[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

No. Criminal trespass requires the property being trespassed upon be enclosed against intruders. Trespass is a otherwise a tort.

If you let me into your house, then I proceed to erect a bonfire in your living room, have I not committed a crime? Would it be a special service for the police to enter your house and stop me from further destroying your property? If you let me into your business, and I proceed to operate my own lemonade stand within your property, would it be a special service for the police to stop me from doing so?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Traffic law is currently administered as driver vs. the state because the the roads are public. If roads were private, traffic regulations would be contract law and would be administered as civil law is: driver vs. road owner is between two private citizens. Your own surveillance systems and security guards would patrol the roads and issue notices equivalent to notices for a civil court suit. Police would only show up after actual crimes are committed, no extra charge.

Speeding is a crime today only because the offended party is the state.

So, it's not a crime to use my property against my wishes?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

There is something wrong if the police are providing that service for free.

I think we'd both agree people should pay to support their government. So, the police would not be providing this service for free - the rational road owner would voluntarily pay to ensure the police existed in order to safeguard his rights. However, the above seems to imply that the road owner would be sent a bill by the police, or that the road owner would be forced to pay to have his rights protected. Is this what you mean? If so, what makes police action a service in this context, but not a service in others?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

This talk of the government being able to set up procedural rules for any but the most extreme cases (for example, if I were to want to build a nuke to detonate on my 100 million acres of property just for kicks, as that would be an extremely dangerous situation that would, at best, have to be monitored extremely closely) to be a very slippery slope indeed. If government can tell me what the traffic rules must be on my road, why can't it tell me how I have to keep my financial records? Why can't it tell me what sorts of ads I can and cannot display? Why can't it tell me what the rules must be for me to hire and fire people? Why can't it tell me how to mow my lawn, or how to educate my children, (or run my school, if I am educating many children)? Why does the government get to order me to do some things (that do not violate other people's rights) but now others?

Either property rights are held inviolate (except in very very clearly delimited emergency circumstances, and even then full compensation with interest should be provided after the end of the emergency), or we have no principle upon which to defend and condemn some actions over others except mere utilitarianism or pragmatism. I don't see a difference in kind between the dictation of procedural rules and the seizure of property- only a difference in degree of interference.

I agree, and I'm not sure where the line is drawn between being forbidden from detonating a nuke and being required to place a sign on your business. However, in the context of police pulling people over on private roads, certainly there's nothing wrong with the police enforcing an owner's objective rules.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Suit yourself.

Exactly.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Simply stating that someone is wrong without immediately giving reasons does not amount to an argument from authority. It's simply a statement of one's position. An argument from authority is an attempt to support an argument by appealing to the fact that some authority agrees with it. There is nothing of that sort here. Perhaps you were looking for argument from intimidation, but even that is overreaching, unless you consider someone clearly stating their position an attempt at intimidation.

Marc K. specifically states RB's arguments are well reasoned, then proceeds to argue RB's disagreement with JeffT can be seen as agreement with mine. He establishes RB as an authority, then argues that authority could be interpreted to provide validity to my argument. That's appeal to authority of a form.

To rational people, what RB says about JeffT's argument or my argument means nothing to the validity of either. To Marc K. it's worrisome enough to take time out of his day and caution others against making the same error he did. And who are these others? The only reasonable assumption is that Marc believes there are people here who can't think for themselves.

Beside that, it's an easy way for him to do a drive-by without having to provide any evidence of his claims. It's a cheap shot that deserved a response.

Alternatively, we can stick to supporting our respective positions with arguments instead of posturing.

That would be nice, but Marc K. is incapable of doing so. Furthermore, I don't like having people denigrate me without responding. Should I? Is it in my rational self-interests to have a poster bully me ad nauseum without defending myself? I can think of several reasons why it is not.

JeffT and I were having a nice debate until Marc jumped in with his school-yard remarks; a point that seems to be missing here.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

JeffT, while perhaps being wrong on a point or two, is correct in the principles he is advocating while JeffS is wrong. So it appears as though you are sanctioning JeffS's illogic at the expense of JeffT's principled argument.

