesses to whom they are delivering users.

Somewhere in the middle there you finally get to the point of interest...

"In Objectiland, this thead's initial scenario would quickly become very unlikely to happen, if not impossible."

It would be impossible if all parties acted according to what they contracted for. The sale of the properties surrounding Jim, including the private roads, represents a change of ownership. A new owner is certainly entitled to change the use of his land, but not without notifying existing parties who have contracted for that use. Given that Jim is caught unaware, one presumes he didn't receive any such notice; he is operating under the belief that his existing contract to use the road is still valid...

... and it would be, if in fact he wasn't notified of any termination or change of contractual use.

[Devil's Advocate]

False. Re-read the initial post, and pay attention to the fact that it uses the word "trespass." That word has meaning and relevance to the scenario. It's not a word that you can selectively ignore or edit out because you want to make the post say something that it doesn't.

Been there, done that... I've already provided a valid legal definition for trespass, which you've chosen to selectively ignore.

That the OP is entitled to not allow trespassing on his property isn't the issue; whether or not he can use his property to blockade other rightful owners of property who've contracted for their use of it, without prior notice of a change of use (and/or termination of all existing contracts with them) is.

-edit-

"If I had an hour to save the world I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute finding solutions" ~ Albert Einstein

Edited December 6, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Jonathan13]

The sale of the properties surrounding Jim, including the private roads, represents a change of ownership. A new owner is certainly entitled to change the use of his land, but not without notifying existing parties who have contracted for that use.

I agree. If Jim had a contract which stipulated continued use of the land even after it sold to a new owner, then that contract would have the force of law. But that's not what was presented in the initial scenario. In the initial post, Jim was described as trespassing. One cannot trespass if one has a contract to use the land. Therefore Jim did not have a contract, but had only had permission from the previous owner (in a previous post I explained the difference between the concepts "permission" and "contract").

Given that Jim is caught unaware...

We don't know that Jim was caught unaware. The initial post doesn't say one way or the other.

...one presumes he didn't receive any such notice; he is operating under the belief that his existing contract to use the road is still valid...

No, we don't know that he was operating under that belief. For all we know he may have been operating under the hope that the new owner would extend him the courtesy of using the land.

Anyway, a person's mistaken beliefs and ignorance of his own contractual agreements or lack thereof is not anyone else's responsibility. A person who purchases land is not obligated to try to discover who in the vicinity might falsely believe that they should have continued use of his land. The new owner doesn't owe anyone notification that they will not be extended the same courtesies that the previous owner may have extended. The new owner may not be aware of any courtesies that had been extended, and is in no way required to attempt to discover if and to whom they may have been extended. The content of his contract with the seller of the land is his only concern. If he signed a contract which stipulates that he will continue to allow Jim egress, then that's what he must do. If he agreed to a contract which has no mention of allowing Jim egress, then he doesn't have to allow Jim egress.

J

[Jonathan13]

Been there, done that... I've already provided a valid legal definition for trespass, which you've chosen to selectively ignore.

The point is not to randomly provide "a valid legal definition for trespass," but to provide a philosophically valid definition. You have not done so. And I didn't "selectively ignore" your definition, but provided a sound philosophical basis for rejecting it.

J

[Devil's Advocate]

I agree. If Jim had a contract which stipulated continued use of the land even after it sold to a new owner, then that contract would have the force of law. But that's not what was presented in the initial scenario. In the initial post, Jim was described as trespassing. One cannot trespass if one has a contract to use the land. Therefore Jim did not have a contract, but had only had permission from the previous owner (in a previous post I explained the difference between the concepts "permission" and "contract").

We can presume Jim had a contract because the OP tells us that some of property surrounding him was owned by private road companies that granted a right to travel by contract, and the OP later confines him by allowing him to return from work (refer to posts #1 & #4). This information provides several key facts:

1) Jim worked away from home, therefore logically contracted with the road companies for a right to travel to and from his property.

2) The OP's purchase of the road companies included taking over whatever existing contracts for travel were currently in effect.

3) The OP allowing Jim to return from work indicates Jim's contract had yet to be terminated.

Therefore it doesn't matter if Jim's contract stipulated perpetual use of the road. What matters is that Jim held a legitimate contract for travel that was purchased by the OP and that hadn't yet expired.

We don't know that Jim was caught unaware. The initial post doesn't say one way or the other.

I believe everything I presented above indicates that he was. In the initial post, the OP reveals the existence of private road companies (which implies contractual use), and that Jim is allowed to return from work (which implies that he possessed a contract and believed it was still valid). Jim was certainly not aware that he was about to be confined.

No, we don't know that he was operating under that belief. For all we know he may have been operating under the hope that the new owner would extend him the courtesy of using the land.

