Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads

[Marc K.]

However, I think I'm being objective and realistic in considering that privatized roads can introduce a whole new set of problems like the ones being discussed. Whether it ultimately means things will be better or worse is not something about which I'm willing to engage in considerable speculation.

I was surprised to hear you say this. My default position is that the free market finds better, cheaper, more rational solutions than the government in private property and market situations. I just don't think there is any evidence supporting the view that government outperforms the market in any functions except its proper functions.

Also, I've never implied nor stated that being rich would make one rational or irrational. Rather, obectively speaking, knowing whether or not someone is rich or poor is no indication as to their rationality without knowing how that wealth has been achieved or preserved.

I was just supporting my argument with a generality (which is why I said "more likely"), a generality that I again thought we could agree upon.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Admittedly, roads are the thing the government does now (outside of its proper function) where I have the hardest time visualizing "how would it work" in a private economy. I can envision inter-city highways and even urban freeways as toll roads; I can envision neighborhood streets being paid for by the developer and having the upkeep paid for by a home owner's association, and access roads to shopping malls paid for by the mall, but the major "arterials" (4-6 lane roads) that connect neighborhoods? (I could list examples for illustration but those who don't live places I have lived wouldn't know what I am talking about.) They carry so much traffic, often for short distances, that charging tolls would be a logistical nightmare, and they serve basically everyone in a five-ten mile radius at some point and _frequently_ serve people within a couple of miles. And that's a lot of people to hit up for money via HOAs and the like. It really does seem to me that the way to pay for those sorts of roads is to pool all such in a city together, and have everyone in the city pay for them--which looks an awful lot like a tax to me.

[Quick look at one possible counterargument--someone might argue that with today's technology arterial tolls could be worked electronically, which is true.... but that fails to explain how an arterial could possibly have been financed in the past! Basically an arterial could not have existed in a free market until the mid 1990s if that is the only way they can be financed.]

What I am not claiming is there is no way this could have worked, just that I personally don't see how it could have worked. I'd love to see someone make a coherent suggestion about it.

I am considerably less worried about people arbitrarily making their roads inaccessible, etc., as that would mean they've paid big money to pave over ground that could be put to other productive use for a lot less (grazing cattle if nothing else!) and then refuse to try to recoup their investments. Yes there are idiots out there but squandering their money like that means they won't last long.

(Apropos this, I remember reading a satire (of the computer industry at the time, mid to late 1980s) where people could only drive certain cars on certain roads, because the roads were basically physically like railroads--you could only drive one size car on them because the wheels had to fit the troughs built into the roads and you were SOL if your car manufacturer used an oddball "proprietary" gauge on your axles. And of course once you had a car, you were forced by its configuration to only use certain roads, so you had customer "lock in". There were some roads that offered a variety of standards (imagine a railroad right of way with three rails, a left rail and two right rails for both narrow and standard gauge). Clearly the solution was for everyone to agree on a standard.... and you've seen that happen with computers to a great extent.)

[JeffS]

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?

[RationalBiker]

My default position is that the free market finds better, cheaper, more rational solutions than the government in private property and market situations.

One of my main problems is that we apparently don't have enough rational people in this country at this point to have the kind of government we SHOULD have now. Why is that?

That is why when we talk in theory about how things should be done or would be better, I'm sometimes reluctant to speculate on the effects of something so radically different from the way things are now. So yes, I fully support property rights because I think that is the morally proper, but I'm less confident than you about how things would shake out in practice given the same population we have today and how things are ACTUALLY done today. Where are all the rational people? Why are there so many "rational" people willing to follow Obama's lead (or any of his kind)?

Do you at least understand why that can cause someone some concerns even if you don't share those concerns?

[Grames]

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?

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.

[Maximus]

I'm with RB , where are all the rational people? I can practically guarantee this would devolve into utter chaos. I've been around 51 years now, and have no faith in my fellow man, believe me.

[JeffS]

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?

[Grames]

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

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

[JeffS]

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?

[Grames]

If you let me into your house, then I proceed to erect a bonfire in your living room, have I not committed a crime?

