Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

walling people into their own property

Rate this topic


Puzzle Peddler

Recommended Posts

Agreed, and that is exactly the point I'm making; property lines are common, not private. Whether you define them as "demarcations" or thresholds, a trespasser must cross the line to be guilty of any offense. Being on the threshold, or at the line of demarcation, doesn't demonstrate an intention to unlawfully enter someones property until one is actually within the property.

You seem to believe that you can make up rules about property and trespassing as if it's a game that you're inventing. Something like, "As long as any part of the player is still touching the property line, he cannot be tagged out or charged with trespassing!"

The best one can do is accuse someone on the line of loitering.

Loitering is the act of abusing a public property. There is no public property in our hypothetical, so one could not be accused of loitering.

In all other respects, I agree with your assertion that a rightful owner of property hasn't any duty to negotiate easements as the necessary liberty of others. But philosophically (and by definition), there's no legitimacy in calling someone a trespasser, who is simply traveling around the perimeter of your property without fully entering it. And a trespasser cannot be divided in half to suit your argument, such that he can simultaneously be in two distinct locations (your property, and your neighbor's property) at the same time.

It's not a magical feat for a person to be on two properties at once, or to be in violation of the rights of several different property owners at the same time. It's really quite simple. He doesn't have to be "divided in half" just because you've arbitrarily made up some rules that have nothing to do with reality. A person also wouldn't have to be "divided in half" in order to be tried for killing two or more people at the same time, nor would he have to be "divided in half" to be tried for vandalizing two cars at the same time, or for reaching into two different windows of two different apartments at the same time and stealing an object from each, etc.

The philosophical premise being tested is whether your right to property can stand on your own efforts to earn it without relying on claiming title to an object shared by others, e.g. property lines...

Property lines ARE NOT OBJECTS!!! They are NOT PROPERTY!!! And they ARE NOT "OBJECTS SHARED BY OTHERS"!!!! They are nothing but the zero-width demarcation BETWEEN property which IS NOT SHARED by two parties. There is nothing "common" or "shared" about the line: it is the line of separation and distinction between two completely different entities.

...or narrowing the common definition of trespassing to mean knocking on the door, as opposed to entering into your house.

By your arbitrary rules, it would be morally acceptable to walk into someone's house without permission, just as long as you kept some part of your body outside of the property. "What do you mean that I'm trespassing?! I haven't 'fully entered' your house! Technically, I'm on the perimeter, as is my 'right.' See, the very tip of my pinky is over the 'common property line.'"

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to believe that you can make up rules about property and trespassing as if it's a game that you're inventing. Something like, "As long as any part of the player is still touching the property line, he cannot be tagged out or charged with trespassing!"

It's not a magical feat for a person to be on two properties at once, or to be in violation of the rights of several different property owners at the same time. It's really quite simple. He doesn't have to be "divided in half" just because you've arbitrarily made up some rules that have nothing to do with reality. A person also wouldn't have to be "divided in half" in order to be tried for killing two or more people at the same time, nor would he have to be "divided in half" to be tried for vandalizing two cars at the same time, or for reaching into two different windows of two different apartments at the same time and stealing an object from each, etc.

By your arbitrary rules, it would be morally acceptable to walk into someone's house without permission, just as long as you kept some part of your body outside of the property. "What do you mean that I'm trespassing?! I haven't 'fully entered' your house! Technically, I'm on the perimeter, as is my 'right.' See, the very tip of my pinky is over the 'common property line.'"

The following is cited from Texas statute regarding criminal trespass on property:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

B: For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is cited from Texas statute regarding criminal trespass on property:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or

(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

B: For purposes of this section:

(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.

...

Oh, I'm sure that we could find lots of arbitrary legal definitions under the current collectivist/statist systems. I'm sure that we could take almost any anti-Objectivist, rights-violating position and cite a current law to fallaciously try to validate our argument.

