Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

walling people into their own property

Rate this topic


Puzzle Peddler

Recommended Posts

If Jim had no contract, then going to and from work across others property without permission would be trespassing so long as "No Trespassing" was overtly posted, and/or each owner told him to get lost. If Jim contracted with the private road companies, and the OP allowed him to cross any portion of his newly acquired property to get home, then there's no evidence that Jim ever actually trespassed. We will continue to disagree on the significance of the OP's statement, "I refuse to let you trespass on my property again", given that the OP only explicitly states that Jim's returning home was allowed (therefore not trespassing in that instance).

Okay, so let's say that Jim did not have a contract which stipulated that he would have continued access to the road once it sold to a new owner, and the new owner notifies Jim in advance of his rightful intention to not allow Jim to use the property anymore once the sale is final, and, after the sale, he posts "No Trespassing" signs every five feet on his property to remind Jim of the warning. Would you still believe that Jim's "rights" have been violated because he has allowed himself to become confined to his own property via the sale of surrounding properties?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, would it make any difference if trespass was never intended but instead the intention was to gain access to the world outside his property?

No, one's motive for committing a crime is irrelevant. Similarly, calling a cab to take one to the hospital for the purpose of saving one's life, and then refusing to pay or being unable to pay, wouldn't make the theft of service non-theft of service. Motive or intention has no bearing.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned earlier that I think that private road companies might look at users in the same way that Facebook does: they are the product to be delivered to business, so use of their roads, as long as the company owned them, would be free to users, and no contract with users would be necessary.

OK, so Jim isn't a trespasser in that case either.

Answer the questions, please. When I entered my local Target store and drove on a private road, does it necessarily follow that I must have a contract with them which states that I will continue to be allowed to use their property?

No, what matters is whether or not they prohibit you from doing so.

It doesn't matter. The hypothetical states that Jim has trespassed more than once. We don't need to know the details of how and when.

Pretty convenient, eh? Given the existence of road companies (not trespassing), and being allowed to cross property (not trespassing), one wonders what Jim's actual offense was, and why that's less relevant to this scenario than the apparently unnecessary references to Jim not trespassing...

No, it doesn't. A person's forgiving of trespass doesn't make the trespass non-trespass.

Yeah, it does... My statement has to do with the inherent legal contradiction of ALLOWING someone to TRESPASS; not forgiving them for having trespassed. Being allowed to enter property does not a trespasser make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, one's motive for committing a crime is irrelevant. Similarly, calling a cab to take one to the hospital for the purpose of saving one's life, and then refusing to pay or being unable to pay, wouldn't make the theft of service non-theft of service. Motive or intention has no bearing.

J

I can agree. The reason for asking is because it has been suggested that the confinement of a neighbor by the act of prohibiting any trespass by the surrounding neighbor is not actually confinement. Is this due to lack of intent or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so let's say that Jim did not have a contract which stipulated that he would have continued access to the road once it sold to a new owner, and the new owner notifies Jim in advance of his rightful intention to not allow Jim to use the property anymore once the sale is final, and, after the sale, he posts "No Trespassing" signs every five feet on his property to remind Jim of the warning. Would you still believe that Jim's "rights" have been violated because he has allowed himself to become confined to his own property via the sale of surrounding properties?

Bingo! Advance notice of a change of ownership leading to a change of use, that allows Jim some opportunity to negotiate or clear out, avoids any violation of rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree. The reason for asking is because it has been suggested that the confinement of a neighbor by the act of prohibiting any trespass by the surrounding neighbor is not actually confinement. Is this due to lack of intent or something else?

Good question. Intent is irrelevant in any case, and it's entirely legitimate to build stuff on your property and prohibit trespassing. The resulting confinement isn't even an issue unless it is evaluated in the context of Jim's right of egress vs the OP's right to build stuff on his property. The problem is that the OP states Jim will be prohibited trespassing again, but only includes examples of Jim not trespassing. So either the OP believes a right to property trumps a right to egress, or Jim was a negligent trespasser (without any evidence that points to this). The OP can't confine Jim with a wall (or law) if it unilaterally prevents him from legitimately escaping confinement, but if Jim willingly or ignorantly allows himself to be walled in, then confinement isn't an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter. The hypothetical states that Jim has trespassed more than once. We don't need to know the details of how and when.

This may be just picking nits, but stating that Jim may not trespass again doesn't indicate that he trespassed more than once, and if the OP believed that allowing him to go home was a form of trespass, as you seem to suggest, then you're both wrong on this point.