• How is this analogous to speeding on your private road? Speeding does not destroy anything.
  
• The crime would be arson, not trespass.
  
• You are the first line of defense in your own home, not the police.
  

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?

If you refuse to leave when asked then the situation has escalated to physical confrontation, and as the owner of the property I ought to be within my rights to have you physically ejected from the premises without even calling the police.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

.... and you'll note that even if you use the police in the lemonade stand scenario--you have to summon them. They won't do it without being asked, as part of regular patrolling.

[JeffS]

How is this analogous to speeding on your private road? Speeding does not destroy anything.

I'm trying to understand the distinction between crime and non-crime. You've asserted that speeding is not a crime, and therefore the police should only get involved if the road owner is willing to pay extra for that service. I maintain that speeding is a crime because it is the fraudulent use of another's property - it is using their property without their permission - therefore the police should get involved with speeders in the normal course of their proper duties. Starting a fire in your living room is analogous to speeding on private roads because both are fraudulent uses of another's property.

Is the distinction between crime and non-crime based on whether or not something is destroyed?

The crime would be arson, not trespass.

Then we agree that, even though you let me onto your property, a crime was still committed?

You are the first line of defense in your own home, not the police.

That's not really germane to the debate. I'm not arguing that the road owner can not pull over speeders himself (or pay others to do so). I'm arguing that the police will still pull people over for speeding on private roads.

If you refuse to leave when asked then the situation has escalated to physical confrontation, and as the owner of the property I ought to be within my rights to have you physically ejected from the premises without even calling the police.

Again, I'm not arguing that you can not. I'm asking whether or not it is in the proper duties of the police to eject me, or will you have to pay a special fee for that? Is my being there, even though you asked me to leave, a crime?

.... and you'll note that even if you use the police in the lemonade stand scenario--you have to summon them. They won't do it without being asked, as part of regular patrolling.

Two issues here: 1) The purpose of the lemonade stand scanario is described above. Again, my question is, even if you asked them, is it within the proper duties of the police to eject me and my lemonade stand, or is that something I should have to pay extra for?

2) The lemonade stand scenario provides no objective evidence to the police that a crime is being committed. So, yes, you would probably have to ask them to kick me out. However, speeding on a private road with posted speed limit signs has objective evidence the police can use to determine whether a crime is being committed.

[blazingtruth]

I'm trying to understand the distinction between crime and non-crime. You've asserted that speeding is not a crime, and therefore the police should only get involved if the road owner is willing to pay extra for that service. I maintain that speeding is a crime because it is the fraudulent use of another's property - it is using their property without their permission - therefore the police should get involved with speeders in the normal course of their proper duties. Starting a fire in your living room is analogous to speeding on private roads because both are fraudulent uses of another's property.

A crime is an act punishable by law. In this case, the over-encompassing objective law. Crimes can not be considered as such without a means of their enforcement. Now, speeding on public roads is a crime only because it is actively enforced by the state, and the offended party is the State (as Grames said). Since speeding laws in a miniarch state are only in the domain of the private individual, they are not a crime with which the police are concerned. In this case, the offended party is the individual, and he must take it upon himself to prove a crime was committed against his property's speed limits. The two are not analogous since arson is initiation of force (by public, objective law), thus is outlawed in the public domain (as is murder).

The rationale, I believe, is that speeding does not directly initiate force on anybody. Speeding on private roads is not a crime if the private property owner has no personal or otherwise contracted enforcement of his speeding laws. To a well-defined extent (permissible by the objective law), the private individual may, to the best of my knowledge, establish many bizarre laws on his property only. Just as a business in a miniarch state is free to discriminate as it wishes. With that being said, the speed at which you allow others to drive is merely a preference until it is backed with enforcement.

However, speeding on a private road with posted speed limit signs has objective evidence the police can use to determine whether a crime is being committed.

The speed limit sign posted in this case merely becomes a suggestion or a general standard, rather than a crime punishable by law if there is no means of enforcement backing it up. It is not the police's job to enforce private laws, it is the private individuals' job. He may contract with the police if he chooses, but this is not the case by default. The court system will enforce breached contracts, if evidence can be shown by the private individual, but police cars will not be actively patrolling private roads.

