Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Puzzle Peddler

walling people into their own property

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Other than the fact that the initial post identifies Jim as trespassing and being prevented from further trespassing. You're still arguing with the hypothetical. You're playing devil's advocate and trying to bend reality to fit your fallacious, predetermined conclusion.

I'm following the hypothetical. Look at the sequence of events...

--

1) Let's say you own an average house in a subdivision, and you are surrounded on all sides by private property owned by neighbors and private road companies.

2) Now let's say I decided to buy all the land adjacent to your house on all sides (from your neighbors and the road companies). So now your property is surrounded on all sides by my property...

3) What if I do this:

4) 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)

5) 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?

--

Step 1 identifies the existence of private road companies, the existence of which implies Jim's legitimate use of their roads.

Step 2 disqualifies the OP as an existing neighbor - I decided to buy all the land adjacent to your house on all sides - all means all, correct? Not every other property adjacent to your house.

Steps 1 & 2 clearly imply Jim had a legitimate right to travel on private roads and can't have trespassed on what the OP had yet to purchase, which is presumed to occur after Jim has gone to work... Let that sink in...

Step 4 states that after the purchase, the OP allows Jim to return home, at which point he is either confined behind a wall or restrained by law, having never trespassed.

You stubbornly cling to Step 5's, "I refuse to let you trespass on my property again", in spite of the knowledge that no prior instance of trespass is given, and in fact isn't possible according to the explicit statement of events leading up to Jim's confinement. You want to believe Jim is a trespasser and need him to be one in order to defend your mistake, and you accuse me of being evasive?! LOL seriously, until you can get past your blind spot let's just give it a rest...

-edit-

For clarity, I account for the OP's belief that he's preventing Jim from trespassing again in the sense that you've attempted to rationalize, i.e. that allowing Jim to return home across the OP's newly acquired property equated to choosing not to prosecute his trespass in that instance. Of course you press further and assert the OP's use of the word again means multiple offenses, which is simply inaccurate, as I've corrected you on already in Post #329. The OP (and you) consider Jim's return home an act of trespass, which the OP states he will not allow again. You are both incorrect on this issue. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge it is up to you.

Edited by Devil's Advocate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steps 1 & 2 clearly imply Jim had a legitimate right to travel on private roads and can't have trespassed on what the OP had yet to purchase, which is presumed to occur after Jim has gone to work... Let that sink in...

Presumed by whom? By you, because that's what you want to presume?

Yes or no, does the initial post specifically state that Jim's return trip from work was the only time that he used the land after it was purchased by the new owner?

You've only been inferring that it was the only time that Jim used the land.

Your entire participation on this thread has had the purpose of arguing with the hypothetical.

If the initial post had stated that Jim owned a green rubber ball, you'd be arguing that we don't know for sure that it was a green ball, and that maybe it was actually a red ball and the initial poster was perhaps colorblind and therefore had misidentified its color.

Step 4 states that after the purchase, the OP allows Jim to return home, at which point he is either confined behind a wall or restrained by law, having never trespassed.

In the above sentence, you appear to be taking the position that the purpose of the wall is to imprison Jim as a form of punishment for his having trespassed. Is that what you mean? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, then you've misread or inferred something that wasn't in the initial post, and you're still operating under the fallacy that Jim is being "imprisoned." The initial post does not state that the wall was built as punishment for past trespasses.

You stubbornly cling to Step 5's, "I refuse to let you trespass on my property again", in spite of the knowledge that no prior instance of trespass is given...

Prior instance of trespass is given, it's just not given in detail. You're only "presuming" that the initial poster must have detailed all cases of Jim's use of the property after it was sold to the new owner.

Anyway, all of this arguing of yours against the hypothetical is an irrelevant distraction, because the point of the hypothetical is not to punish past instances of trespass, but to prevent future ones. The question is, does the surrounding property owner have the right to prevent Jim's trespassing on his property, including by building a wall. The answer is yes.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friendly suggestion, DA:

You should consider studying logic. You have a habit of making unwarranted assumptions and of coming to fallacious conclusions. Your entire argument here has been one giant, messy non-sequitur.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I doubt the OP's scenario would play well in any community, including Objectland.

I doubt such a scenario could take place at all, particularly in a community where all land is privately managed. Most of these bizarre urban glitches are caused by government over legislation or eminent domain. In fact I suspect, if the timing is right, that the OP was inspired by this real life story, reminiscent of Hitchhiker's guide, which obviously takes place in the mixed, directed economy of the People's Republic.

luohouse01.jpg

This duck farmer got lucky that the developers allowed him to lose a legal battle and get 40K US in comp instead of wielding the stick as they used to do.

Disney World, Fl, or Celebration, Fl, have come to existence thanks to the free market through shrewd purchases. Walt Disney's story is particularly inspiring and establishes a perfect precedent for private cities (and their roads).

