New Buddha

To get the most out of Bach, you need to invest some time in understanding the era in which he worked. A greatly simplified example of Bach can be seen in the song "Row, Row Row Your Boat...." Bach takes a basic motif such as Row, Row, Your Boat. and will begin in the Soprano voice. After one complete statement by the Soprano, the Tenor may join in - but at a slightly delayed start point. After the Tenor, the Alto and Bass may follow. In it's most simple form, this is known as a cannon. There are other such basic forms from the period such as Preludes, Fugues, etc. - each with their own unique forms and rules. The magic of Bach, and what separate him from other composers of his time and other composers throughout history, was his ability to take fairly basic musical themes (often times not even his own) and to transform them into utterly complex compositions with multiple lines or voices (SATB) all working together in complete (vertical) harmony. What makes listening to Bach so exciting is that it is YOUR ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT in tracing these various forms and lines through their development. Bach's much truly never grows old and holds up to repeated listening - in part because you never hear the same piece in exactly the same way twice. This is the nature of Bach's music (and music of the Baroque era in general). It did not evoke images of real world objects or scenes from every day life. It was in fact, Beethoven's 6th that was the first to do this type of direct representation. If anyone is interested, I would suggest buying a copy of Bach's Partita No. 2 for solo violin (Lara St. John did a wonderful recording of it). It's first four movements Allemanda, Corrente, Sarabanda & Giga (all unique, musical forms) are brought together in an orgasmic conclusion - the Ciaccona. But you will need to listen to it repeatedly to understand it and get the most out of it. But it's truly worth the effort.

I would vote for her idea that each object, whether animate or inanimate, is an end within itself. And that nothing can cause something to behave in a manner not in accordance with it's nature. So much of her philosophy rests upon this premise. I see this as a reversal of Aristotle's idea of the "Prime Mover". There is no one Prime Mover -- each thing is it's own Prime Mover.

Hairnet, Imagine that you know for a fact that you are going to die one week from now. Now imagine that you know for a fact that you will live for 1000 years. Would you live life differently in either case?

Something is right or wrong because you decide it is right or wrong.

Or the answer to this post?

I believe that the answer is, respecting the writings of Rand - as opposed to what you or I think she "really" meant - keeps Objectivism from splintering into small groups, each claiming to be "true" Objectivists. Such splintering has always tended to dilute any movement. If you don't agree with a position of hers, fine - but that doesn't mean that you have to re-define what Objectivism "really" is. Respect what she wrote, but think for yourself.

I'm reluctant to put words in your mouth, but it appears that you do believe that in an O'ist society, property owner A could show "need" and demand of property owner B that he record an easement on his property?

I believe the answer is that the line is mathematically '0' (non-dimensional?) and cannot be inhabited or owned by anyone. It's infinitely divisible.

I'm not quite following your argument. Are you saying that easements impose no obligation on a property? and thus by extension, impose no obligation upon a property Owner? And by easements, I don't mean easements that have accrued over time under our current land use laws -- I mean specifically, easements that one might be obligated to provide by an O'ist government, as some appear to be arguing on this post.

softwareNerd @ 214: I meant that the specifics of this post are, What right does one have to traverse over another's property? I'm merely pointing out that you neighbor doesn't have to construct a brick-and-mortar wall to "wall you in" .

Jonathan and I seem to be the only two persons on this post to understand that the issue has nothing to do with "walling" in a person. The issue is, What right does one person have to traverse another individual's property? And even more important, what right does one person have to force another individual to record an easement which would dramatically curtail his further development of said piece of property. Even our current government supports a greater respect for individual property rights then most who have been trying to answer this question.