"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)." ~ OP, post #1

AKA used to point back to trespass in the context having just allowed Jim to pass and then preventing it, appears to indicate that the OP thinks a trespasser is simply one who crosses property without being prohibited from doing so by a wall or notice.

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

Bingo! Advance notice of a change of ownership leading to a change of use, that allows Jim some opportunity to negotiate or clear out, avoids any violation of rights.

Okay, are you saying that Jim and everyone else who has ever used the property has the "right" to be notified in advance by the new owner that they can no longer use the property? And once they have all been notified and given a chance to arrange for other routes of transit (how long of a time period do they have a "right" to spend arranging for other routes?), then the surrounding property owner can build a wall on his own property completely surrounding Jim's property, and if Jim chooses to stay on his property, then he has not been "imprisoned," and if he chooses to leave, then he has not been "denied his right to access his property"? Is that what you're saying?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps understanding the concept of spontaneous organization would be less time consuming than exploring every possible instance.

With the current system there are many similar convoluted situations. For instance the house in front of mine blocks the sunset, or a giant private garden would make an emergency trip to the hospital 10 minutes longer. Should it be illegal for my big yard neighbor to not let me go through his rose bushes in a emergency? etc etc

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, are you saying that Jim and everyone else who has ever used the property has the "right" to be notified in advance by the new owner that they can no longer use the property?

Why do you include, "and everyone else who has ever used the property"?

Speaking for Jim as someone who contracted with the prior road owners for the right to travel on their road, and presuming that contract hasn't yet expired, Jim's right to travel for the time specified cannot be unilaterally terminated. He must be given some notice and opportunity to respond to the OP's change of use.

And once they have all been notified and given a chance to arrange for other routes of transit (how long of a time period do they have a "right" to spend arranging for other routes?), then the surrounding property owner can build a wall on his own property completely surrounding Jim's property, and if Jim chooses to stay on his property, then he has not been "imprisoned," and if he chooses to leave, then he has not been "denied his right to access his property"? Is that what you're saying?

As to the time element, it would necessarily be something defined by objective law, i.e. something Jim would have known in advance of purchasing his property. As to the rest, what does it mean to confine or imprison oneself? Presuming Jim has been notified and chooses to accept the consequences of remaining, isn't he simply exercising his liberty to stay put?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps understanding the concept of spontaneous organization would be less time consuming than exploring every possible instance.

With the current system there are many similar convoluted situations. For instance the house in front of mine blocks the sunset, or a giant private garden would make an emergency trip to the hospital 10 minutes longer. Should it be illegal for my big yard neighbor to not let me go through his rose bushes in a emergency? etc etc

Anything goes in a lifeboat situation, but under conditions anticipated by objectively defined law, all property owners (including Jim) would have known in advance whatever legitimate consequences might follow purchasing their land, and have opportunities to respond to them when they arose.

-edit-

The main problem with resolving the OP's scenario is condition #2 in the initial post. J et al, have interpreted the statement, "I refuse to let you trespass on my property again" (without any reference to the first offense, in spite of two references to Jim not trespassing, and followed by a peculiar AKA reference), to be the defining condition of the entire scenario by presuming Jim is a negligent trespasser, which then pits someone who respects property rights against someone who doesn't. The problem is only worth considering if both property owners are presumed to be competent and mindful of the law.

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

The 1st condition presented by the OP presents Jim as just another objective owner of property (without any reference to trespassing), and the 2nd condition includes a reference to trespass, followed by a clarification that the 1st condition's wall has been replaced with the strength of a right to prohibit trespassing. My read is that the OP is simply testing a right to confine your neighbor either with a physical barrier (as a right to build stuff on your property), of by law (as a right to prohibit trespassing). The presumption that Jim is a negligent trespasser is entirely unsupported in the 1st condition, so the following peculiar reference to "trespassing again" in the 2nd condition cannot be used to define the entire scenario.

The OP has presented a test of the legitimacy of an intent to confine as the consequence of a right to property in two parts; by physical barrier and by respect for a right to prohibit trespassing. The OP suggests that confining Jim is legitimate either in respect of a right to build stuff on your property, or in respect of a right to prohibit trespassing. Jumping to the conclusion that Jim is a negligent trespasser in both conditions doesn't honestly respond to the OP's scenario, because if that's the case Jim will respect neither the wall or the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

achhh!! the current land configuration is based on private and semi private (condominium) areas interconnected by public corridors locally managed and maintained by owners.

In an all private world, land would be organized accordingly, and rights of pass would be a product or service (albeit for emergencies, much like pubic toll phones used to have a free emergency number). Fluid, a lot more than now, just look at private communities vs city centers.