But, in an Objectivist system, legal definitions would not be arbitrary, nor would they be based in the current mindset of lack of full respect for property rights, or the expectation of free public commons and public roadways. In an Objectivist system, all land, including all roads, would be privately owned, and therefore transit on others' properties would be considered a tradable value rather than an entitlement. Any attempt to acquire that value without consent from its owner would be an act of theft, and, therefore, just as the Texan source that you cited defines "entry" as meaning the intrusion of "any part of the body" when it comes to burglary/theft, the same definition of "entry" would apply to the attempted theft of transit in Objectiland. Any intrusion unto private property involving any part of the body used with the intent of theft of transit would be a crime.

Besides, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, your and Texas's arbitrary definitions of "trespass" and "entry," Objectivist property owners would still have options to prevent your use of the border areas of their property.

For example, they could build high walls an inch or two inside the entire boundaries of their own properties, and tell you that you are free to attempt to squeeze yourself between the walls. One could put up any barrier on his side of the line -- a large pillar or plinth, for example -- which would prevent you from passing without fully entering, with your "entire body," onto one or the other properties. One could cover his entire property with a building, thus giving you no option of "partially entering" his property.

If property owners didn't want to build walls or buildings, they could approach your desire to use of their property with as much technical legal zeal as you've been trying to bring to this discussion. It wouldn't be as easy as you apparently think it is to walk on invisible property lines without technically allowing "the intrusion of the entire body" onto one of the properties. As a property owner upon whose property you're claiming to occupy with less than your "entire body," I might judge one of your steps to have put you "entirely" unto my property. I would then detain you, call the police and press charges. I might even have a camera set up to record such incidents, and then a judge and jury would have to review it as evidence to decide your guilt or innocence. Your desire to use others' land to go where ever you wanted without permission or payment would be constantly impeded by your being detained and awaiting further review by the justice system.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J

In Objectiland, if an individual obtained property in the manner of the donut and hole example, what is the disposition of the land inside the hole area if there are no previously recorded owners?

Would the land become the property of the owner of the ring section by default?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sure that we could find lots of arbitrary legal definitions under the current collectivist/statist systems. I'm sure that we could take almost any anti-Objectivist, rights-violating position and cite a current law to fallaciously try to validate our argument.

Yes, well your argument does make more sense if you ditch all current legal definitions and precedents...

But, in an Objectivist system, legal definitions would not be arbitrary, nor would they be based in the current mindset of lack of full respect for property rights, or the expectation of free public commons and public roadways. In an Objectivist system, all land, including all roads, would be privately owned, and therefore transit on others' properties would be considered a tradable value rather than an entitlement. Any attempt to acquire that value without consent from it's owner would be an act of theft, and, therefore, just as the Texan source that you cited defines "entry" as meaning the intrusion of "any part of the body" when it comes to burglary/theft, the same definition of "entry" would apply to the attempted theft of transit in Objectiland. Any intrusion unto private property involving any part of the body used with the intent of theft of transit would be a crime.

LOL, yes! Let's keep those "arbitrary" claims that support your argument and ditch the rest...

Besides, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, your and Texas's arbitrary definitions of "trespass" and "entry," Objectivist property owners would still have options to prevent your use of the border areas of their property.

For example, they could build high walls an inch or two inside the entire boundaries of their own properties, and tell you that you are free to attempt to squeeze yourself between the walls. One could put up any barrier on his side of the line -- a large pillar or plinth, for example -- which would prevent you from passing without fully entering, with your "entire body," onto one or the other properties. One could cover his entire property with a building, thus giving you no option of "partially entering" his property.

If property owners didn't want to build walls or buildings, they could approach your desire to use of their property with as much technical legal zeal as you've been trying to bring to this discussion. It wouldn't be as easy as you apparently think it is to walk on invisible property lines without technically allowing "the intrusion of the entire body" onto one of the properties. As a property owner upon whose property you're claiming to occupy with less than your "entire body," I might judge one of your steps to have put you "entirely" unto my property. I would then detain you, call the police and press charges. I might even have a camera set up to record such incidents, and then a judge and jury would have to review it as evidence to decide your guilt or innocence. Your desire to use others' land to go where ever you wanted without permission or payment would be constantly impeded by your being detained and awaiting further review by the justice system.