Based on what evidence? I honestly don't know how you can avoid concluding that Jim regularly contracted for use of travel to and from his property and that the OP simply represented a change in management of the road. Unless the OP notified Jim that his contract was null and void (which can't be supported by simply buying the road), the fact that Jim is allowed to return from work only indicates that Jim believed his contract was still valid. Your argument depends on Jim being a negligent trespasser in spite of every fact presented by the OP to the contrary.

Anyway, a person's mistaken beliefs and ignorance of his own contractual agreements or lack thereof is not anyone else's responsibility. A person who purchases land is not obligated to try to discover who in the vicinity might falsely believe that they should have continued use of his land. The new owner doesn't owe anyone notification that they will not be extended the same courtesies that the previous owner may have extended. The new owner may not be aware of any courtesies that had been extended, and is in no way required to attempt to discover if and to whom they may have been extended. The content of his contract with the seller of the land is his only concern. If he signed a contract which stipulates that he will continue to allow Jim egress, then that's what he must do. If he agreed to a contract which has no mention of allowing Jim egress, then he doesn't have to allow Jim egress.

Agreed, but this only strengthens my point and weakens yours. Jim either contracted for use of the road, or he trespassed on them. But one can safely presume he contracted in lieu of trespassing just like every other rightful property owner who commutes to work, because there's no evidence that Jim trespassed. The OP's purchase of the road company's roads means that the OP assumed the responsibility to provide the same service until Jim's contract expired, or the OP entered into negotiation with Jim to terminate his contract. Either way, the OP relied on Jim's belief that his contract was still valid in order to get him back on his property.

[Devil's Advocate]

The point is not to randomly provide "a valid legal definition for trespass," but to provide a philosophically valid definition. You have not done so. And I didn't "selectively ignore" your definition, but provided a sound philosophical basis for rejecting it.

Valid legal definitions aren't random. The Texas statute philosophically recognizes that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Using the definition for burglary (which you prefer) in Objectland where all property is private, makes everyone (including a property owner standing on his own property line) guilty of trespass until they contract to not be guilty of trespass, i.e. presumes guilt until proven otherwise. It makes more sense in Objectland to treat property lines as easements in order to provide a necessary lane of travel around properties lieu of public roads, thus avoiding making trespassers of everyone going to and from their property by default. Your definition presumes guilt and requires contracting for innocence, which is why I reject your "sound philosophical basis" for substituting the definition of burglary for trespass in Objectland.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

I agree. If Jim had a contract which stipulated continued use of the land even after it sold to a new owner, then that contract would have the force of law. But that's not what was presented in the initial scenario. In the initial post, Jim was described as trespassing. One cannot trespass if one has a contract to use the land. Therefore Jim did not have a contract, but had only had permission from the previous owner (in a previous post I explained the difference between the concepts "permission" and "contract").

I came back to this post because it represents the primary issue of contention between us... Was Jim a negligent trespasser or not? Look carefully at the OP's initial presentation...

--

1) I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work, and then I erect a 30 foot wall (with no exit) all around your house (the wall itself is on my land). - Legal under capitalism? (I will argue that I am merely exercising the right to build stuff on my own private property)

2) Let's say I don't build a wall, but once you return to your house I refuse to let you trespass on my property again (aka so now you can't leave, because I the land I own completely surrounds your land). Legal under capitalism?

--

In the 1st statement, the OP allows Jim to travel on his newly acquired roads, as he is presumed to have been doing all along. The OP cannot assert Jim was trespassing by allowing him to return from work. The existence private road companies, and the the fact that Jim commutes to work, certainly implies that Jim contracted with the private road companies prior to OP's purchase, therefore Jim wasn't trespassing prior to the sale.

In the 2nd statement, the OP refuses to let Jim trespass on his newly acquired roads again, without having identified any prior trespassing on Jim's part. Clearly you are relying on the OP's statement, "I refuse to let you trespass on my property again", to mean that Jim has been trespassing all along. But the OP can't allow Jim to travel on his property and call that trespassing, and the existence of private road companies implies no other instance of trespassing, so the OP either contradicts himself in the setup, or his meaning was, "I refuse to let you on my property again, because that would be trespassing", or something to that effect.

Given every other element of the OP's scenerio, I remain convicted the Jim wasn't a negligent trespasser because if he was, then its a simple matter to conclude that the OP can refuse to allow Jim to continue trespassing with or without constructing a wall. In fact the legitimacy of the OP's right to build stuff on his property isn't even challenged unless Jim isn't a trespasser. Pending the OP's return to clarify, I stand by my conclusions.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Jonathan13]

We can presume Jim had a contract because the OP tells us that some of property surrounding him was owned by private road companies that granted a right to travel by contract and the OP later confines him by allowing him to return from work (refer to posts #1 & #4).