As I hinted on post 340 and you explained on post 351 / step 1, the hypothetical situation we're discussing begins with the introduction of one element, loosely defined: private roads. It mentions a normal subdivision and someone buying all adjacent parcels to a house. At this point, save for the private road, this situation already exists and the outcome (in law abiding countries where private property is sacrosanct) is usually that the remaining house is sold for an above market price.

With the introduction of the concept of private roads the situation changes. But there are several meanings and interpretations:

Was an existing road privatized, then jacked up the prices or transformed it into a wall? Then this would constitute outright FRAUD under a legal system that favors Capitalism.

In contrast, in the current system, all the OP would need to do just that is hire an army of lawyers and lobbyists and snatch the property away from Jim legally through eminent domain. Because the only plausible explanation for building upon a road, under the OP's scenario of encircling, is to 'try to convince' an unwilling owner to sell.

Was an existing road privatized with the unanimous consent and compensation of every single last owner of the land adjacent to it?

Then no problem as long as the homeowners are informed about the obvious: that their house is worth more only because of the utilities it enjoys - that's why you make a profit when you buy a tract of land and subdivide it, even if you pay for opening and paving the roads yourself.

Is this normal subdivision on a gated community with already existing private roads? Then it continues to be contractual and could not be violated under a 'Capitalist Government'.

Am I twisting the OP's imaginary facts too? Do you see other alternatives as to how poor Jim came to that situation'? Maybe he forgot his towel.....

Presumed by whom? By you, because that's what you want to presume?

(...)

Your entire participation on this thread has had the purpose of arguing with the hypothetical.

If the initial post had stated that Jim owned a green rubber ball, you'd be arguing that we don't know for sure that it was a green ball, and that maybe it was actually a red ball and the initial poster was perhaps colorblind and therefore had misidentified its color.

The entire situation IS hypothetical and we have limited, generic descriptive information from the OP. (although the theme itself is trite and discussed over and over).

Your colored balls situation would be unexpected, or specific information that the OP should have given us (if we are to solve the puzzle). As far as we know he only mentions balls, not the color of it (he mentions private roads, not the specific nature of how the roads became private and its relationship with parcels that justifies its construction or purchase: because the OP said a normal subdivision not a highway and a ranch)

I suggest you complete the details the OP left out of the puzzle, and we'll reconsider the case from there.

All this cockamamie reminds me of the subject of enclaves and exclaves (political boundaries) and landlocked countries with only one neighbor (like Lesotho or The Vatican). You can see that in every case common sense-induced cooperation ensues, and enriches the area (UAE/Oman), and that where it doesn't (Armenia/Azerbaijan) it follow a previously existing conflict that would continue anyway were it a continuous border instead of splattered islands.

Edited by volco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I twisting the OP's imaginary facts too? Do you see other alternatives as to how poor Jim came to that situation'? Maybe he forgot his towel.....

My effort has been, and remains to work with the OP's scenario as given, which is that an average subdivision homeowner goes to work one day, all the property around him is purchased by a single new owner, and he is allowed to return home and be confined in order to test the legitimacy of:

1) a right to build stuff on your property, and

2) a right to prohibit trespassing.

I believe I've demonstrated, working with the OP's actual statements, that Jim never had the opportunity to trespass, and why the OP says Jim will be prevented from trespassing again. But even if he is the negligent trespasser J is convinced he is, how does being a trespasser make Jim appropriate to test the legitimacy of a right he's predisposed to ignore. In fact only a non-trespasser makes the problem approachable, otherwise Jim will simply scale the wall or walk on outta there.

It's been fun, but this bone's been chewed to death :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes or no, does the initial post specifically state that Jim's return trip from work was the only time that he used the land after it was purchased by the new owner?

Of course it does... I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to you anymore, but just for clarity:

"I decided to buy all the land adjacent to your house on all sides", followed by, "I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work, and then I erect a 30 foot wall", specifically states that Jim's return trip from work was the only time that he used the land after it was purchased by the new owner. There aren't any additional events given between these two statements, so how much more specific can the sequence of events be?!

Anyway, all of this arguing of yours against the hypothetical is an irrelevant distraction, because the point of the hypothetical is not to punish past instances of trespass, but to prevent future ones. The question is, does the surrounding property owner have the right to prevent Jim's trespassing on his property, including by building a wall. The answer is yes.

Apparently you think being able to accurately describe the OP's scenario equates to arguing the hypothetical... whatever. But yes, property owners do have the right to prohibit trespassing and build stuff on their property, so long as they respect others legitimate right to get to and from their property :P

Edited by Devil's Advocate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it does... I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to you anymore, but just for clarity:

"I decided to buy all the land adjacent to your house on all sides", followed by, "I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work, and then I erect a 30 foot wall", specifically states that Jim's return trip from work was the only time that he used the land after it was purchased by the new owner. There aren't any additional events given between these two statements, so how much more specific can the sequence of events be?!