Yes, there are any number of things property owners could do in Objectland, even with "arbitrary" rules like not intentionally confining neighbors to their property against their will. Hovercrafts perhaps?

The need for transit isn't dependent on public roads, or trespassing across someone's private property. If anything, a person caught trying to negotiate their way along a property line would be demonstrating an intention not to trespass. Whatever legal consequences they encountered would be preferable to being forced to negotiate every step cross country in a free market society. At any rate, it's been an interesting discussion, and I've loitered here long enough :P

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well your argument does make more sense if you ditch all current legal definitions and precedents...

Well, this is a discussion on the philosophical concept of property rights, so it only makes sense that not all current laws and legal definitions would be accepted without question or challenge. The idea isn't to cite just any current law in one's argument, but to identify philosophical justification for any law under consideration. You haven't done so.

LOL, yes! Let's keep those "arbitrary" claims that support your argument and ditch the rest...

My claim wasn't arbitrary. Didn't you notice that I offered Objectivist philosophical support for it? According to Objectivism, the arbitrary is "a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality." In my argument above, I've put forth evidence, validation and a connection to reality. Re-read the part where I explained the status of property used for transit as a tradable value rather than an entitlement.

Yes, there are any number of things property owners could do in Objectland, even with "arbitrary" rules like not intentionally confining neighbors to their property against their will. Hovercrafts perhaps?

I still don't accept your attempted spinning of the language. One has not confined his neighbor, neither intentionally nor unintentionally, by purchasing the land around him. Rather, the neighbor has confined himself by neglecting to consensually and contractually secure passage. If you wish to continue pursuing your fallacious argument, it would make more sense for you to try to demonstrate that it is not fallacious rather than simply repeating it over and over and ignoring the fact that it has been shown to be fallacious. I've already pointed you to this post of mine multiple times:

Exactly. Putting our opponents' argument into the form of a syllogism makes it clear what the mistake is:

The act of initiating force to confine a man is immoral.

Jim has become confined to his own property due to the sales of surrounding properties.

Therefore the immoral act of initiating force has been used against Jim.

It's an example of the logical fallacy known as "Affirming the Consequent." It overlooks or ignores the fact that a man can become confined without others initiating force against him.

Isn't it time for you to stop repeating and compounding the fallacy?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J

In Objectiland, if an individual obtained property in the manner of the donut and hole example, what is the disposition of the land inside the hole area if there are no previously recorded owners?

Would the land become the property of the owner of the ring section by default?

I would assume that the Objectivist position is that any land which has not been owned or used by anyone is available to anyone who wishes to homestead it.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that the Objectivist position is that any land which has not been owned or used by anyone is available to anyone who wishes to homestead it.

J

So the owner of the ring section could bar any homesteading? Would that not be the same as acquiring by default? I am not trying to find a chink in the armor of this line of discussion, I am trying to apply your line of reasoning to other aspects or examples of property ownership.

I still feel landed property is in a different class or species of property and in a societal context would be understood in that context. Ownership would or should be designated according to the class of property and that such recognition can be derived objectively and contextually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Putting our opponents' argument into the form of a syllogism makes it clear what the mistake is:

The act of initiating force to confine a man is immoral.

Jim has become confined to his own property due to the sales of surrounding properties.

Therefore the immoral act of initiating force has been used against Jim.

It's an example of the logical fallacy known as "Affirming the Consequent." It overlooks or ignores the fact that a man can become confined without others initiating force against him.

OK... based on what is being presented, Jim established his right to egress by traveling uninterrupted to and from his property prior to the sale. That he was using some lane of egress is given, and that he wasn't prevented from using it implies that the path legitimately became his according to squatters rights, i.e. he wasn't prevented from using someone's neglected property, so it became his. Therefore the sale is illegitimate and Jim's consequent confinement affirms the immorality of the action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW J,

The OP's problem questions the legitimacy of purchasing a private road with the intention of confining someone to their property. There aren't any other facts presented by the OP to consider, so in this case, the sale affirms the consequent confinement. I'm puzzled why you think that recognizing an attempt to confine someone against their will, that results in confining someone against their will, is a fallacious conclusion, unless you're presenting something like a "guns don't kill people; people kill people" argument for real estate. In this case the intention of the buyer is given and the means of confinement relies on the sale of property... so unless I'm missing something, the legitimacy being discussed has to do with the act of confinement; not the land being purchased...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK... based on what is being presented, Jim established his right to egress by traveling uninterrupted to and from his property prior to the sale.