So Marc K has decreed, and so it must be! Let all who doubt, or seek reasoned and logical debate forthwith be silenced for they know not how to reason to their own conclusions, they must be given the proper message!

Amen.

Really, Marc, that you post such a flagrant attempt at appeal to authority simply solidifies my opinion of you. Well done.

@philosopher

Great post, and it bears repeating for those who would tend to equate argument with, "Well, who said that?"

No one has the right to do whatever he pleases on a public street (nor would he have such a right on a privately owned street). The police power to maintain order among pedestrians or to control traffic is a procedural, not a substantive, power. A traffic policeman enforces rules of how to drive (in order to avoid clashes or collisions), but cannot tell you where to go.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

I am not really sure precisely where the breakdown would fall. The point is that police don't proactively enforce all contracts between two private parties.

You're "not really sure precisely where the breakdown would fall" because there's no objective measure to be found. I think you need to re-evaluate what really qualifies as objective facts of reality.

How is stopping someone currently violating the rights of another considered "proactive?"

No, my speed limit example is different because there is a prior contract involved. My "arbitrary value" was speculating about when the police would regard a behavior as threatening above and beyond the fact that it might also be a contract violation. Therefore, it does not imply that I regard shoplifting below some small, arbitrary value to be not a crime. Shoplifting any amount is a crime.

No, my analogy stands. Shoplifting is a crime because taking another's property makes it impossible for him to live by his own reason. Unilaterally breaking the terms of a contract is a crime because it is the taking of another's property in another way, as such it likewise makes it impossible for him to live by his own reason.

You need to focus on principles here.

Correct, it is not necessarily fraud. Fraud means it must have been willful. And then, fraud is a crime.

Then you disagree with Ms. Rand on this point?

Another of the effects is not. The threat that the perpetrator presents society is not the same.

Who is this "society" guy and how did he get involved in a contract between two individuals?

Ask a different example: If I accidentally knock over and destroy a vase in a store, should the police not get involved if it appears that I am remaining at the scene to speak with the store owner about reimbursing? Particularly if the police see it and ask the store owner "Everything handled?" And the owner says "Yep, we've worked it out." I think they shouldn't. Yet if the police observed me smashing a vase deliberately, they might well arrest me and charge me with a crime regardless of whether the store owner separately is able to extract compensation.

Neat little hypothetical you've set up here. So, the guy sticks around? What if he didn't? What if he... oh, I don't know... say, broke the vase as he ran through the store and continued running when he was outside? Should the cops stop him then? If the police saw it, why would they ask if the store owner had it "handled?" Are you suggesting they would get involved if the owner did not, in fact, have it "handled?" If so, why should they? Why would the police arrest you for deliberately breaking a vase in a shop where you pay to break vases? Shouldn't they deliberate on whether or not a crime has actually been committed? Shouldn't they consider that it was only a small vase, and certain "cushions" are built into all businesses to allow for some losses due to breakage? Or, should they consider that you may be a serial vase breaker and a dire threat to "society?"

A well-known concept in criminal law. The degree of intent is what distinguishes murder from negligent homicide, for example.

We're not discussing degree of a crime. We're discussing whether a crime has been committed at all. You're arguing that speeding by some arbitrary number over the posted limit is not a crime, while speeding over that arbitrary number is a crime. You're using this arbitrary number to arbitrarily claim it to be proof of intent.

Indeed, you determine it through the available facts. But in the case of speeding on private roads, civil recompense to the property owner is provided for regardless of intent, so it's not an issue.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you explain further, please?

In most situations it isn't the purview of police. But it might be if they are investigating organized crime, or planned heists. But the primary distinction that is relevant to most of the examples in this thread is whether something is a contractual violation or not. Sometimes, police do need to make the determination of intent, but mostly it is evident from the type of act being observed.