Stop making stuff up. The initial post says nothing about private road companies granting a right to travel by contract. It only says that some of the surrounding land is owned by private road companies. It says nothing about using contracts in its dealings with its customers.

Two days ago, I visited a gated community to deliver something to a client. In doing so, I drove on a private road. Do you imagine that I therefore must have a contract to drive on the road, and to continue driving on the road even if the land sells to others?!!!

Last night I bought some wrapping paper at my local Target store. They allowed me to enter the store and shop. Do you imagine that I therefore must have a contract which allows me to continue to enter their store? Do you imagine that Target cannot rightfully build a wall on its property tomorrow which would prevent me from entering the store?

I came back to this post because it represents the primary issue of contention between us... Was Jim a negligent trespasser or not? Look carefully at the OP's initial presentation...

--

1) I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work, and then I erect a 30 foot wall (with no exit) all around your house (the wall itself is on my land). - Legal under capitalism? (I will argue that I am merely exercising the right to build stuff on my own private property)

2) Let's say I don't build a wall, but once you return to your house I refuse to let you trespass on my property again (aka so now you can't leave, because I the land I own completely surrounds your land). Legal under capitalism?

--

Yeah, um, I just looked at it carefully again, and I saw, once again, that the hypothetical specifically identifies the fact that Jim is trespassing!

In the 1st statement, the OP allows Jim to travel on his newly acquired roads, as he is presumed to have been doing all along. The OP cannot assert Jim was trespassing by allowing him to return from work.

You're not grasping the fact that the hypothetical itself states that Jim is trespassing. It is a given in the scenario. It is not something to be argued with. Understand yet? You are re-writing the scenario in asserting that Jim is not trespassing. You might as well argue about the height and placement of the wall -- "No, it's a 40-foot wall, and it's not just on the surrounder's land but on Jim's as well, and therefore the surrounder is violating Jim's rights!" You're arguing against what is given within the hypothetical scenario!!!

As for allowing someone to trespass, a landowner is not obligated to press charges in every instance of trespass. He may see it happen once or twice and say nothing about it, and then do something about it when he sees it happen again. His generously not doing something about it doesn't magically bestow upon the trespasser a "contract" and a "right" to use the property.

J

[Jonathan13]

In looking back at earlier posts on this thread, I see where we're disagreeing on the facts presented in the initial hypothetical. Apparently you were taking post #4, with its reference to contracts, as being an addendum to the hypothetical presented in post #1, where I was taking it to be a new, second hypothetical for the limited purpose of addressing only Grames' introducing of the "coming to the nuisance" issue into the discussion.

Be that as it may, I've already stated, in post #314, that "If Jim had a contract which stipulated continued use of the land even after it sold to a new owner, then that contract would have the force of law."

The question is, what if Jim did not have such a contract? What if he had no contract, but was only allowed permission to use the private road company's road in the same way that I'm allowed to enter Target stores? Or what if he had a contract with the private road company which stipulated that he could use their roads on a pay-as-you-go basis for as long as they owned them, but not after they sold them to a new owner?

J

[Devil's Advocate]

Stop making stuff up. The initial post says nothing about private road companies granting a right to travel by contract. It only says that some of the surrounding land is owned by private road companies. It says nothing about using contracts in its dealings with its customers.

Hmmm... a private road company that does business without contracts... imagine that...

Two days ago, I visited a gated community to deliver something to a client. In doing so, I drove on a private road. Do you imagine that I therefore must have a contract to drive on the road, and to continue driving on the road even if the land sells to others?!!!

Last night I bought some wrapping paper at my local Target store. They allowed me to enter the store and shop. Do you imagine that I therefore must have a contract which allows me to continue to enter their store? Do you imagine that Target cannot rightfully build a wall on its property tomorrow which would prevent me from entering the store?

Interesting timeline, but your experiences are tainted by your use of public roads. Lets not compare apples to oranges...

Yeah, um, I just looked at it carefully again, and I saw, once again, that the hypothetical specifically identifies the fact that Jim is trespassing!

False - The hypothetical states that Jim will not be allowed to trespass again without identifying what Jim's prior offense was. Where is it? When did he trespass?? It's more logical to conclude that the OP considers buying a privately operated road with existing contracts for use, means those contracts no longer exist, which is not only wrong legally, but still doesn't make Jim's use of the roads trespassing prior to the sale.

As for allowing someone to trespass, a landowner is not obligated to press charges in every instance of trespass. He may see it happen once or twice and say nothing about it, and then do something about it when he sees it happen again. His generously not doing something about it doesn't magically bestow upon the trespasser a "contract" and a "right" to use the property.