I'm curious as to what limitations ARE placed on the private individual by the objective law with regard to what is reasonable. Can I charge an exorbitant toll? Can I shut down my road completely? Can I set a bizarre speed requirement (you can only drive 12mph, no more no less!) What restrictions are there?

Edited April 18, 2011 by dmastt

[blazingtruth]

If you refuse to leave when asked then the situation has escalated to physical confrontation, and as the owner of the property I ought to be within my rights to have you physically ejected from the premises without even calling the police.

Not so sure I agree with that, however. This individual has not initiated force on you, so it is not within your rights to forcibly remove him. No immediate threat to your life is being exerted, nor is any force of any form. I think you must call the police and have the situation placed under objective control. What stops you from stabbing/shooting the man if he does not leave? It's not within your rights to punch a guy's lights out and drag him off your property if he doesn't listen to you.

[ToyoHabu]

... This individual has not initiated force on you, so it is not within your rights to forcibly remove him. No immediate threat to your life is being exerted, nor is any force of any form. I think you must call the police and have the situation placed under objective control. What stops you from stabbing/shooting the man if he does not leave? It's not within your rights to punch a guy's lights out and drag him off your property if he doesn't listen to you.

This destroys the very concept of private property. If property rights are to mean anything, then they must include the right to exclude others from them. To violate a persons property rights must be considered an initiation of force. You are right in that the context of the rights violation must be considered when determining what appropriate remedy to take. To toss someone out on his hide, probably would be reasonable in my estimation.

[Grames]

I'm trying to understand the distinction between crime and non-crime. You've asserted that speeding is not a crime, and therefore the police should only get involved if the road owner is willing to pay extra for that service. I maintain that speeding is a crime because it is the fraudulent use of another's property - it is using their property without their permission - therefore the police should get involved with speeders in the normal course of their proper duties. Starting a fire in your living room is analogous to speeding on private roads because both are fraudulent uses of another's property.

I find it bizarre you would classify setting fire to a house as a fraud. Fraud is an indirect use of force, but what could be more direct than burning down a house deliberately causing a loss of property against the owner's consent?

Is the distinction between crime and non-crime based on whether or not something is destroyed?

No. Crimes and torts are two clear categories and the borderline class of criminal fraud catches the rest.

Crimes are initiated force that intentionally and violently overcomes the non-consent of the victim to inflict a loss. Crimes are defined by public laws and apply to everyone.

Torts cover violations of agreements made in good faith or accidental infliction of losses. The loss is necessary and the violence may or may not be present but the intent to inflict harm is absent or not relevant. The agreements or contracts involved only cover the parties to the agreement.

Criminal fraud covers agreements made in bad faith by one party where there was always the intent to violate the terms. The violence may be absent but the harm and intent to inflict harm remains.

These are not mutually exclusive categories, one can be sued for crimes committed.

Then we agree that, even though you let me onto your property, a crime was still committed?

I am not certain you understand what a crime is yet.

That's not really germane to the debate. I'm not arguing that the road owner can not pull over speeders himself (or pay others to do so). I'm arguing that the police will still pull people over for speeding on private roads.

The rules of a private road only have legal status in a civil courtroom, they are contract terms not laws. Police would not enforce them. If you get a court injunction forbidding a particular bad driver from ever using your road then you can call the police to collect him when he drives on your road anyway.

Again, I'm not arguing that you can not. I'm asking whether or not it is in the proper duties of the police to eject me, or will you have to pay a special fee for that? Is my being there, even though you asked me to leave, a crime?

Two issues here: 1) The purpose of the lemonade stand scanario is described above. Again, my question is, even if you asked them, is it within the proper duties of the police to eject me and my lemonade stand, or is that something I should have to pay extra for?

Police would do nothing unless and until the situation got violent. I would grab the lemonade and throw it out. Either you try to stop me and I win, or you do not try to stop me and I win. Or I could let you be for the day and forbid your entrance ever again. (All this is assuming there is some rational basis for objecting to your lemonade stand as interfering with my own business.)