Like perhaps noticing that a property owner has the terms of use of his property clearly posted and that someone else is violating those terms?

Do you really think that returning a rented item late is no different than shoplifting the item?

Of course they're different, but they are both rights violations. Do you really believe the police should not get involved in rights violations?

Do you really think that if you are behind on a rented item by one day, the police should be able to enter your house to arrest you or reclaim it (absent evidence of prior intent to not return it)?

Of course, do you really believe I should be allowed to get away with rights violations because you've made some arbitrary determination that they're really just not that egregious? When does objective law make its debut?

On a private road, neither the courts nor the police would need to get involved in most cases. The government police would not be doing the work of enforcing minor traffic violations on private roads as that would be a subsidy. The road owner would be doing it at their own expense (ultimately paid for by the users, or by fines of violators, or some combination of both).

We're not discussing whether the police or courts "would need to get involved in most cases." We're discussing whether or not they can, and whether or not they should. Whether or not they "would" was handled long ago when I pointed out that road owners would need to objectively determine where to place the limits, and whether to prosecute those who were ticketed.

That's exactly why an "arbitrary" limit on the amount over the speed limit is rational.

Hmmmm, nothing arbitrary is ever rational.

In Ayn Rand's essay "Government Financing in a Free Society", she stated, regarding court enforcements of contracts:

"Yet, today, this service is provided gratuitously and amounts, in effect, to a subsidy." (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 136)

This is a topic for another thread because it deserves a far greater depth of discussion than what I'll provide here. I'll only say that you should think about what this means. Does it mean that enforcing contracts is not a function of government; that unilateral breach of a contract is not a rights violation, and therefore not under the purview of the government? Or, does it mean that paying for the government to provide that service would be in the rational self-interests of the contract parties?

What I had in mind with my distinction is the difference between occasional, unplanned speeding (under the knowledge that anytime one speeds one has a random chance of getting fined and thus cannot do it with impunity) and something like routinely speeding using a radar detector, or live reports of the location of speed traps, only slowing down when a cop is nearby--basically, operating under a pre-planned routine by which one can (attempt to) continually beat the system.

The point is the police have no way of objectively determining whether a speeder is acting under the former or the latter. The police have only the facts that 1) there is a limit, and 2) the driver is travelling over that limit. You're arguing that only the latter is a crime (since it is premeditated), and that cops should get involved in crimes, but there's no way for them to distinguish between the two - certainly not by setting arbitrary limits over the posted speed.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Yes, if police have evidence of intent. Particularly if one or more individuals are scheming to find ways to frequently speed and avoid detection.

And how would the police get such evidence of intent? A guy blows past a cop traveling 15mph over the speed limit, is that evidence that he did not intend to travel at that speed? If so, how so? Nearly everyone I know who speeds intentionally travel at some rate over the posted speed limit. I'm sure you've heard such justifications like, "If you only travel 5 mph over the speed limit the cops won't pull you over." Isn't this intentional speeding? Your delimiting of 15mph over is not a crime, but 25mph over is a crime is arbitrary. If not, I would like to know what objective fact of reality these limits are based upon. What is the objective fact of reality proving that a car traveling at 15mph over the speed limit is not a threat, but the difference of an extra 10mph is?

I agree with this--shoplifting is a crime because no prior agreement exists.

Shoplifting is a crime because it's theft of another's property. Your argument is akin to arguing the cops shouldn't stop a shoplifter who only stole something worth a couple bucks, or some other arbitrary value.

I don't agree with this. If a person doesn't return their rented DVD on time, that's a crime? Forgetting by a day is no different than walking out of the store with unpaid merchandise? I'm not arguing that it's not a rights violation, but that's different than a crime.

Is it not fraud to keep another's property "without the consent of [the] owner?" Is fraud not a crime? Is a crime not a "violation of the rights of other men by force (or fraud)." (All quotes Ayn Rand)

I suggest you rethink whether accidental, unplanned contract violations are as "odious" as intentional acts to harm another.