No, one doesn't establish a "right" to something simply by receiving it previously via the generosity of others. What you're apparently failing to grasp is the distinction between the courtesy of temporary permission versus the permanence of a contract. If I extend Jim the courtesy of allowing him to cross my land, eat all he wants from my garden, drink from my garden hose, and borrow any of my tools at any time, he doesn't magically acquire the right to continue receiving those benefits from me in perpetuity, against my will, and he doesn't acquire the right to receive those benefits from whoever might purchase my property. Any courtesy that I may extend to him doesn't magically become a condition of my contractual dealings with others just because he has become dependent on my generosity.

That he was using some lane of egress is given, and that he wasn't prevented from using it implies that the path legitimately became his according to squatters rights, i.e. he wasn't prevented from using someone's neglected property, so it became his.

Why did you just invent the "neglected" part? There was nothing about the property being neglected. The idea isn't to alter the scenario so as to avoid the problem that it identifies, or to question-beg one's emotionally desired outcome, but to address the problem, and to accept the logical and just outcome of solving the problem even if doing so is emotionally uncomfortable for you.

Therefore the sale is illegitimate and Jim's consequent confinement affirms the immorality of the action.

And now we're back to the problems that I identified in post 131, and which DonAthos has addressed in depth but which no one has answered. In a private system, there are rings and rings of properties surrounding any and every property owner, and each owner may need to cross multiple properties to get to where he needs to go. He may have persmission from all, say, thirty of the owners between him and his usual destination, but that doesn't mean that he has a contract with them or with anyone to whom they might sell.

It would be impossible for anyone purchasing land to plan to build anything if anyone from miles around could come forward after the sale and claim that, although they don't have a contract, they have previously had permission to cross the property, and therefore the new building can't be built because it will "confine" and "imprison" them -- they have acquired the "right" to continue crossing the property.

BTW J,

The OP's problem questions the legitimacy of purchasing a private road with the intention of confining someone to their property.

No, that's not true. The original post identifies no such intention. Later, in post # 28, PuzzlePeddler even clarified his intentions by saying, "I never intended to impose anything, I'm just building a wall. It's actually to prevent my own farm animals from wondering onto your land, so you should actually thank me."

He was actually being generous in allowing the surrounded property owner to return to his property, thus not "denying him access" to his property, even though he had the right to deny him egress.

There aren't any other facts presented by the OP to consider, so in this case, the sale affirms the consequent confinement. I'm puzzled why you think that recognizing an attempt to confine someone against their will, that results in confining someone against their will, is a fallacious conclusion...

I'm curious as to why you're so eager to label non-initiation of force to be initiation of force. With your mindset, any act of withholding a previously granted generosity would be the act of confining, harming or killing someone. Grocers and doctors raising their rates would be guilty of taking advantage of the hungry, sick and dying, and of standing between them and their "right" to food, medicine and treatment at the same price that they've always paid in the past. According to your thought process, their having always paid the previous price gives them the "right" to recieve goods and pay no more than that price, no?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post not only identifies an intention to confine but declares the attempt to later justify it as a right of owning private property:

"I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work... once you return to your house I refuse to let you trespass on my property again" ~ OP

"I will argue that I am merely exercising the right to build stuff on my own private property" ~ OP

There is nothing to derive from the original problem other than an attempt to justify the intentional confinement of one property owner by another as the consequence of a right to property. However the problem is presented, the premise being tested is, does one individual have the right to confine another against their will?