All of the problems that come up in this thread refer to a fictitious transitional period between the two systems, which itself qualifies as an 'emergency' or rather temporary scenario.

Anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

achhh!! the current land configuration is based on private and semi private (condominium) areas interconnected by public corridors locally managed and maintained by owners.

In an all private world, land would be organized accordingly, and rights of pass would be a product or service (albeit for emergencies, much like pubic toll phones used to have a free emergency number). Fluid, a lot more than now, just look at private communities vs city centers.

All of the problems that come up in this thread refer to a fictitious transitional period between the two systems, which itself qualifies as an 'emergency' or rather temporary scenario.

Anything else?

The property rights issue in this thread was interesting, but what I found to be more fascinating was that, despite all of the emphasis that Rand had placed on logic -- the importance of using the "art of non-contradictory identification," of not abdicating one's mind to a contradiction, and of confessing errors in one's thinking and correcting them -- logic was abandoned here, and when I brought it back repeatedly, it was ignored or denied. Where are the confessions of error from those who participated early in the thread but have since disappeared?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

achhh!! the current land configuration is based on private and semi private (condominium) areas interconnected by public corridors locally managed and maintained by owners.

"Let's say you own an average house in a subdivision, and you are surrounded on all sides by private property owned by neighbors and private road companies." ~ OP, post #1

private (no trespassing) =/= semi private (limited access)

In an all private world, land would be organized accordingly, and rights of pass would be a product or service (albeit for emergencies, much like pubic toll phones used to have a free emergency number). Fluid, a lot more than now, just look at private communities vs city centers.

All of the problems that come up in this thread refer to a fictitious transitional period between the two systems, which itself qualifies as an 'emergency' or rather temporary scenario.

Nothing in the OP's scenario identifies transitioning from present day to future Objectland. Jim's confinement resulting from the OP's purchase of all the private property surrounding him is simply being questioned as legitimate according to a right to build stuff on your property, or a right to prohibit trespassing. From the beginning, the answer has been , "No." Later on a sustained effort by some (in the OP's absence) has maintained that Jim is a negligent trespasser without any persuasive evidence that supports this conclusion.

Anything else?

Only if you'd care to provide some legitimacy the act of confining your neighbor as the consequence of a right to build stuff on your property, or a right to prohibit trespassing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The property rights issue in this thread was interesting, but what I found to be more fascinating was that, despite all of the emphasis that Rand had placed on logic -- the importance of using the "art of non-contradictory identification," of not abdicating one's mind to a contradiction, and of confessing errors in one's thinking and correcting them -- logic was abandoned here, and when I brought it back repeatedly, it was ignored or denied. Where are the confessions of error from those who participated early in the thread but have since disappeared?

The property rights issue is interesting, but not approachable by presuming Jim is a negligent trespasser who will neither respect the OP's wall or right to prohibit trespassing. What has been abandoned here is your effort to correctly evaluate the OP's intent and conditions that were presented by him; not defined by you...

-edit-

It is not for others to confess to errors created by your repeated contradictions :P

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

The property rights issue is interesting, but not approachable by presuming Jim is a negligent trespasser who will neither respect the OP's wall or right to prohibit trespassing. What has been abandoned here is your effort to correctly evaluate the OP's intent and conditions that were presented by him; not defined by you...

-edit-

It is not for others to confess to errors created by your repeated contradictions :P

I'd classify you as someone who frequently practices what Rand called "evasion," so it would make sense that when presented with a fomal syllogism which shows the fallaciousness of your position, you would try to label the logical conclusion a "contradiction," and then use every irrational tactic imaginable to try evade the issue and deny your error. But I thought that others here would have valued logic and reason more highly, and would have practiced the virtue of admitting to their errors and correcting them.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd classify you as someone who frequently practices what Rand called "evasion," so it would make sense that when presented with a fomal syllogism which shows the fallaciousness of your position, you would try to label the logical conclusion a "contradiction," and then use every irrational tactic imaginable to try evade the issue and deny your error. But I thought that others here would have valued logic and reason more highly, and would have practiced the virtue of admitting to their errors and correcting them.

That you find my responses evasive and attempt to validate this claim with Ayn Rand's authority is interesting... As to the "contradiction", once again you fail to address the actual problem you created by identifying Jim as a negligent trespasser. There's nothing in the OP's scenario that supports your claim, and quite a bit that contradicts it. You jumped to an illogical conclusion in spite of evidence to the contrary, cling to it in spite of having the evidence clarified, and fault others for not following you down the wrong rabbit hole.