Is the effect not the same? If I intend to prevent you from earning a living, aren't you just as injured as if I didn't intend to prevent you from earning a living? If I shoot you, aren't you just as injured whether the gun accidentally went off in my hand or I meant to shoot you? Should the police not get involved if they believe I didn't intend to shoot you?

Your argument rests upon this nebulous determination of "intent." How can you objectively determine whether someone intended to defraud another? If you're lucky, you get some witnesses to testify that the criminal told them their plans, but you're not going to get that with someone speeding. The objective facts of reality are: 1) the road owner set a speed limit on his road as a condition of using his property, 2) an individual is travelling over that speed limit, 3) thus, that individual is in the process of violating the rights of the property owner. Placing the police in the position of making some arbitrary decision about whether the individual intends on violating the rights of the property owner is not only irrational, it's not within the purview of the police. The police are tasked with using force to stop rights violations. They are not tasked with deliberating and contemplating the finer points of rights violations - they are not judge and jury.

It's somewhat misleading to describe the courts as the "back burner" of government protection as the police will enforce a court order. Rights violations in a contract are ultimately backed up by the same force as the police can provide to stop a violent crime in progress.

But in another sense, I disagree--the different branches of government should disproportionately place resources on stopping immediate, severe physical threats, as contract violations can be worked out after the fact and recompense paid.

The courts call in the police when they have determined a rights violation has occurred and it is necessary to force the violator to comply; when deliberation and examination of facts is required in order to determine a rights violation has occurred. Why would the courts need to get involved when the objective facts are as clear as a posted contract and a clear, objectively determined (i.e. speed>posted speed) violation of that contract?

What are "severe physical threats?" If I only steal your property, is that severe and physical? If I make it impossible for you to do business without ever raising my hand to you, or threatening you, or doing anything physical to you, is that a "severe physical threat?"

[questions for Stephen Hawking]

If you're traveling at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on, what happens?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Are you arguing that a property owner must always be consulted to comply with the owners terms before the police may properly carry out their job? If that's the case then all you have to do is think about how that would work out in reality. If that police chase scenario were to happen consider how the criminal is already speeding anyway, whether you agree with it or not.

I'm not sure to whom this is addressed, but I want to make it clear that this is not my position. My position is that the police are the force arm of government, and as such must apply that force when rights are being violated. If the terms of the use of my road are clearly posted (e.g. a speed limit sign), then I fully expect the police to intervene when those terms are being violated (i.e. someone is speeding). Just as I would expect them to use force when someone tries to leave a store with something they haven't paid for, or tried to pay with some form of money the merchant doesn't accept. A unilateral breach of contract is as odious a crime as taking someone's life. Just because it doesn't involve immediate physical injury to another doesn't relegate it to the back burner of government protection.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

The entirety of your response ignores the difference between crimes (direct initiation of force or threats of force from one individual to another, anywhere) and contract violations (failure of one party to carry out the terms of an agreed-upon obligation, which spans a duration of time, between two people who have previously agreed to such). A violation of a contract is, in most cases, not a crime, barring certain exceptions such as fraud (an intentional act), or entering the contract with prior intent not to fulfill it.

A violation of a contract (even unintentional) is a rights violation, but it's under the purview of the courts, not the police.

So, if you intentionally speed on my road, then it's a crime and the police should get involved?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Police don't enforce violation of a contract. In fact, that they would do so implies that all contracts must be preemptively provided to the government, and that it is forbidden for two people to make a private contract (which might only be revealed if one sues the other).

Then who would enforce violation of a contract? The police are the only governmental body (aside from the military) able to enforce anything. The police and military are the force "arms" of the government. Courts do not enforce anything, they don't have the resources to do that. Courts pass judgement.