Unless the person being confined initiated some act of aggression (which the OP, et al have failed to identify), the answer is, no.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post not only identifies an intention to confine but declares the attempt to later justify it as a right of owning private property:

"I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work... once you return to your house I refuse to let you trespass on my property again" ~ OP

"I will argue that I am merely exercising the right to build stuff on my own private property" ~ OP

There is nothing to derive from the original problem other than an attempt to justify the intentional confinement of one property owner by another as the consequence of a right to property. However the problem is presented, the premise being tested is, does one individual have the right to confine another against their will?

Unless the person being confined initiated some act of aggression (which the OP, et al have failed to identify), the answer is, no.

No, the original post does not identify an "intention to confine." You've only fallaciously inferred it to identify that intention. The original post identifies the intent to generously forgive the surrounded property owner of his trespassing and to allow him to return to his property despite his not having a contract allowing him to do so, and to then no longer allow him to trespass.

Your repeating of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent and ignoring its fallaciousness won't make it cease to be fallacious.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's an example of the logical fallacy known as 'Affirming the Consequent.' It overlooks or ignores the fact that a man can become confined without others initiating force against him" ~ J

OK, so what other means of confining Jim were presented by the OP?

"I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work... once you return to your house I refuse to let you trespass on my property again" ~ OP

"I will argue that I am merely exercising the right to build stuff on my own private property" ~ OP

One must necessarily have some means of obeying the law prior to breaking it, which you admit by stating, "It overlooks or ignores the fact that a man can become confined without others initiating force against him." Therefore Jim must have some other legitimate means of not trespassing, and according to conditions stated by the OP, there aren't any. Were Objectland composed exclusively of private properties and the lines that divide them, property lines would necessarily provide the only remaining means of legitimate transit around properties in order to avoid penetrating into them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so what other means of confining Jim were presented by the OP?

What means of confining Jim were presented? The nature of private property ownership and Jim's neglecting to contractually arrange for easement.

One must necessarily have some means of obeying the law prior to breaking it, which you admit by stating, "It overlooks or ignores the fact that a man can become confined without others initiating force against him." Therefore Jim must have some other legitimate means of not trespassing, and according to conditions stated by the OP, there aren't any.

As I said in post #65:

"A surrounded property owner still has the right to till his soil, grow a garden, drill for water, raise animals, etc. He has the option of selling the property. He has the option of negotiating with his surrounding neighbor and offering to pay a fee for crossing his property, or to purchase an access strip of land outright. He has the option of turning the issue into a public spectacle and using public opinion to pressure the surrounding landowner."

In other words, his means of obeying the law and "not trespassing" is to make productive use of his own property, which is the entire point of the Objectivist concept of property ownership in the first place.

Were Objectiland composed exclusively of private properties and the lines that divide them, property lines would necessarily provide the only remaining means of legitimate transit around properties in order to avoid penetrating into them.

No, your desired solution isn't the "only remaining means of legitimate transit." First of all, in a system composed exclusively of private property, your "solution" would be a violation of property rights, which makes it a non-solution. Secondly, people in a free society tend to see the benfits of accessing and trading with one another, and would voluntarily construct their own routes of access for public use. The hypothetical presented in this thread would rarely happen in reality. The point of this discussion was to explore an extreme case for the purpose of refining people's understanding of property rights.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What means of confining Jim were presented? The nature of private property ownership and Jim's neglecting to contractually arrange for easement.

Jim hasn't neglected anything. He had some agreement, tacit or explicit, to come and go from his property according to the OP:

"I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work..."

Jim had egress, which the OP acknowledges and then removes.

As I said in post #65:

"A surrounded property owner still has the right to till his soil, grow a garden, drill for water, raise animals, etc. He has the option of selling the property. He has the option of negotiating with his surrounding neighbor and offering to pay a fee for crossing his property, or to purchase an access strip of land outright. He has the option of turning the issue into a public spectacle and using public opinion to pressure the surrounding landowner."

In other words, his means of obeying the law and "not trespassing" is to make productive use of his own property, which is the entire point of the Objectivist concept of property ownership in the first place.

