walling people into their own property

[2046]

I think you should go back and reread this thread, preferably while setting aside your emotions. I haven't "flipped out," and I have no idea how anyone reading and comprehending this thread could possibly come to the ridiculous conclusion that I don't appear to be interested in actually exchanging ideas, since I've been doing nothing but calmly offering substantive arguments where my opponents have been avoiding it. One or two of them have even been behaving with beligerence and smugness toward others while (inadvertently?) advocating anti-Objectivist positions.Your judgment on this issue is anything but objective if you've come to the unfounded position that I've been "flipping out" and not exchanging ideas.

J

Yeah I mean, as far as I can see, the only "bluster" was coming from you in your personal problem with Grames. Your debating strikes me as filled with emotional screeds against imagined superiority in the other person, bouncing from accusing the other person of heretical anti-objectivist positions and faux moral indignation victim-playing, or even speculating what you believe are the motives of that person. I don't think that's a very ethical way to debate. Neither you nor Grames ever many any attempt to be charitable, even-handed, or even to understand the other person's position. I think you both are talking past each other. I even thought we were talking about the same thing at one point, but I may be wrong.

This will be my attempt at reconciling the two positions. I interpret your position as the following: Nobody can ever have any right of way through another person's property unless that person specifically agrees to it beforehand, and agreement which can be revoked at any time, regardless of the situation. I think you interpret Grames' position (and by extension mine) as the following: Everyone inherently has a right of way to get off their own land at all times and in all contexts, regardless of the other person's wishes, or how they came about owning the property. I don't know if this is Grames' actual position or not, but it might be.

My position is more of the following: (Picturing two concentric circles) Let A stand for the encircled donut hole, B stand for the surrounder and the surrounding property. Dependent on the context of how A and B came about ownership of their respective property, A can be said to own a right of way passage as a result of 2 instances:

1. A can have a prescriptive easement (A had long-standing, continuous passage through B before the surrounding person owned B.)

2. A can have a contractual right to pass through B (B is contractually bound to furnish A passage whether he wants to or not.)

(1) is based on the homesteading principle. A has homesteaded ongoing use of B before B's owner came to the nuisance, therefore interference with this ongoing use constitutes aggression, so long as the use stays at previously established levels. (Increased usage counts as aggression on A's part.) (2) is based contractual exchange. B was purchased "as is" including A's easement, or A purchased the access when he bought A.

That either can be consistent with objectivism follows from objectivism being consistent with original appropriation (homesteading) and legitimate title transfer (contractual exchange.) All property claims that reduce to original appropriation/homesteading and contractual exchange are legitimate. Insofar as it can be demonstrated that an access right arises from the above, the claimant has an easement right.

Edited November 12, 2012 by 2046

[Jonathan13]

Yeah I mean, as far as I can see, the only "bluster" was coming from you in your personal problem with Grames. Your debating strikes me as filled with emotional screeds against imagined superiority in the other person, bouncing from accusing the other person of heretical anti-objectivist positions and faux moral indignation victim-playing, or even speculating what you believe are the motives of that person.

It doesn't appear that you set aside your emotions or reread the thread. You appear to be projecting your own emotions onto me. My posts are not "filled with emotion." They're rather dry and matter-of-fact. The fact that you may have experienced great emotions when reading my posts doesn't mean that the posts themselves contain emotion or were written with emotion.

This will be my attempt at reconciling the two positions. I interpret your position as the following: Nobody can ever have any right of way through another person's property unless that person specifically agrees to it beforehand...

Correct so far.

...and agreement which can be revoked at any time, regardless of the situation.

How did you come up with that?! I've never even hinted at saying anything remotely resembling that.

J

[2046]

That is what I understood from your posts. But you don't bother to tell us what is your position and where you differ from whatever it is you're disagreeing with. See this is what I mean when I say it doesn't seem like you're interested in exchanging ideas. This whole thing is a pissing match for you.

[Jonathan13]

That is what I understood from your posts.