Suppose you come into my restaurant, do something I don't much appreciate, and I ask you to leave. You refuse. What can I do? Can I physically remove you? If you agree the government has a monopoly on the use of force, then shouldn't I call the government? Whom in the government should I call? Should I call my local court? Do I wait until the court has issued an order for you to leave my premises? I hope you would agree this is a ridiculous course of events. Yet, to argue I must call the courts when someone breaks the rules on my road is to argue I must call the courts when someone breaks the rules of my restaurant.

In fact, I would call the police to have you forcibly removed from my restaurant. It's not necessary for them to know everything I do and do not allow in my restaurant; it's not necessary for them to know why I want you out of it. They only need to know that it is my restaurant and I don't want you in it. Similarly, it's not necessary for the police to know all the terms of the contract which governs the use of my road, only that someone is on my road and are currently violating my rights. It's not necessary for the police to know the terms of every contract, only that one party is alleged to have violated them, or is in the process of violating them. If more deliberation is needed - if there's some dispute as to whose rights were violated, or even if any rights were violated - then the courts are brought into the picture. If it is determined that rights have been violated, then you can bet it won't be the courts enforcing their decision - it will be the police because they are the only ones equipped to do so.

What if two people have an amendment to an earlier contract, which the police don't know about? What if such amendment is verbal? (Which is, of course, risky to either party, but should not be illegal, as each party may trust the other.) By "enforcing" the first contract in lieu of the amendment, police would be violating their rights.

Sounds like a good time to call in the courts to sort out whose rights were violated.

If the police are not charged with protecting my rights, what are they charged with?

[Debating First Principles: Demos vs. Ayn Rand]

Thank you, both, for posting this. I don't why it took me so long to realize this, but it suddenly hit me while listening to this "generic democrat" that liberals/progressives/socialists/whateveryouwannacallem are very eager to use force on their own country-people, yet strangely reluctant to use force on anyone else. Using nearly the same words, this guy argues that it's okay for a democracy to use force to get the "set of things we all want in our society," and that it's not okay for a democracy to use force to get things we all want in our society within six minutes.

I get so irritated listening to these people, and particularly frustrated that rarely, if ever, are single contradictions ever hammered on. I would rather listen to a debate where just one, single, first-principle is clearly and fully debated. Perhaps then guys like this "generic democrat," and those mindless drones applauding in the audience, can get a clearer picture of how contradictory and hypocritical their positions are.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Do you accept or reject the distinction between criminal and civil law?

Accept, though that runs contrary to what Ms. Rand wrote:

"A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong)." - Ayn Rand

She describes fraud, and a unilateral breach of contract, as an indirect use of force, therefore an indirect use of force is a crime just as a direct use of force is a crime. I don't know what a "civil wrong" would be and have found no other use of this term in the Lexicon.

However, I agree that what you describe is how our legal system operates today. In an objectivist society, I'm not sure how it would work. Our civil code comes mainly from common law - i.e. precedent and judicial rulings. In an objectivist society, with objective law, what room is there for precedent? What room is there for the subjective ruling of a judge in making law? Certainly there is room for judgement based on context, but their decision wouldn't become law.

Furthermore, I don't believe the direct use of force is always so obvious. If your wallet is sitting on your work desk, and I walk by and take it, is that now a civil matter while my breaking into your desk to steal your wallet a criminal matter? Is the only distinction, "Was something, or someone broken in the act?"

In an objective society, the police would be used to counter physical force, and prevent or stop apparent rights violations. A man pointing a gun at another man - apparent rights violation; call the police to counter the physical force. A man refuses to leave a restaurant - apparent rights violation; call the police. A man is speeding down my highway when I've clearly posted a speed limit - apparent rights violation; call the police.

The courts would be used to arbitrate differences between men when the violation of rights, if any at all, is not so clear. Now, perhaps the man pointing the gun just took the gun away from the man he was pointing it at because the man he was pointing it at attempted to rob him - not so clear whose rights were violated; call in the courts. Perhaps the man refused to leave the restaurant because he's a part owner and his partner and he are arguing - not so clear whose rights were violated; call in the courts. Perhaps, though I've clearly posted a speed limit, I give a little leeway and I don't want to prosecute the speeder - not so clear if rights were violated; call in the courts. If it is determined that a violation of rights has occurred then, according to the quote above, a crime has been committed.