Seriously?! Jim has been intentionally confined to his property without notice by the OP, who then refuses to release him:

"... once you return to your house I refuse to let you trespass on my property again"

All negotiation and public access (meaning public appeals, or offers to buy or sell, or otherwise profit from the use of Jim's property) have been intentionally removed by OP in order to test the legitimacy of a property right to confine Jim:

"I will argue that I am merely exercising the right to build stuff on my own private property"

You apparently don't understand, or can't respond to the given situation without restoring every means of avoiding confinement that have been intentionally removed by the OP.

No, your desired solution isn't the "only remaining means of legitimate transit." First of all, in a system composed exclusively of private property, your "solution" would be a violation of property rights, which makes it a non-solution. Secondly, people in a free society tend to see the benfits of accessing and trading with one another, and would voluntarily construct their own routes of access for public use. The hypothetical presented in this thread would rarely happen in reality. The point of this discussion was to explore an extreme case for the purpose of refining people's understanding of property rights.

I've already shown your 1st point is incorrect by common definition, which you arbitrarily dismiss by preferring to substitute the definition for burglary in lieu of trespass. Your 2nd point isn't being contested by anyone here, as it doesn't have anything to do with the actual scenario presented by the OP, in which the very things you continue to argue for have been intentionally removed by a refusal to negotiate. In the OP's Objectland there's only private property and the lines that divide it, therefore property lines are the only remaining means to avoid trespassing on land owned by someone who refuses to negotiate passage.

The hypothetical presented in this thread can only be interpreted as an act of aggression, as the OP preemptively confines a non-aggressive neighbor his property, i.e. the "defense of property" precedes any illegal action on Jim's part. As a matter of law, the prosecution of a trespasser requires one to exist; Jim hasn't trespassed. You can't defend the legitimacy of the OP's action without restoring or adding elements to the given scenario that have been intentionally removed to test the legitimacy of the OP's action, so I believe we're done here...

The OP's action to confine Jim is clearly illegitimate according to any common understanding of law and property rights. Anyone in Jim's situation would understand they are under siege by a hostile force and respond accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim hasn't neglected anything. He had some agreement, tacit or explicit, to come and go from his property according to the OP:

"I allow you to pass through my land to return to your house from work..."

Jim had egress, which the OP acknowledges and then removes.

I addressed that in post #286:

"No, one doesn't establish a "right" to something simply by receiving it previously via the generosity of others. What you're apparently failing to grasp is the distinction between the courtesy of temporary permission versus the permanence of a contract. If I extend Jim the courtesy of allowing him to cross my land, eat all he wants from my garden, drink from my garden hose, and borrow any of my tools at any time, he doesn't magically acquire the right to continue receiving those benefits from me in perpetuity, against my will, and he doesn't acquire the right to receive those benefits from whoever might purchase my property. Any courtesy that I may extend to him doesn't magically become a condition of my contractual dealings with others just because he has become dependent on my generosity."

Your approach on this thread appears to be to ignore the substance of your opponents' arguments, and to continue to repeat your faulty argument, over and over and over again, despite the fact that it has been shown to be fallacious. Repeating a fallacious argument doesn't make it sound.

The OP's action to confine Jim is clearly illegitimate according to any common understanding of law and property rights.

And by any "common understanding" of law and property rights, the political majority's seizing of a political minority's property might be seen as being "clearly legitimate." But we're not talking about "common understandings," but of that which is philosophically objectively demonstrable. Your position doesn't pass the test. It is illogical.

Anyone in Jim's situation would understand they are under siege by a hostile force and respond accordingly.

So, what are you saying in using such exaggerated, hyped-up language? When each of Jim's neighboring property owners, and their neighboring property owners for miles around, don't give Jim permission to cross their land, your opinion is that Jim's proper response is to imagine that he is "under siege" by "hostile forces" and that he therefore has the right to kill everyone in the vicinity? Anyone who refuses to allow him to use their property is perpetrating an act of war against him? You're coming across to me as very emotional, irrational and bloodthirsty.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I addressed that in post #286:

"No, one doesn't establish a "right" to something simply by receiving it previously via the generosity of others. What you're apparently failing to grasp is the distinction between the courtesy of temporary permission versus the permanence of a contract. If I extend Jim the courtesy of allowing him to cross my land, eat all he wants from my garden, drink from my garden hose, and borrow any of my tools at any time, he doesn't magically acquire the right to continue receiving those benefits from me in perpetuity, against my will, and he doesn't acquire the right to receive those benefits from whoever might purchase my property. Any courtesy that I may extend to him doesn't magically become a condition of my contractual dealings with others just because he has become dependent on my generosity."