Then you haven't been reading carefully. I've never said anything about one landowner being able to revoke an agreement "at any time, regardless of the situation." If both landowners have agreed to, say, a 10-year contract in which one party is allowed access to the other's property in exchange for a fee, then that is their agreement, and it cannot be revoked by one of the parties "at any time."

But you don't bother to tell us what is your position and where you differ from whatever it is you're disagreeing with. See this is what I mean when I say it doesn't seem like you're interested in exchanging ideas. This whole thing is a pissing match for you.

No, it's not a pissing match to me. You appear to be too upset to have a rational discussion and to comprehend others' views when you're in disagreement with them. I don't know how to make my position clearer for you. Reread this thread. There's nothing difficult about it.

J

[thenelli01]

Yeah I mean, as far as I can see, the only "bluster" was coming from you in your personal problem with Grames. Your debating strikes me as filled with emotional screeds against imagined superiority in the other person, bouncing from accusing the other person of heretical anti-objectivist positions and faux moral indignation victim-playing, or even speculating what you believe are the motives of that person. I don't think that's a very ethical way to debate. Neither you nor Grames ever many any attempt to be charitable, even-handed, or even to understand the other person's position. I think you both are talking past each other. I even thought we were talking about the same thing at one point, but I may be wrong.

This will be my attempt at reconciling the two positions. I interpret your position as the following: Nobody can ever have any right of way through another person's property unless that person specifically agrees to it beforehand, and agreement which can be revoked at any time, regardless of the situation. I think you interpret Grames' position (and by extension mine) as the following: Everyone inherently has a right of way to get off their own land at all times and in all contexts, regardless of the other person's wishes, or how they came about owning the property. I don't know if this is Grames' actual position or not, but it might be.

My position is more of the following: (Picturing two concentric circles) Let A stand for the encircled donut hole, B stand for the surrounder and the surrounding property. Dependent on the context of how A and B came about ownership of their respective property, A can be said to own a right of way passage as a result of 2 instances:

1. A can have a prescriptive easement (A had long-standing, continuous passage through B before the surrounding person owned B.)

2. A can have a contractual right to pass through B (B is contractually bound to furnish A passage whether he wants to or not.)

(1) is based on the homesteading principle. A has homesteaded ongoing use of B before B's owner came to the nuisance, therefore interference with this ongoing use constitutes aggression, so long as the use stays at previously established levels. (Increased usage counts as aggression on A's part.) (2) is based contractual exchange. B was purchased "as is" including A's easement, or A purchased the access when he bought A.

That either can be consistent with objectivism follows from objectivism being consistent with original appropriation (homesteading) and legitimate title transfer (contractual exchange.) All property claims that reduce to original appropriation/homesteading and contractual exchange are legitimate. Insofar as it can be demonstrated that an access right arises from the above, the claimant has an easement right.

Good information - I understood about contractual exhange, but I have to admit I don't know much about easements and homesteading - I will have to look into it.

[Jonathan13]

Let's take Puzzle Peddler's original scenario a bit further:

A man named Karl owns a piece of property, and I have purchased all of the property around his. When he purchased his property, he neglected to contractually arrange for access to and from it. I don't want him on my property, and I don't want to sell him any of it.

He calls up Judge Grames and Judge SoftwareNerd, who grant him access to my property against my will. And they even charge me and fine me for "imprisoning" him. They give him an easement which runs from his land across mine to my neighbor Bob's land (in this hypothetical, the world is Objectivist, and all property is therefore privately owned -- there are no public roads).

Bob declares that he also doesn't want Karl on his property, so Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd charge him with "imprisonment" as well, fine him, and grant Karl an easement through his property to the nearest privately owned highway, which is owned by Tom.

By this time, Tom has heard of Karl's unjust legal actions against me and Bob, and he announces that he also doesn't want Karl on his property. So Karl once again calls Judges Grames and SoftwareNerd, and they charge Tom with the "imprisonment" of Karl, fine him, grant Karl an easement through Tom's property, and instruct Tom that he does not have the right to refuse to allow Karl to drive on Tom's privately-owned highway.