Again, I don't know where "civil wrong" fits into this.

This entire discussion began with the assertion that the police would not be on private roads pulling people over. That, objectively, is simply ridiculous. If we were to accept that conclusion, then we would have to accept that the police would be nowhere. In an objectivist society, all property is private property. If the police can't act on roads because they're private property, where then can the police act? If the police can't make a determination as to whether rights are being violated on private roads because they are private roads, how can they make a determination as to whether rights are being violated anywhere? Would there be no police on private sidewalks arresting people for fighting? Maybe the owner of that sidewalk is a fight promoter and he's training new boxers.

Slightly ridiculous, yet still plausible. My point is that the police are not a deliberative body. They can't be tasked with determining who is at fault, they can only be tasked with stepping in when an apparent rights violation has occurred. If they were wrong, then that is what the courts are for. When the terms of the contract for using my road are clearly posted, and an officer sees someone breaking the terms of that contract, pulling him over is no different than an officer stopping someone on a private sidewalk who's pointing a gun at another person. Just as my life is at risk when a man points a gun at me, my life is at risk when someone uses my property against my wishes.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

Contract violations are considered civil matters, not criminal matters. You sue the person violating the contract, the state doesn't arrest the other party. Cops don't get involved.

Yet the police are sometimes used to ensure contract violators appear in court. Why would they not be used to apprehend road contract violators?

"A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong)." - Ayn Rand

Violating the terms of the contract which governs the use of my road is a violation of my rights by fraud. It is an initiation of (indirect) physical force against me. It is a crime.

Physical force is the only way to violate someone's rights, the political rights that everyone has. That is objective.

It is obviously false that your life is threatened merely by a contract dispute.

My rights are not violated if someone breaks the terms of a my contract? Surely that can't be what you're saying.

"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force...." - Ayn Rand

Just as the T.V. thief is using physical force to haul my property away, the speeder is using physical force to use my road, my property, against my wishes.

"If a contract is broken by the arbitrary decision of one man, it may cause a disastrous financial injury to the other . . . . This leads to one of the most important and most complex functions of the government: to the function of an arbiter who settles disputes among men according to objective laws." - Ayn Rand

I make my living by selling the use of my road. My ability to market and sell that use is directly related to the rules I choose to put upon that road as well as my ability to ensure those rules are followed - that the expectations of my customers, based upon those rules, actually comport with reality. If my rules are broken, if what I advertise is not the reality of my road, then people will likely not want to use my road. How, then, am I to survive?

Breaking the rules of my road, violating the terms of the contract that govern the use of my road, violates my rights and is clearly a threat to my life.

@Marc K. - Well, I tried. I tried to engage with you again in the hopes that perhaps you had matured, but instead I see you still grasp the inability to reason through your arguments as an adult. Once again, as you see your argument fall apart, you revert to personal attacks and petty remarks. It's unfortunate, really. What this world needs is more people who calmly and rationally think through their arguments rather than people who devolve into playground antics. We already have too many of those. I made the mistake of thinking you had learned that. I won't make the same mistake again. Good luck, and thanks for the previous discussions.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

The proper function of police is to protect your rights when they are in imminent danger. You are not in imminent danger if someone is driving 5 mph over the speed limit. You might be in imminent danger if someone is driving 100 mph over the limit, and you most certainly are in danger if they are weaving all over the road. Driving 5, 10 or 15 mph over the speed limit (on highways) is a contract dispute between two willing contractors and is not comparable to a thief breaking into your house.

I don't know what you mean by "imminent danger." You're making some arbitrary distinction between what is a rights violation and what is not a rights violation when an objective distinction is glaringly evident. If the T.V. is mine, and someone is taking it from me, then my rights have been violated. There's nothing "imminent" about it. If the road is mine, and I get to set the rules by which people use it, and someone is violating those rules, then my rights have been violated. Again, there's nothing "imminent" about it.