Practice what you preach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

that average house in a subdivision was bought knowing that the roads were managed privately. The house has been paying the road company, directly or indirectly, for maintenance which stipulates the continued constitution of a road network.

It would be different if the road needed to access the house would be your neighbors driveway, but land configuration as such does not exists (but in legally defined condominiums).

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?

If the buyer builds a wall in the residential parcels surrounding the house, it might be violating the charter of that particular subdivision (Which if it has private roads, it's only obvious to assume it would be some sort of gated or HOA based community). But even if it's not, then tough luck. less sunshine. What the owner of the road company probably wouldn't be able to do is to build a wall in a section of the 'public' road system. Even if that road system lies on private land, it services contractually the houses it communicates. He would have to buy every, even the single last house of the subdivision it connects in order to maybe turn it into something else. Or force them out with intimidation as it's so often done, which would still be illegal but perhaps more enforceable.

I still see no case here, it's simply bizarre.

No matter how the private road system is organized and legislated, there would be a lot of grounds for lawsuits in these types of scenarios.

There's a legitimate worry of course that the more contractual the society, the more law suits follow. Therefore some of the costs lost by eliminating certain goverment agencies or lowering taxes might compensate by an increase in lawyer expenses.

The more disciplined and cohesive (genetically or ideologically) the community, the better spontaneous organization works. It would seem that genetic closeness plays an immensely more important factor than ideological or value affinity. Although the former has more experience than the latter. I would contrast Sweden/Japan with Utah.

A third, tangential example, would be the mutual respect and common sense present in the boating community. Sometimes even small marinas are less organized than secluded natural harbors. The social application of this is hinted in the Seasteading idea.

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That you find my responses evasive and attempt to validate this claim with Ayn Rand's authority is interesting...

Your dishonesty is really becoming tiresome.

I have NOT attempted to validate any claims with Rand's authority. I simply stated that you frequently practice what she called "evasion." That's not an appeal to authority. It's an identification of the fact that you practice behavior which fits her concept of "evasion."

As to the "contradiction", once again you fail to address the actual problem you created by identifying Jim as a negligent trespasser. There's nothing in the OP's scenario that supports your claim, and quite a bit that contradicts it. You jumped to an illogical conclusion in spite of evidence to the contrary, cling to it in spite of having the evidence clarified, and fault others for not following you down the wrong rabbit hole.

Practice what you preach.

You definitely chose an appropriate user name here. You're very good at playing devil's advocate. You've got all the tools and make constant use of them: evasion, falsehoods, denial, manipulation, dishonestly editing your opponents posts to attempt to make him appear to say the opposite of what he said, refusing to address his arguments, repeating falsehoods over and over again, etc.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly J, I don't think anyone really cares about this anymore but you and me. Your slam dunk syllogism only proves it's illogical to assert the OP's action to confine Jim is illegitimate as a matter of the sale of property. Congrats, I'll give you that one...

It still doesn't legitimize Jim's confinement as the consequence of a right to build stuff on your property, or as a right to prohibit trespassing, which was the actual point of this topic. And there's certainly no evidence that Jim ever trespassed (which could have only occurred on Jim's return from work when he was allowed to cross the OP's property to get home), or that the contract Jim had (implied in Post #1, and explicitly stated in Post #4) was insufficient as a legitimate right to continue traveling on the private road until either the contract expired, or Jim was notified of a change of use and given some opportunity to avoid becoming confined.

As it stands, Jim's confinement by the OP remains illegitimate as presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still see no case here, it's simply bizarre. No matter how the private road system is organized and legislated, there would be a lot of grounds for lawsuits in these types of scenarios...

We are copacetic on this issue.

The more disciplined and cohesive (genetically or ideologically) the community, the better spontaneous organization works. It would seem that genetic closeness plays an immensely more important factor than ideological or value affinity. Although the former has more experience than the latter. I would contrast Sweden/Japan with Utah.

I doubt the OP's scenario would play well in any community, including Objectland.

A third, tangential example, would be the mutual respect and common sense present in the boating community. Sometimes even small marinas are less organized than secluded natural harbors. The social application of this is hinted in the Seasteading idea.

Good point... I'll have to bring myself up to date with maritime law. Thanks for the link; I'm fascinated with the Seasteading Project, and look forward to some incredible technical and political advances in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there's certainly no evidence that Jim ever trespassed...

Other than the fact that the initial post identifies Jim as trespassing and being prevented from further trespassing. You're still arguing with the hypothetical. You're playing devil's advocate and trying to bend reality to fit your fallacious, predetermined conclusion.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
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...