2) The lemonade stand scenario provides no objective evidence to the police that a crime is being committed. So, yes, you would probably have to ask them to kick me out. However, speeding on a private road with posted speed limit signs has objective evidence the police can use to determine whether a crime is being committed.

Your road signs do not have the legal status of laws. That fact that as signs they are objective (short, clear, unvarying) is not enough. There is no clearly demonstrable loss or intent to inflict loss. Police would not enforce them.

[blazingtruth]

This destroys the very concept of private property. If property rights are to mean anything, then they must include the right to exclude others from them. To violate a persons property rights must be considered an initiation of force. You are right in that the context of the rights violation must be considered when determining what appropriate remedy to take. To toss someone out on his hide, probably would be reasonable in my estimation.

What magnitude of force you permitted to use when excluding somebody? How can it be assured that the force used is done so rationally? What happens if it is not?

[RationalBiker]

What magnitude of force you permitted to use when excluding somebody? How can it be assured that the force used is done so rationally? What happens if it is not?

The same thing that occurs in any case of self-defense or defense of propety, the person whom force was used against can talk to the police and make a complaint which would be investigated.

[JeffS]

I find it bizarre you would classify setting fire to a house as a fraud. Fraud is an indirect use of force, but what could be more direct than burning down a house deliberately causing a loss of property against the owner's consent?

I wouldn't classify setting fire to a house as fraud, but I would classify it as using another's property without their permission, and I would classify both as crimes. If I understand you correctly, you would not classify using another's property without their permission, or against their wishes, as a crime. Do I understand you correctly?

Crimes are initiated force that intentionally and violently overcomes the non-consent of the victim to inflict a loss. Crimes are defined by public laws and apply to everyone.

A speeder initiates force by breaking the contract first, he usually does it intentionally (and there would be little chance of proving intent), and loss can at least be logically deduced from the road owner's rationally arrived at reasons for setting the limit in the first place (i.e. he could show the probability of revenue loss due to lost customers if he didn't set the limit, or could show an actual reduction in revenue due to the prevalence of speeders on his road). It seems clear to me that speeding fits all the requirements for crime other than "violent," and "apply to everyone." I'm not sure how "violent" and "non-violent" would be distinguished, what their differences are, or why speeding couldn't be considered "violent."

"Apply to everyone" is the end of my argument, though. Clearly, the limits would only apply to those traveling on that road. Still, I'm left with the fact that someone's rights are being violated in the case of speeding on private roads. I don't have a problem with the road owner enforcing his own contract; I don't have a problem with the issue being decided in court; but it doesn't seem rational to me that an agency of the government, charged with protecting the rights of its citizens, would stand idly by while a clear violation of rights is occurring.

Police would do nothing unless and until the situation got violent. I would grab the lemonade and throw it out.

Aren't you the one initiating force at this point then?

What do you think Rand meant when she wrote:

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. (The Ayn Rand Letter Vol 3 No. 2)

[Grames]

I wouldn't classify setting fire to a house as fraud, but I would classify it as using another's property without their permission, and I would classify both as crimes. If I understand you correctly, you would not classify using another's property without their permission, or against their wishes, as a crime. Do I understand you correctly?

Some such instances of people acting against your wishes or permission are crimes, some are not. The mere fact that you don't like it is not sufficient to make an act a criminal act. If you want me off of your property you have recourse to series of escalations that start with you informing me I am unwelcome and instructing me to leave. Summoning police would be an intermediate step. Using deadly force would be the last resort and would not be justified by my simply being stubborn about not leaving, I would have to pose a threat. The presence or mere summons of the police might persuade me to depart before being arrested. If I depart after you instruct me to and before the police arrive there will likely be no arrest and no crime.

and loss can at least be logically deduced

If the loss is to be deduced rather than perceived then it is not criminal act to inflict that loss, setting aside criminal fraud for the moment. Losses which the criminal law aims to prevent are tangible losses, and I will even venture to say are capturable in several first level concepts concerning life and property. Property is not a first level concept but things like cars, cash and computers are first level to the extent that they are perceivable objects. Speculative financial losses or a damaged reputation for safety that might be caused by speeders are not tangible losses, but are infringements of property rights that need to be established as facts (or not) first in a civil court.