You seem to be saying, "Well, stealing someone's T.V. is more important than breaking the terms of any contract." Yet I can't determine by what obective measure you're making this claim.

It seemed as if you were headed down the road to saying: "If the police don't pull over every motorist who is going 5 mph over the speed limit, then my rights are being abrogated". This is absurd and unworkable and as I said, a non-issue in a free society. However, if this isn't where you were headed, then I apologize.

I've been maintaining that it is the responsibility of the police to protect my rights domestically; they must prevent, to the best of their ability, anyone from violating my rights. Whatever rules I set on my road are part of the contract for the use of that road. I expect the police to prevent anyone from breaking the terms of that contract, or to prevent further contract violations. Therefore, they could be pulling people over on private roads.

If the terms of my contract are so rigid as to forbid anyone from traveling 5mph over the speed limit, then I would expect the police to stop anyone who is driving 5mph over the speed limit. I would also expect not to have many people using my road, but that is beside the point. It is not the responsibility of the police to establish some arbitrary limit, or to determine some subjective point at which the traveller's actions are "imminent[ly] dangerous." The police don't get to decide when my rights are being violated when an objective measure of that violation is clearly evident. It is my right to determine, objectively, what rules I expect to be followed on my roads. Once those rules are determined, and the terms of the contract are established, I fully expect the police to prevent any rights violations.

Yes, for egregious violations that actually threaten peoples lives.

Again, you're making some subjective determination that such-and-such action violates the right to suck in oxygen, and is therefore more important than some-other action which only violates one's right to earn a living. Both rights have equal importance since both violate my one fundamental right to life. "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life." - Ayn Rand

Violating the terms of the contract which governs the rules of my road "actually threaten" my life.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

First of all the nature of the two interactions is completely different: one is involuntary the other is voluntary.

Yet both involve the same principle: rights are being violated. Either it is the proper function of the police to protect my rights domestically, or it is not. If it is, then they should protect my rights in all cases, not just when it's convenient or practical.

Beyond that is the practicality issue. We don't and shouldn't have preventive or proactive law. Most of the TV stealing and speeding that goes on today is not caught by the police but that isn't a reason to have a police officer assigned to every person to ensure that they don't commit a crime. I suppose you could be ensured of no rights violations that way but I wouldn't call it a free society.

What is preventative or proactive about pulling over someone who is currently abrogating another's rights?

I'm sure most private road owners would invite the police to travel their roads, would be glad that they did and it would be a good selling point for their product.

I agree, but your post seems to indicate those police wouldn't be doing anything. Why have the police travel my roads if they're just practicing preventative or proactive law? If there are private roads, would the police be pulling people over?

[Yaron Brook - Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit Speech]

As far as I am aware, they are not associated with them, depending on how you define association in this context. However, they have always stated that they believe the Tea Party movement could be a powerful force for change IF it had proper intellectual leadership and philosophy injected into it.

Around 2:29 he states, "Now, we have taken the name 'Tea Parties'...." The inclusive "we" would indicate at least he is a Tea Party member. I'm not sure if he's there representing ARI or Yaron Brook, but one would have to assume at least his support by this statement.

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

No. The government should have a monopoly on retaliation. My previous answers made the difference between what the Police should do, and what owners of property can do themselves, clear.

We're not discussing retaliation. We're discussing a rights violation in process. If the terms of using my road are that you cannot travel over a particular speed, and you travel over that speed, then I fully expect the police to use force to prevent the continuation of that rights violation. Just as I would expect the police to stop someone from stealing my property.

Would you mind telling me whether or not the police would be able to stop someone on a private road for violating any particular terms of that road owner's contract?

I can see privately owned roads having their own private security.