Is that the way that some of you imagine the Objectivist concept of private property works?

J

[dream_weaver]

Do you own property, Johnathon13?

I earlier explained, there is a 40 acre chunk of land that exists in a living will that is currently under my charge which is also co-governed by the legal survivor.

If the desire to sell the parcel on the lake,did not provide access to that parcel, would you consider purchasing it?

The road that passes by the property is currently a public roadway. Let's call that a state provided easement that taxes are levied to maintain. The property on the lake is nearly a mile from this public roadway. In order to access this property, you need to drive a mile down a two-track road that has been hewn out of the woods.

Even if we sold the remaining acrage to another speculator, or one that desired to keeps said property intact for themselves, the fact that the two-track was cut into the wood to provide access to the lake-front parcel should be sufficient for a judge to declare it as "easement by necessity" as it was implied to be the means of getting from the public roadway by using it as the means to get to the property in question. The buyer who decides to purchase the remaining lots with the intent of integrating them is just a responsible for questioning the two-track that was providing access to the "landlocked" parcel earlier sold one mile away from the public roadway.

The prospective owner of the lakelot plot, even if the easement was not explicitly identified in his purchase agreement, was led to believe that he would be able to get to the public road via the two-track, by using the two-track to be shown the parcel in question in the first place.

edited: Incidently, the maintainance of this two-track, is currently maintained by the owner(s) of the properties. The state does not plow or maintain this two-track. To acquire this status, the property owners would need to arrange a contract with the county or city to bring that action about.

Edited November 13, 2012 by dream_weaver

[tadmjones]

Walling others in would be a great way to increase one's revenue -- demanding very high payments from landlocked owners, or even the eventual surrender of their property, in exhange for their ability to come and go could be very profitable. Also, walling people in could be a very effective way of dealing with evil people who, politically, promote vicious ideas. So, yes, there are conceiveable contexts in which a rational individual would derive advantage from walling others in.

J

Are you here saying that in your Oist society every individual would act rationally? Or do you grant that given an "Oist society"( a term I doubt Rand would sanction as used here) that some may act irrationally? If your answer is the former then there would be no conflicts, given what you postulate as being the actions of rational individuals, landlocked owners would pay fees or surrender ownership ect. But if you can conceive of the latter, a more likely scenerio as it's closer to reality( man is not infallible, there will be irrational acters) what would be the wallers legitimate reaction to the wallees' possible refusal of payment? What actions could the waller take if the wallee just plain trespassed? Could the waller use force against the trespassers? If so what level of force, could they shoot the trespassers for flattening his lawn?

[tadmjones]

Are these scenerios analagous?

1 someone secures proper and legal title and deed to , in one night, a swath of property extending one foot around a condo complex , wallls it in and in the morning charges all the owners of the units egress fees.

2 someone may secure proper and legal title and deed, in one night, to the downhill properties of an area akin to Malibu Ca , and then advertise ransom rates to stop owner from undermining local topograghy.

These are examples of exercising property rights yes?

Edited November 13, 2012 by tadmjones

[Jonathan13]

Do you own property, Johnathon13?

Yes, I do.

I earlier explained, there is a 40 acre chunk of land that exists in a living will that is currently under my charge which is also co-governed by the legal survivor.

If the desire to sell the parcel on the lake,did not provide access to that parcel, would you consider purchasing it?

The road that passes by the property is currently a public roadway. Let's call that a state provided easement that taxes are levied to maintain. The property on the lake is nearly a mile from this public roadway. In order to access this property, you need to drive a mile down a two-track road that has been hewn out of the woods.

Even if we sold the remaining acrage to another speculator, or one that desired to keeps said property intact for themselves, the fact that the two-track was cut into the wood to provide access to the lake-front parcel should be sufficient for a judge to declare it as "easement by necessity" as it was implied to be the means of getting from the public roadway by using it as the means to get to the property in question. The buyer who decides to purchase the remaining lots with the intent of integrating them is just a responsible for questioning the two-track that was providing access to the "landlocked" parcel earlier sold one mile away from the public roadway.