Criminal fraud requires some kind of investigation (time and an investigator) to establish the facts in dispute. Calling for emergency police services when you have been ripped off by some scam is not going to be productive or effective.

I'm not sure how "violent" and "non-violent" would be distinguished, what their differences are, or why speeding couldn't be considered "violent."

From OPAR " "Violence" names a particular form of force, force that is swift, intense, rough, and/or accompanied by fury." All forms of force are subject to the laws but policemen are principally concerned with the criminal laws. The most obvious distinction between an incident which calls for police intervention and one that does not is the presence or threat of violence. Speeding takes skill or special devices to detect, it is not violent. Violence is obvious even without skill or instruments. (I would allow for a "reckless driving" crime, but being 5mph over the limit on a highway would not qualify as reckless.)

but it doesn't seem rational to me that an agency of the government, charged with protecting the rights of its citizens, would stand idly by while a clear violation of rights is occurring.

Not every violation of property rights is the proper subject matter of criminal law. Posted clear signs stating a speed limit do not expand the proper scope of criminal law.

Aren't you the one initiating force at this point then?

No. If someone defies my lawful request to vacate my property it is he who has initiated force. The principle of proportional response ought to apply to the Castle Doctrine to protect my power to take some limited actions to expel you without killing you.

What do you think Rand meant when she wrote:

She was writing about public expressions about sex and what are the permissible restrictions which avoid censorship. She was not claiming the police monopoly on retaliatory force was so complete it precluded self-defense.

[JeffS]

Some such instances of people acting against your wishes or permission are crimes, some are not.

But there's nothing violent in me just remaining in your house after you've asked me to leave.

If you want me off of your property you have recourse to series of escalations that start with you informing me I am unwelcome and instructing me to leave.

If I don't want you travelling faster than a certain speed on my road, doesn't posting a sign satisfy this first step of informing you that you're not welcome if you're going to travel over that speed?

Summoning police would be an intermediate step.

Would this be a special service requiring a fee, or would you being on my property after I've asked you to leave be a crime? If the latter, then why is it that you being on my road (my property) after I've informed you that you're not welcome driving at that speed, not be a crime?

I would allow for a "reckless driving" crime, but being 5mph over the limit on a highway would not qualify as reckless.

Why is this amount not arbitrary? What makes 5mph over the limit not reckless, but 10, or 15, or 20 is? If, for example, travelling 20mph over the speed limit is reckless, why isn't 19mph over the limit reckless?

No. If someone defies my lawful request to vacate my property it is he who has initiated force.

But they haven't initiated violent force. Presumably, you would have to use physical force to remove me - that would be violent force.

She was writing about public expressions about sex and what are the permissible restrictions which avoid censorship. She was not claiming the police monopoly on retaliatory force was so complete it precluded self-defense.

But she spoke directly to police enforcing "rules of how to drive." One of those rules would be at what speed to drive. Would this speed be a rule set up by the road owner, or would it be a law which applies to everyone, and therefore violating it would be a crime?

[RationalBiker]

Why is this amount not arbitrary? What makes 5mph over the limit not reckless, but 10, or 15, or 20 is? If, for example, travelling 20mph over the speed limit is reckless, why isn't 19mph over the limit reckless?

There can be many reasons that make setting a specific amount not arbitrary. e.g. the grade of the road, the width, the amount of traffic, pedestrian traffic, the turn radius, etc. etc. Reasonable safe speeds CAN be determined for particular roads using science when it comes to particular things like friction and force. The other factors are REASONABLE estimations based on the volume of traffic. This CAN make a given amount not arbitrary.

Edited April 19, 2011 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

But there's nothing violent in me just remaining in your house after you've asked me to leave.

As someone who has responded to these types of calls hundreds, if not thousands, of times, it is the exception that the person remaining against the owner's wishes is either non-violent or does not have some ill-intent against the owner.

[Grames]

But there's nothing violent in me just remaining in your house after you've asked me to leave.