Your approach on this thread appears to be to ignore the substance of your opponents' arguments, and to continue to repeat your faulty argument, over and over and over again, despite the fact that it has been shown to be fallacious. Repeating a fallacious argument doesn't make it sound.

What you're apparently failing to grasp is Jim had negotiated for egress on a private road (implied by the OP: "... you are surrounded on all sides by private property owned by neighbors and private road companies"), and was subsequently confined by the OP's refusal to negotiate after allowing Jim the "courtesy" to become entrapped. Again you are failing to work with the conditions presented by the OP, and instead are adding options for Jim to avoid being confined that were specifically removed by the OP. You really seem to have a blind spot on this point... What specifically can Jim do, ACCORDING TO THE OP's ORIGINAL POST, to avoid becoming confined against his will?

And by any "common understanding" of law and property rights, the political majority's seizing of a political minority's property might be seen as being "clearly legitimate." But we're not talking about "common understandings," but of that which is philosophically objectively demonstrable. Your position doesn't pass the test. It is illogical.

1) Objectland contains only private properties and lines that divide them.

2) Private property owners refuse to allow trespassing.

3) Property lines cannot be unilaterally controlled by any property owner.

4) Therefore property lines in Objectland are the only means to avoid trespassing.

So, what are you saying in using such exaggerated, hyped-up language? When each of Jim's neighboring property owners, and their neighboring property owners for miles around, don't give Jim permission to cross their land, your opinion is that Jim's proper response is to imagine that he is "under siege" by "hostile forces" and that he therefore has the right to kill everyone in the vicinity? Anyone who refuses to allow him to use their property is perpetrating an act of war against him? You're coming across to me as very emotional, irrational and bloodthirsty.

Going around the OP's property via property lines, in lieu of any other means to avoiding trespassing, is the only way to use your property without being confined by the OP: "... I erect a 30 foot wall (with no exit) all around your house..." Feel free to continue writing your own script from here on, but until you can honesty address the OP's question as is, I'll consider the issue resolved... at least to my satisfaction ;)

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're apparently failing to grasp is Jim had negotiated for egress on a private road (implied by the OP: "... you are surrounded on all sides by private property owned by neighbors and private road companies"), and was subsequently confined by the OP's refusal to negotiate after allowing Jim the "courtesy" to become entrapped.

False. The point of the OP is that Jim did not have a contract with the private road companies, or with the other neighbors, which stipulated future buyers' sharing of egress. The issue is not that Jim at one point had legitimate access to a private road company, or to any other group or individual's property, but that he had purchased land which did not carry a covenant of agreement of easement. The issue is that Jim purchased land next to tracts which did not contactually require future purchasers to extend Jim easement.

See, in a system of purely private property ownership, it is not enough to simply purchase land next to someone who is willing to give you permission to use their property (for free or for a price). Before purchasing a property, one must be sure to contractually establish that that permission cannot be revoked by future buyers of that neighboring property.

Again you are failing to work with the conditions presented by the OP, and instead are adding options for Jim to avoid being confined that were specifically removed by the OP. You really seem to have a blind spot on this point... What specifically can Jim do, ACCORDING TO THE OP's ORIGINAL POST, to avoid becoming confined against his will?

Before purchasing property, he must establish contractual reciprosity with his neighbors which stipulates that future buyers of their properties must continue to allow egress. If Jim has purchased property without doing so, then he runs the risk of confining himself.

1) Objectland contains only private properties and lines that divide them.

The idea of constructing a syllogism isn't to tell falsehoods by immediately -- and transparently -- smuggling in fallacious content that will allow one to then question-beg the desired conclusion.

Objectiland contains only private property. Period. It does not contain reified "lines that divide them." The lines that divide the property are not objects/property themselves. They are nothing. They are not a thing which Objectiland can contain. You are treating a nothing as if it is a something.

