walling people into their own property

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

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

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

What if I do this:

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

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

Edited November 7, 2012 by Puzzle Peddler

[mdegges 41]

Legal under capitalism?

No, it's not. (There's another thread about this on here. I'll try to find it for you.)

Here it is.

Edited November 7, 2012 by mdegges

[Grames 338]

The solution is called an "easement". Other puzzles in property law are resolved by the the common law doctrine of "coming to the nuisance", see Capitalism Magazine articles by author David Wilens. link to one of the articles:

The Antidote for Zoning: The “Coming to the Nuisance” Doctrine (Part 4)

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

The solution is called an "easement". Other puzzles in property law are resolved by the the common law doctrine of "coming to the nuisance", see Capitalism Magazine articles by author David Wilens. link to one of the articles:

The Antidote for Zoning: The “Coming to the Nuisance” Doctrine (Part 4)

I know what easements are. They don't necessarily solve the problem because:

1) what if there are no pre-existing easements on the land? (the land was previously own by private road companies which granted the right to travel by contract, not easements)

2) if the walled in person is going to use "coming to the nuisance" he has two problems:

2.1) he is admitting that his previous use of the road was a nuisance rather than by contract with the private road company. (which doesn't line up with reality)

2.2) "coming to the nuisance" is a defence, which means it is only useful if the trapped person is the defendant in the lawsuit, but what if person who put up the wall simply builds and doesn't sue? the trapped person has to sue, but it means he's now the plaintiff and not a defendant.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Puzzle Peddler

[Grames 338]

I know what easements are. They don't necessarily solve the problem because:

1) what if there are no pre-existing easements on the land? (the land was previously own by private road companies which granted the right to travel by contract, not easements)

Easements are created judicially to resolve property disputes when they do not already exist by agreement. Courts are established to protect all rights including property rights.

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

Easements are created judicially to resolve property disputes when they do not already exist by agreement. Courts are established to protect all rights including property rights.

yes but would it be justified to create an easement in this case?

[Grames 338]

Of course it would, it is the paradigmatic case.

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

Of course it would, it is the paradigmatic case.

would you care to elaborate?

[Grames 338]

Contrary to your earlier claim, you really don't know what an easement is. I conclude this because you seem unable to identify when an easement is applicable or what problem it solves. I advise reviewing the wikipedia entry at length, at a minimum.

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

Contrary to your earlier claim, you really don't know what an easement is. I conclude this because you seem unable to identify when an easement is applicable or what problem it solves. I advise reviewing the wikipedia entry at length, at a minimum.

I'm not taking issue with when it is applicable or what problem it solves under the current law.

My issue is with what 'justifies' the existence of the entire concept on a philosophical/legal basis.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Puzzle Peddler

[Grames 338]

I'm not taking issue with when it is applicable or what problem it solves under the current law.

My issue is with what 'justifies' the existence of the entire concept on a philosophical/legal basis.

What justifies the existence of the concept 'easement' is the problem it solves. Can you state what that is?

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

What justifies the existence of the concept 'easement' is the problem it solves. Can you state what that is?

it solves the problem by infringing on my property rights, as far as I'm concerned that is unacceptable.

if someone has no right of way, that is their own problem, if there is a wall around their house with no exit, why don't they just call in a helicopter? If they can't afford a helicopter, why don't they just blame themselves for not being rich?

Edited November 8, 2012 by Puzzle Peddler

[Grames 338]

it solves the problem ...

What problem? Spell it out, please.

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

What problem? Spell it out, please.

problem is we need to use other people's property without owning it.

[Grames 338]

problem is we need to use other people's property without owning it.

That misses the essence of the problem.

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

That misses the essence of the problem.

Would you like to enlighten me? (I'd accuse you of dodging if you don't)

[dream_weaver 582]

Contrary to your earlier claim, you really don't know what an easement is. I conclude this because you seem unable to identify when an easement is applicable or what problem it solves. I advise reviewing the wikipedia entry at length, at a minimum.

That's a nice introduction to easements. Every property I've ever owned, and the ones I've dealt with via a trust, have had various easements incorporated into them. The trust property began as a 40 acre contiguous property. We cut trees and laid a two-track access to drive from the public road. The two-track had a couple of turn-offs with a circle at their ends to loop around to return the way you came. After the appropriate length of ownership, the 40 acres were subdivided. All the lots butted up to the two-tracks hewn from the original 40 acre with the two track serving as an easement for access. It would not make much sense to try to sell a lot that a new owner could not access. If you had purchased all of the properties, you could have dissolved or altered the easement, As it sits now, the cooperation of all the owners of the easement would be required to change it.

[Eiuol 444]

Would you like to enlighten me? (I'd accuse you of dodging if you don't)

It is up to you to read the sources provided by mdegges and Grames. Your questions have been addressed, and requires the next step of reading. This is a discussion board, not a YouTube debate forum filled with trolls. Your followup questions and statements are barely distinguishable from a YouTube troll. If you care to participate honestly and fairly, you must take the time to read and even contemplate answers. No, you don't need to be a legal expert, but you do need to think, first and foremost.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Eiuol

[Grames 338]

See Individual rights. One does not and cannot have a right to negate another's right.

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

See Individual rights. One does not and cannot have a right to negate another's right.

this is exactly my point, if the mere exercise of my own right (building a wall) means the negation of your right (trapped), then isn't there something seriously problematic about the co-existence of said rights?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Puzzle Peddler

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

It is up to you to read the sources provided by mdegges and Grames. Your questions have been addressed, and requires the next step of reading. This is a discussion board, not a YouTube debate forum filled with trolls. Your followup questions and statements are barely distinguishable from a YouTube troll. If you care to participate honestly and fairly, you must take the time to read and even contemplate answers. No, you don't need to be a legal expert, but you do need to think, first and foremost.

au contraire, I'm actually an attorney in real life (whether if you believe me is up to you), I object to what they said exactly because I do know the contents of what they have pointed to.

[Grames 338]

this is exactly my point, if the mere exercise of my own right (building a wall) means the negation of your right (trapped), then isn't there something seriously problematic about the co-existence of said rights?

Yes, it means that contrary to your understanding you did not have the right to build a completely encircling wall.

[mdegges 41]

au contraire, I'm actually an attorney in real life (whether if you believe me is up to you), I object to what they said exactly because I do know the contents of what they have pointed to.

It kinda sounds like you think you know everything.. so why do you keep posting questions?

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

Yes, it means that contrary to your understanding you did not have the right to build a completely encircling wall.

or maybe it means the other guy should call in a helicopter, because he doesn't have the right to pass through my property.

[Puzzle Peddler 0]

It kinda sounds like you think you know everything.. so why do you keep posting questions?

to inspire curiosity and thinking. (they are in question form because I like using the Socratic method)

edit:

plus I'm on vacation right now, so I'm bored.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Puzzle Peddler