Actually that is what is called passive-aggressive behavior. So-called non-violent protests such as sit-ins are in fact initiations of force even while being non-violent. Violence is what is required to evict such people, hence the police involvement to keep matters under control.

If I don't want you travelling faster than a certain speed on my road, doesn't posting a sign satisfy this first step of informing you that you're not welcome if you're going to travel over that speed?

Yes, but the rest of the scenario is unlike a home invader. The speeder is not blocking the road or otherwise being disruptive.

Would this be a special service requiring a fee, or would you being on my property after I've asked you to leave be a crime? If the latter, then why is it that you being on my road (my property) after I've informed you that you're not welcome driving at that speed, not be a crime?

1) Because the speeder is already in the process of leaving.

2) Because your road is a public thoroughfare with less expectation of privacy and complete control than your dwelling.

3) A speeder is not disrupting the usual usage of your property or business as a passive-aggressive sitter-in does.

Why is this amount not arbitrary? What makes 5mph over the limit not reckless, but 10, or 15, or 20 is? If, for example, travelling 20mph over the speed limit is reckless, why isn't 19mph over the limit reckless?

Rationalbiker invokes the engineering behind highway design. Also note that this kind of objection you have just raised is exactly the same as the objection that using age 18 as the age of adulthood is arbitrary. It is not arbitrary to pick a number within a reasonable range of numbers.

But they haven't initiated violent force. Presumably, you would have to use physical force to remove me - that would be violent force.

The only reason I brought up violence was to distinguish incidents that require immediate police intervention from those that can be deferred to a civil suit or a district attorney. I do not believe you are arguing in good faith and do not understand that initiating force does not require violence. The only way to resolve the passive-aggressive unwelcome occupier problem is with violence, hence the police intervention. If there is a disruption of a business or a private dwelling involved then there is also an urgency to get the problem solved quickly, another justification for police to intervene rather than just wait out the unwelcome presence.

But she spoke directly to police enforcing "rules of how to drive." One of those rules would be at what speed to drive. Would this speed be a rule set up by the road owner, or would it be a law which applies to everyone, and therefore violating it would be a crime?

She was illustrating the difference between procedural and substantive law by using an analogy. You are overburdening the analogy by assuming that it means any more than that, for example that police ought to be enforcing traffic regulations under full laissez-faire capitalism.

[blazingtruth]

There can be many reasons that make setting a specific amount not arbitrary. e.g. the grade of the road, the width, the amount of traffic, pedestrian traffic, the turn radius, etc. etc. Reasonable safe speeds CAN be determined for particular roads using science when it comes to particular things like friction and force. The other factors are REASONABLE estimations based on the volume of traffic. This CAN make a given amount not arbitrary.

I'm in agreement. I just have a few tweaks I want to sort through. Please correct me in the event I am wrong. Surely, the road-owner would first be limited by these objective boundaries before setting his personal speed limit. For example, the specific maximum and minimum (there must be a minimum, as well) speed allowing for traffic flow (what objectively does this entail?) while still avoiding recklessness yields a legal interval 50-80 kmph. The road-owner would then be able to pick any speed to set as a limit -- say, 65 kmph -- between those boundaries. He would be able to enforce his limit of 65, through his own means. Most rationally, he could install speed sensors/photo cameras to capture evidence and bill the offense (objectively) afterwards.

To bring this full-swing, a police officer minding his own business traveling through your property to get to the donut shop catches a man going above the upper 80 kmph limit. He would be free to chase him and punish him, since this is reckless driving and as such is a crime with which police are concerned. It is the equivalent of the police walking into the donut shop to find a thief running off with a dozen of jelly-filled donuts. However, if the man is traveling below the 80 kmph limit but above the posted 65 kmph sign, the police should not pull him over, for that is the concern of the road-owner.

I'm also interested in how objective limits for tolls can be established. Objective intervals can be defined, but why would a road-owner post a minimum toll as opposed to a maximum one (of the defined objective intervals); likewise, why would a road-owner set a speed limit of 65 kmph, when there's a greater chance of a man speeding if he sets it at 50 kmph (thus gaining him some nice pocket change)? Or does the road-owner not have that much of a choice when setting the speed limit of his private road?