The prospective owner of the lakelot plot, even if the easement was not explicitly identified in his purchase agreement, was led to believe that he would be able to get to the public road via the two-track, by using the two-track to be shown the parcel in question in the first place.

edited: Incidently, the maintainance of this two-track, is currently maintained by the owner(s) of the properties. The state does not plow or maintain this two-track. To acquire this status, the property owners would need to arrange a contract with the county or city to bring that action about.

I understand, but the point of this thread is to explore the Objectivist concept of property rights as applied to scenarios in which one party's access to and from his property has not been contractually established, and to do so in regard to ideal law under an Objectivist system, and not under the current non-Objectivist system. Certain people on this thread believe that the person who failed to secure access to and from his property is being "imprisoned" by those who surround him and who will not let him cross their property to get to where he wants to go. They accuse the surrounding property owner(s) of "initiating force." (While taking such an anti-Objectivist position, one of them has actually been brazen enough to scold one of the moderators here and tell him that he's tired of holding his hand and having no effect in denting his incomprehension of all things Objectivist!) These people claim to be promoting and defending Objectivism. Do you grasp the seriousness of self-proclaimed proponents of Objectivism publicly and inadverently opposing Objectivism and rudely snarling at others who are politely trying to correct their errors?

J

[Jonathan13]

Are you here saying that in your Oist society every individual would act rationally? Or do you grant that given an "Oist society"( a term I doubt Rand would sanction as used here) that some may act irrationally?

No, I don't think that every individual would always act rationally.

If your answer is the former then there would be no conflicts, given what you postulate as being the actions of rational individuals, landlocked owners would pay fees or surrender ownership ect. But if you can conceive of the latter, a more likely scenerio as it's closer to reality( man is not infallible, there will be irrational acters) what would be the wallers legitimate reaction to the wallees' possible refusal of payment? What actions could the waller take if the wallee just plain trespassed? Could the waller use force against the trespassers? If so what level of force, could they shoot the trespassers for flattening his lawn?

I brought up the same question in post #31:

"I think a more rational approach to the issue would be to ask what type of punishment or restitution for trespassing is justified according to Objectivism. If I cross your property without your permission, and you take me to court for doing so, what is a just punishment? Probably a fine? If so, then the cost of my accessing my surrounded property is the amount of the fine."

And, no, I do not think that a landowner has the right to kill a trespasser for flattening his lawn, much in the same way that a store owner doesn't have the right to bash a child's skull in for shoplifting a candy bar. Proportional response.

J

[dream_weaver]

Do you grasp the seriousness of self-proclaimed proponents of Objectivism publicly and inadverently opposing Objectivism and rudely snarling at others who are politely trying to correct their errors?

J

Not really. I think I can grasp though, that those who are politely trying to correct their errors are likely to be more adept at it than those who do not put forth such an effort. Edited November 13, 2012 by dream_weaver

[Jonathan13]

Not really.

Really? Are you saying that you think that the future of the Objectivist movement and its influence on the culture will in no way be hindered by the fact that many of those who are most zealous about promoting Objectivism have confused themselves into inadvertently opposing it in regard to certain issues?

J

[edited to remove a comment which I mistakenly posted here]

Edited November 13, 2012 by Jonathan13

[Devil's Advocate]

Personally, I find partisan squabbles between dissidents and apologists very enlightening.

[Jonathan13]

Personally, I find partisan squabbles between dissidents and apologists very enlightening.

Could you point us to some? Where might I find some "partisan squabbles" between "dissidents" and "apologists"?

J

[Devil's Advocate]

Could you point us to some? Where might I find some "partisan squabbles" between "dissidents" and "apologists"?

I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request.

[tadmjones]

No, I don't think that every individual would always act rationally.