As I've stated in similar posts, I do believe that cities can be constructed where all road, utilities, etc. are privately owned -- it's just that such cities would look nothing like current American cities. The problem at hand is how would we go about converting existing cities that were surveyed and parceled using Public Ways to assure movement with out trespassing between private properties. It needs to be pointed out too, that currently, roads are typically built on top of sanitary, water, storm, power and tele-communication lines. Not only would you need to consider physical access to a given property, when converting a city (or surveying a new city) but you would also have to account for how utilities would reach properties. Could someone be compelled to have buried a utility line across their property to access another property down the line? Once such a utility easement is created, it severely restrict the further development of a property. As a rule, you do not build over utility lines. Also, where buildings have 100% lot coverage (such as typical of downtown's) you have to account for stormwater disposal. You cannot divert stormwater onto your neighbor's property (without his consent). Currently, stormwater from roofs are discharged into city stormwater lines buried under roads (or at grade culverts, etc,) and are discharged down stream on to Public Ways. I think a more feasible solution would be to reconsider restructuring the current Municipal Corporation to a type of voluntary, private corporation in which you have some form of actual ownership. In reality, maintaining roads and utilities is not that expensive, and their existence contributes greatly to the quality of you life, your property value and the economic vitality of your city. They are a good investments.

From a random page on the internet: William.... William the Conqueror and his successors, claimed ownership of all the land in England, and everyone else held their land either directly or indirectly from the King.[iv] The King then entered into agreements with his most important lords (at first, those who commanded the most troops), whereby they were given certain lands to rule in exchange for services to the Crown. These agreements were called tenures. The lords were tenants in chief, and the services they rendered were usually military. The tenants in chief would then enter into similar agreements with others, who would do the same on down the line. This process was called subinfeudation, and it resulted in a pyramidal structure of land holding. Anyone below the King who granted lands to others in exchange for services was a mesne lord (intermediate lord), and the one in actual possession of the land was a tenant in demesne or vassal. The vassal was said to be seised of the fief; seisin being the possessory use of land. Seisin was created by feoffment with livery of seisin, a ceremony that took place on the land, in which the lord formally handed over use symbolically with a clod of earth. I don't know that ancient land laws are the best place to look for direction.

J13, not to be petty (because you and I both want an answer to the same question) but on post #83 I pointed out that, in a society with no Public Ways, all land would be landlocked. I also questioned if private individuals in an O'ist society could own rivers (could the Mississippi or the Columbia River be owned by a private individual?). Land laws must be clearly defined. I'm working with a developer who, when all is said and done, is sinking around $50M into a project. He can't be held hostage to someone who, after the project is completed, makes a claim that they "need" an easement across his property. No bank in the world would loan my client that type of money if land laws were based upon claims of need and the decision of judges. Under the current system, whether O'ist like it or not, the rules are clearly defined and very much in favor of private property owners.

Some roads did begin as private developments, true, but the concept of Public Ways (rivers, lakes, canals, roads, etc), has existed since colonial times. The US was unique in the world in that the founding fathers understood the importance of individual ownership of land (as opposed to the various European models, including Colonial America and Britain) -- and the Government was structured to promote this. When cities were incorporated (often by land speculators, villagers and farmers) from Counties, they defined an area of land and sought permission from the State to form a municipal corporation for the express purpose of public "ownership" of such things as water, sanitation, roads, courts, law enforcement etc. Cities were surveyed in such a manner as to create parcels of land that have frontages on Public Ways (so as to avoid being landlocked). Citizens who chose to move to a City and enjoy the benefits of paved roads, sanitation, etc. purchased the parcels and are required to pay a tax to the municipal corporation to fund the use of roads and utilities. They can also participate in the election of the people who run the municipal corporation (ie the Mayor, town council, treasurer, recorder, etc.) This is the way that America developed. And while it is not perfect, I doubt that any form of government will ever be. I have said on other similar posts, that while I agree that 100% private ownership of all land and utilities is possible -- cities formed in such an environment would look nothing like they currently do. I also question the feasibility of converting current cities to another model - since they are the creatures of a very complex legal system that has been in place for hundreds of years.

Dream @ #81 Would owners of roads, rivers, ports, lakes, etc. be compelled by the State to provide "easements" (or, a better term, access agreements)? And if so, how does this reconcile with the notion of "private property". In a society with no Public Ways, all land is" landlocked". All property would be "walled in". If you were to cross 8 properties to get to the grocery store, would you would need to execute, and have recorded on each Title, your access agreement with each property owner?