Heh. I'll repeat my earlier friendly suggestion:

You should consider studying logic. You have a habit of making unwarranted assumptions and of coming to fallacious conclusions. Your entire argument here has been one giant, messy non-sequitur.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This headline reminded me of this topic:

Rich SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street

A couple of excerpts:

Tina Lam and Michael Cheng snatched up Presidio Terrace — the block-long, private oval street lined by 35 megamillion-dollar mansions — for $90,000 and change in a city-run auction stemming from an unpaid tax bill. They outlasted several other bidders.

Now they’re looking to cash in — maybe by charging the residents of those mansions to park on their own private street.

And later in the article:

San Jose residents Cheng and Lam wound up with the street, its sidewalks and every other bit of “common ground” in the private development that has been managed by the homeowners since at least 1905. That includes a string of well-coiffed garden islands, palm trees and other greenery that enhance the gated and guarded community

How did this come about:

The couple’s purchase appears to be the culmination of a comedy of errors involving a $14-a-year property tax bill that the homeowners association failed to pay for three decades. It’s something that the owners of all 181 private streets in San Francisco are obliged to do.

In a letter to the city last month, Scott Emblidge, the attorney for the Presidio Homeowners Association, said the group had failed to pay up because its tax bill was being mailed to the Kearny Street address used by an accountant who hadn’t worked for the homeowners since the 1980s.

How did the homeowners discover it:

Unsurprisingly, the residents were more than a little upset when they belatedly found out what had happened.

They didn’t learn that their street and sidewalks had been sold until they were contacted May 30 by a title search company working on behalf of Cheng and Lam, said Emblidge.

The homeowners are looking for a way to circumvent this. I would imagine as a private street, easements are already baked into the new owner's acquisition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The homeowners are looking for a way to circumvent this. I would imagine as a private street, easements are already baked into the new owner's acquisition.

Yes, I'm pretty sure easements would be baked in. In addition, I don't think the city should have sold the street without direct notice to the homeowners. In theory, they should have read the details of the arrangements in their sub. However, the reality is that we have this mixed system where cities have some responsibilities and home-owners have others, and it's often not clear -- to a typical lay-person -- who can do what and who has to do what.

This is also part of a different topic: standardized contracts (like standard marriage contracts).

Anyhow, the city ought to have informed the home-owners: even if it were done by posting a sign saying the street was going to be auctioned. 

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 8:16 AM, softwareNerd said:

This is also part of a different topic: standardized contracts (like standard marriage contracts).

This is one of the reasons why trying to resolve the OP's question in total isolation makes it difficult to address effectively. <sigh>

 

It is hard to believe that this went on for three decades and yet the "root cause" was never discovered until it became an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 5:15 AM, dream_weaver said:

The homeowners are looking for a way to circumvent this.

So just sue the city, which is obviously in the wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Nicky said:

So just sue the city, which is obviously in the wrong here.

They're going before city counsel in October, and have also sued the couple and the city regarding the matter.

Last month, the homeowners petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a hearing to rescind the tax sale. The board has scheduled a hearing for October.

In addition, the homeowners association has sued the couple and the city, seeking to block Cheng and Lam from selling the street to anyone while the city appeal is pending — a move residents fear could complicate their efforts to reclaim the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say I am a really big person, and you are tiny.  We are in a public park and you are on a park bench.

What if I do this:

1) I walk up behind you while you are sitting and I encircle you with my arms (I am not touching you) close enough that you cannot get outside of my arm-cage .  I tell you I am so strong that you could not leave while I am there, which is true, but also assure you that I wont touch you. Would this be legal in a free society?  (Idiots will argue that I am merely exercising the right to move my body around in public without touching you)

2) Let's say I don't actually create an inescapable arm-cage - I tell you that you can get up but you'd have to touch me and that would be assault, and I am not giving you permission to assault me (aka so now you can't leave, because my body which you don't own completely surrounds you). Legal in a free society?  (Idiots might argue since you don't own my body you cannot escape without my permission)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

...  I encircle you with my arms (I am not touching you) ...

That would be physical assault.
Basically, something moves from threat to action, and at some point the action can be judged -- by a reasonable man standard -- to be moving toward actual physical harm. That is the point at which it usually becomes "assault". One can come up with some other term, I guess, but that might be multiplying concepts beyond necessity.
If a car is already racing toward to with intent to run you over, the assault has begun.

 

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

That would be physical assault.
Basically, something moves from threat to action, and at some point the action can be judged -- by a reasonable man standard -- to be moving toward actual physical harm. That is the point at which it usually becomes "assault". One can come up with some other term, I guess, but that might be multiplying concepts beyond necessity.
If a car is already racing toward to with intent to run you over, the assault has begun.

 

(Idiots will argue that I am merely exercising the right to move my body around in public without touching you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×