I brought up the same question in post #31:

"I think a more rational approach to the issue would be to ask what type of punishment or restitution for trespassing is justified according to Objectivism. If I cross your property without your permission, and you take me to court for doing so, what is a just punishment? Probably a fine? If so, then the cost of my accessing my surrounded property is the amount of the fine."

And, no, I do not think that a landowner has the right to kill a trespasser for flattening his lawn, much in the same way that a store owner doesn't have the right to bash a child's skull in for shoplifting a candy bar. Proportional response.

J

I'm sorry I missed that post, my broader point I thought would be made by what I thought your reply would have been, again I apologize for thinking I could put words in our mouth. I thought your answer would have been along the lines that it would have to handled as either a civil or perhaps criminal matter, and the government would be the appropriate agency to settle such a dispute. Which would lead to looking at the proper role of government , why government is cast as a necessary 'evil' line of discussion.

You do agree that in a rational society rights are never in conflict, yes?

[Jonathan13]

I'm sorry I missed that post, my broader point I thought would be made by what I thought your reply would have been, again I apologize for thinking I could put words in our mouth. I thought your answer would have been along the lines that it would have to handled as either a civil or perhaps criminal matter, and the government would be the appropriate agency to settle such a dispute.

Under an Objectivist system, yes, the government would be the appropriate agency to deal with the issue of trespassing and of any other property dispute.

If you were to purchase the property around mine, thus landlocking me (because I neglected to make contractual arrangements to come and go), and I feared that you might be potentially too aggressive in defending your property rights (let's say that I have reason to suspect that you might shoot me and then later, after I died on your property, falsely claim to authorities that I had not just crossed your property to leave mine, but that I had also confronted you, threatened you and tried to punch you, and therefore your killing me was in self-defense), I might call the authorities myself and tell them of my intentions of trespassing, and arrange for them to come and witness my doing so and to arrest me, thus ensuring my safe passage and communicating my eagerness to be held accountable for my action.

You do agree that in a rational society rights are never in conflict, yes?

Not only do I agree that rights are never in conflict in a rational society, but I believe they are never in conflict, period. Even in an irrational society, one's actual rights are never in conflict with another's.

J

[dream_weaver]

Really? Are you saying that you think that the future of the Objectivist movement and its influence on the culture will in no way be hindered by the fact that many of those who are most zealous about promoting Objectivism have confused themselves into inadvertently opposing it in regard to certain issues?

J

[edited to remove a comment which I mistakenly posted here]

Yes, there are some that are positing that Objectivism proposes property rights are somehow unrestricted. I don't consider such a confused position to be one consistent with that of promoting Objectivism. Does misunderstanding Objectivism hinder its potential influence on the culture? Clearly it has to be understood before it can be accepted. There are many misunderstood points of Objectivism. The onus of correcting those misunderstanding lay in the individual(s) that desires to cultivate an understanding.

As to whether this and other contributions of mine within this thread, or any others threads on this forum add to the discussion, may depend on if others find partisan squabbles between dissidents and apologists very enlightening.

When dealing in the realm of ethics, the expression "lifeboat ethics" creating situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct.

The expression "lifeboat economics" comes to mind regarding trying to weigh issues like the OP tendered.

[Jonathan13]

As to whether this and other contributions of mine within this thread, or any others threads on this forum add to the discussion, may depend on if others find partisan squabbles between dissidents and apologists very enlightening.

That would depend on who one is assuming is "partisan," how one defines "squabbles," and who qualifies as a "dissident" or an "apologist."

Is the act of philosophical investigation necessarily "partisan," and disagreement a "squabble"? There seems to be an unwarranted assumption in the framing of the language that anyone involved must be advocating -- dissenting from or apologizing for Objectivism -- rather than simply questioning or challenging the truth or falsehood of others' positions. In other words, the framing of the language doesn't take into account the fact that one need not agree nor disagree with Objectivism to disagree with an Objectivist's interpretation of a tenet or application of Objectivism -- one need not be a "partisan" to identify a partisan's mistaken views of Objectivism.