Certainly, but that is not really the question. Just as I can stop someone from trying to steal my T.V., I have every right to stop someone from speeding on my road. The question is, are the police under the same obligation? Certainly they're obligated to stop someone from stealing my T.V. Are they not also obligated to stop someone from speeding on my road?

[Yaron Brook - Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit Speech]

Hmmm... Is the ARI associating itself with the Tea Party movement? If so, given that the party is so amorphous, is there any particular branch it's associating itself with?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

I don't really see this issue as one where the police aren't obligated to step in until you do something. Rather, most of the time the police getting involved in small matters just doesn't make sense, from the violated party's perspective.

I understand, and agree. However, to state that the police "would not be able to pull anyone over for breaking the regulations of the Road company" is simply not true. If someone is violating the terms of my contract, then I fully expect the police to get involved. If the terms of my contract are explicitly and publicly stated (such as a speed limit sign), then I fully expect the police to pull them over for driving over the speed limit.

Road owners would recognize this immediately, and simply withhold some of their donations and turn the funds to private enforcement of the road rules instead.

So, it would be okay for road owners to have their own police force to ensure their own private rules are being followed? Can that work for all contracts? Can I, for example, have my associates, Sammy-the-Bull and Little Joey, visit the people who haven't paid back their loans and "convince" them to do so?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

The Police are obligated to provide reasonable protection from trespassers. But that just means they must step in if the property owner's efforts to prevent trespassing fail.

The Police are not obligated to stand by in movie theaters for instance, to make sure no one violates the no-talking rule. If someone does, the property owner must try to get them to leave, and may call on the Police if he fails. Similarly, the Police and legal system would only be needed when a speeding driver refuses to stop and leave the road, or when he tries to repeatedly come back despite being banned.

An analogous real life example would be the case of the Muslim student group who's members were recently charged with a felony, for organizing to repeatedly disrupt the speeches of pro-Israeli speakers on various California campuses. While the legal system does not concern itself with individual hecklers who show up at events and are removed by the organizers, this group became too much for organizers to handle. The Police, and later the DA, had to step in. Similarly, the Police or the legal system would have to step in when someone cannot be prevented from speeding by reasonable measures on the part of the road's owner.

Hmmm.... I understand your point, but I'm not yet on board. How does this work with my other, non-contract, rights? Do I have to make an effort to prevent someone from killing me before the police are obligated to provide reasonable protection from my murderer? If someone has me locked up in their basement, must I make an attempt at escape before the police are obligated to protect my right to liberty? If someone steals my property, must I make an effort to get it back, or must I make an effort to prevent it from being stolen in the first place before the police are obligated to protect my right to property?

Either the function of the police is to protect the rights of its citizens, and thus they must protect those rights, or it is not. Just as the police have every right to enter my house to protect me from a would-be murderer, they have every right to travel my private road to protect my contract rights. Moreover, it is in my self-interests that they should do so. If I have limits on speed, it's presumably a self-interested business decision (perhaps travelers prefer my road because they feel those speed limits save lives). Speeders degrade that business decision and harm my ability to earn a living just as surely as a thief, murderer, or kidnapper harm me.

[Obama: Law Against Gay Marriage Unconstitutional]

Another issue I find interesting is the idea that the Executive branch can decide not to enforce the laws passed by the Legislative branch. Gives a ray of hope that the next President may decide not to enforce Obamacare, maybe other laws.

Pretty much par for the course for this administration. "Don't like Obamacare? Are you my buddy? Then don't worry about it. I'll give you a waiver." "Oh, the court system outlawed my oil drilling moratorium. No matter, I'll just have my bureaucrats sit on the applications." "I got a czar for everything."

My question is, why isn't anyone calling him on it?

[Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads]

I agree with Tanaka, but what they would not be able to do is pull anyone over for breaking the regulations of the Road company.

If I travel 65mph on a private road that the owner has forbidden travel at greater than 60mph, am I not violating that road owner's rights? If not, why not? If so, aren't the police obligated to stop me from violating the road owner's rights?