You might as well cut to chase and just say: "1) Objectiland contains only private property and areas of public property that I don't want to call public property."

2) Private property owners refuse to allow trespassing.

As is their right. Some may refuse to allow others to use their property, some may grant others permission for no charge, and some may charge a fee.

3) Property lines cannot be unilaterally controlled by any property owner.

Property lines are not existents. Only property can be controlled, and property owners have the right to prevent your attempted theft of transit via their property, as has already been explained to you.

4) Therefore property lines in Objectland are the only means to avoid trespassing.

False. Another means of avoiding trespassing is to remain on one's property and use it productively to support one's life. Yet another means is to negotiate for permission to use others' property.

And you still haven't addressed the fallaciousness of your position that the OP's property owner who builds a wall is initiating force. Ignoring it isn't going to make the fallaciousness go away.

Going around the OP's property via property lines, in lieu of any other means to avoiding trespassing, is the only way to use your property without being confined by the OP...

False. Did you forget that you've already admitted that your reification of property lines (and making them public property while pretending that they're not public property) doesn't solve the problem in the initial post? In post # 262 you agreed that the "solution" that you're concocting isn't a solution at all. You agreed with me and said that your property line contrivance "wouldn't get him out of the doughnut hole." Yet here you are falsely claiming that it does solve the problem!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"False. The point of the OP is that Jim did not have a contract with the private road companies... " ~ J

"... the land was previously own by private road companies which granted the right to travel by contract..." ~ OP #4

So either Jim didn't use the private road (which you suggest without any evidence), or he contracted for use of the road like all the rest of his neighbors... Why do you keep rewriting the OP's original post??

Jim's legitimate use of the road was encouraged by the OP in order to confine Jim without notice, or any ability to negotiate, behind a 30' wall with no exit. :dough:

*edit* regarding post #4

Please note that in Puzzle Peddler's response to Grames about easements, the OP argues according to existing legal definitions... without substitutions as you are want to do. If you really can't respond to the OP's original post, why not just start a new topic where you can set up whatever rules and definitions you want to :confused:

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You apparently didn't read and comprehend my last post, as is evident from that fact that, when quoting me, you pruned my paragraph of its meaning in ellipting it. When I write a post, the idea is for you to read and understand it as a whole, and not to read a mere sentence fragment. Go back and read it again, this time paying attention to sentences and paragraphs all the way through, and take into consideration that the bolded segments are bolded for a reason (the reason is to draw attention to them because they are particularly relevant, and not to indicate that I want you to ignore or excise them).

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You apparently didn't read and comprehend my last post, as is evident from that fact that, when quoting me, you pruned my paragraph of its meaning in ellipting it. When I write a post, the idea is for you to read and understand it as a whole, and not to read a mere sentence fragment. Go back and read it again, this time paying attention to sentences and paragraphs all the way through, and take into consideration that the bolded segments are bolded for a reason (the reason is to draw attention to them because they are particularly relevant, and not to indicate that I want you to ignore or excise them).

Your post began with a direct contradiction of the OP's recorded statement. A dishonest response is the same as no response at all... ...zzzZZZzzz...

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post began with a direct contradiction of the OP's recorded statement. A dishonest response is the same as no response at all... ...zzzZZZzzz...

"False. The point of the OP is that Jim did not have a contract with the private road companies... " ~ J

"... the land was previously own by private road companies which granted the right to travel by contract..." ~ OP #4

So either Jim didn't use the private road (which you suggest without any evidence), or he contracted for use of the road like all the rest of his neighbors... Why do you keep rewriting the OP's original post??

You seem to be the one that isn't being honest as you excluded and ignored the most important part of that quote by J.

"The point of the OP is that Jim did not have a contract with the private road companies, or with the other neighbors, which stipulated future buyers' sharing of egress"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The point of the OP is that Jim did not have a contract with the private road companies, or with the other neighbors, which stipulated future buyers' sharing of egress"

In a pure capitalist society with full private ownership of all property , what would be the legal principle which encumbers future holders of contracts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...