As we all know, private property was of fundamental importance to the founding fathers. There can be no individual rights without property rights. The US form of government is such that the Federal Government defines the boundary of the Country. The boundary of the Country is subdivided by States, and States are in turn subdivided by County and Municipal governments. County and Municipal governments are subdivided into Public and Private lands. Public lands are comprised primarily of roads and bridges, shipping canals, ports, lakes and rivers, etc. It's my understanding that, under Objectivism, all the forms of Public Lands listed above would be privately owned? And the use of any of the above, by any individual , would be a the sole discretion of the private owners?

Grames, I typically enjoy your insite on various topics and have learned a great deal from you -- so I'm a bit perplexed by your response to this topic. FYI, I work daily with developers from both the architectural and general contractor angle. I have two projects on my desk that have complex issues regarding property lines and easements, and have worked on numerous projects which require establishing or adjusting property lines, ROW dedications, access agreements, shared parking agreements, easements, etc. I've hired surveyors to establish easements and have taken the documents to the County to have them recorded. I've reviewed numerous title reports. Your blanket statement that "everything you wrote here is false in every last details" is not only wrong, but is beneath you. With that, I'll log off from this topic.

This issue is not even close to being resolved by a link to Wiki. Typically an easement is across a property to a Public Way. Either to provide access (ie a road or drive) or to route underground or overhead utilites. However, in a pure Objectivist society, there would be no such thing as a "Public Way" to route to -- because the State would not own any property. By definition, all properties in an Objectivist society would be "landlocked". Also, under Objectivism, no one could be compelled to grant an easement across their property -- that would be a use of force by the State. Even in today's society, a property owner can refuse to establish a private easement.

The original post actually asks what would happen to roads if his country were to become capitalist. I agree with you that in a capitalist country the roads would be privately owned. My position is that, in a capitalist country, Cities would look nothing like they do today. Cities would of course be possible, but they would be shaped by entirely different forces. The difficulty (if not impossibility) lies in converting an existing City. it would cost more than it's worth (in my opinion). Unlike most Objectivist, I'm not much of an opponent of the Municipal Corporation form of government that most Cities in the U.S. follow. City ownership of roads and utilities is not very high on list of things to change when I become King. It took me many, many years to form that opinion. I've designed, built and remodeled buildings in over 70 cities in the West (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Arizona) and, for the most part, cities are fairly well run, maintain balanced budgets and don't impose too great of a burden on their citizens. It's more at the State and, of course Federal, levels where we truly begin to see the waste and abuse. I'm not saying all cities are great (I live in the Peoples Republic of Portland, for Gods sake), but they aren't the primary problem facing our country. Let's get a sound monetary system first, and then we can sell off the roads, parks and water departments

The way our Cities have been laid out (by the State) is such that roads interconnect private property. A corporation or company that actually owned the roads could charge anything they wanted to the people using them -- unless the State regulated the fees charged. Also, in our modern Cities, roads cover water, sanitary sewer lines, telecommunications lines, storm lines, etc. Access to these lines would also have to be a condition of ownership imposed on the road company and regulated by the State. A City in which roads were owned by multiple companies would only complicate matters further. My argument is not one in favor of State ownership -- it's an argument that our Cities are such creatures of the State that there is no feasible way to "convert" them. We can privatize "services" i.e. road maintenance, garbage pick up etc., but we would have to dismantle a significant amount of infrastructure and re-Title almost every piece of property in the U.S. if all Public Utilities were to be sold off. That's never going to happen, so it's just talk.

A pretty good perspective on the actual merits of the case can be found here. Trial It's not all that the main stream media make it out to be.

Privatization of roads will never happen. Any such entity would be, in fact, a public corporation -- so saddled with conditions and restrictions that it would not resemble a true "private" business. It would be a sham to even attempt to do so. Corruption would be endemic to the process.

Clearly the greatest civilization was that of the island state of Qwghlm ruled by the Duchess Eliza.

No, I don't take the position that differentiation and integration are not at work. Or that we can't learn a great deal about any one (or all three) of the "unidentified" objects. I'm only re-stating the Objectivist position that no characteristic of an object has any more "metaphysical" significance than any other characteristic. All characteristics are equal -- except in a given propositional (epistemic) context. This relates back to the original post's comment on the lack of Ontological literature in Objectivism.