Seriously False - One doesn't allow someone to trespass, period; any allowance contradicts the charge. Even without the impled contract to be there, by allowing Jim onto his property, the OP makes him a guest until he's asked to leave, and then Jim only becomes a trespasser if he refuses to go; which his arrival home proves he didn't refuse to go.

The existing road companies with their clients either have meaning to the scenerio, or they're a needless distraction to the question if property owners have a right to build stuff on their property and disallow trespassing. I agree with the bulk of your huffing and puffing about property rights, just not the conclusion you draw from the OP's senerio that Jim was a negligent trespasser. If he was, he deserved what he got, but then the scenerio itself seems fairly rhetorical and hardly worth arguing...

-edit-

This was posted just after your last post, and is only intended to respond to post #319

Edited December 7, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

In looking back at earlier posts on this thread, I see where we're disagreeing on the facts presented in the initial hypothetical. Apparently you were taking post #4, with its reference to contracts, as being an addendum to the hypothetical presented in post #1, where I was taking it to be a new, second hypothetical for the limited purpose of addressing only Grames' introducing of the "coming to the nuisance" issue into the discussion.

Be that as it may, I've already stated, in post #314, that "If Jim had a contract which stipulated continued use of the land even after it sold to a new owner, then that contract would have the force of law."

The question is, what if Jim did not have such a contract? What if he had no contract, but was only allowed permission to use the private road company's road in the same way that I'm allowed to enter Target stores? Or what if he had a contract with the private road company which stipulated that he could use their roads on a pay-as-you-go basis for as long as they owned them, but not after they sold them to a new owner?

If Jim had no contract, then going to and from work across others property without permission would be trespassing so long as "No Trespassing" was overtly posted, and/or each owner told him to get lost. If Jim contracted with the private road companies, and the OP allowed him to cross any portion of his newly acquired property to get home, then there's no evidence that Jim ever actually trespassed. We will continue to disagree on the significance of the OP's statement, "I refuse to let you trespass on my property again", given that the OP only explicitly states that Jim's returning home was allowed (therefore not trespassing in that instance).

Thinking on it further, even if road companies exist without contracting for their services (which is a BIG concession on my part), if Jim had the kind of non-binding verbal agreement you suggest, he still wasn't trespassing even then...

Edited December 7, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Craig24]

If Jim had no contract, then going to and from work across others property without permission would be trespassing so long as "No Trespassing" was overtly posted, and/or each owner told him to get lost. If Jim contracted with the private road companies, and the OP allowed him to cross any portion of his newly acquired property to get home, there's no evidence that Jim ever actually trespassed.

This whole scenario is out of the ordinary. Normally, no one attempts to stop neighbors from access to their property for the purpose of egress. There has always been an implied agreement between all neighbors that grants access for egress. I'm actually stunned that this issue raises such hostility and I would think of any neighbor who purchases property that surrounds another neighbor and confines him against his will by forbidding access to be pretty much a jerk. Carry on guys.

[Jonathan13]

This whole scenario is out of the ordinary. Normally, no one attempts to stop neighbors from access to their property for the purpose of egress. There has always been an implied agreement between all neighbors that grants access for egress. I'm actually stunned that this issue raises such hostility and I would think of any neighbor who purchases property that surrounds another neighbor and confines him against his will by forbidding access to be pretty much a jerk. Carry on guys.

Yes, the whole scenario is out of the ordinary, as are most hypotheticals which are designed to explore philosophical issues. They are not presented for the purpose of representing common occurrences or what is likely to happen, but to precisely define the limits of the phenomena being discussed, as well as potential conflicts, difficulties and drawbacks.

And, sure, a person who takes advantage of a technicality and walls another in or denies him egress is a "jerk." But being a jerk isn't immoral or a violation of others' rights, and the idea of contemplating ethical scenarios isn't to allow one's personal disdain for a jerk to taint one's concept of justice and rights.

J

[Jonathan13]

Hmmm... a private road company that does business without contracts... imagine that...

I mentioned earlier that I think that private road companies might look at users in the same way that Facebook does: they are the product to be delivered to business, so use of their roads, as long as the company owned them, would be free to users, and no contract with users would be necessary.

Interesting timeline, but your experiences are tainted by your use of public roads. Lets not compare apples to oranges...

Answer the questions, please. When I entered my local Target store and drove on a private road, does it necessarily follow that I must have a contract with them which states that I will continue to be allowed to use their property?

False - The hypothetical states that Jim will not be allowed to trespass again without identifying what Jim's prior offense was. Where is it?

It doesn't matter. The hypothetical states that Jim has trespassed more than once. We don't need to know the details of how and when.

Seriously False - One doesn't allow someone to trespass, period; any allowance contradicts the charge.

No, it doesn't. A person's forgiving of trespass doesn't make the trespass non-trespass.

J