J

Edited November 13, 2012 by Jonathan13

[tadmjones]

Under an Objectivist system, yes, the government would be the appropriate agency to deal with the issue of trespassing and of any other property dispute.

If you were to purchase the property around mine, thus landlocking me (because I neglected to make contractual arrangements to come and go),

Not only do I agree that rights are never in conflict in a rational society, but I believe they are never in conflict, period. Even in an irrational society, one's actual rights are never in conflict with another's.

J

What if the wallee is not aware of the waller's intention to purchase the surronding property, because you state it is the wallee's responsibility to arrange for egress.

Edited November 14, 2012 by tadmjones

[tadmjones]

Rights are only applicable in a societal context, in that context it is necessary that individuals have to surrender their 'right' of the use of physical force, contextually. It seems to me the same principle would apply to the idea of easements for property owners. By becoming walled in, the use of my propert has been diminished. Physically barring egress is the sole cause of that diminishment, how is that justified?

Any justification would , I believe, have to motivated by the notion that somehow economic power trumps political power.

Edited November 14, 2012 by tadmjones

[Plasmatic]

I've tried to post 3 times, after typing long responses, and lost my effort to a computer snafu.For now I'll just say I disagree with the only philosophical argument given and will post soon why.

J13 said:

"That would depend on who one is assuming is "partisan," how one defines "squabbles," and who qualifies as a "dissident" or an "apologist."

Is the act of philosophical investigation necessarily "partisan," and disagreement a "squabble"? There seems to be an unwarranted assumption in the framing of the language that anyone involved must be advocating -- dissenting from or apologizing for Objectivism -- rather than simply questioning or challenging the truth or falsehood of others' positions. In other words, the framing of the language doesn't take into account the fact that one need not agree nor disagree with Objectivism to disagree with an Objectivist's interpretation of a tenet or application of Objectivism -- one need not be a "partisan" to identify a partisan's mistaken views of Objectivism."

I agree with this statement. I find that this almost serves as a form of evading answering important challenges. Not everyone who is applying logic to a premise is being rationalistic and attempting to move goal posts so as to prevent Oism from having a claim to truth. In fact I see the habit of thinking only an actual event qualifies as a subject of analysis as concrete thinking apart from principle. Folks need to discern that their are two types of approaches to this type of scenario, those who are being evasive and wanting to discredit Oism, and those who are practicing the virtue of rationality and evaluating their premises for consistency.

Now not everyone who keeps complaining "that's a life boat!" is evading either. I think some have simply taken this position from others and apply it when they see "life boat!". Still others are simply not asking "if this is true,then the principle of X " etc.

Edit: the above wasn't meant as a comment on the quote J13 responded to,so much as a general statement on the trend of other comments in the thread.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Plasmatic

[Jonathan13]

What if the wallee is not aware of the waller's intention to purchase the surronding property, because you state it is the wallee's responsibility to arrange for egress.

The wallee would not have to be aware of any specific individual's intentions, but of the fact that in a purely Objectivist system of land ownership, egress, an issue which one need not pay much attention to under a system of public roads, becomes an issue of immense importance, and one which requires very careful attention to contractual details when purchasing property.

J

[Jonathan13]

Rights are only applicable in a societal context, in that context it is necessary that individuals have to surrender their 'right' of the use of physical force, contextually. It seems to me the same principle would apply to the idea of easements for property owners. By becoming walled in, the use of my propert has been diminished.

No. The use of your property has NOT been diminished. You can use it to your heart's content. You can grow your own food and live off of it. What's been diminished is your use of others' property, and your free access to others via public roadways. See, you currently live in a society where you receive the benefits of others' labors, and you appear to be just now discovering that you like and want to keep those benefits. Well, that mindset clashes with Objectivism. If you want liberty, you have to give up the freebies. Government-forced, guaranteed access to your property, in which others are forced to involuntarily allow you to use their property, is one of the freebies that you have to give up.

J

Edited November 14, 2012 by Jonathan13