Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

walling people into their own property

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Suppose we are on a colony where food is a scare resource, procured by only a few.
I think the size and isolation of such a place would have to be taken into consideration in law.

The sensible thing is that anyone joining such a group would have some type of protective agreement prior to going. If I were to join a small group going to live in some isolated place, I would only do so if the fundamental law had certain protective conditions in it. At the very basic, I would want to be assured that the law was very clear about allowing me to leave -- in a way that is practical and implementable -- whenever I wished.

What would this entail in practical terms? Well, it is just like the aircraft example or the light/sound example: one could start coming up with concrete rules (height, some objective definition of nuisance, and so on). Still, there would have to be some type of principle in law, that assured people that they would not be murdered by omission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 368
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, it does not reference that. What is to be done about the encirclement problem in property law (easement) is a deduction that comes way later than the concept of a right. A right is a normati

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

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

That misses the essence of the problem.

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

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

Rights are rights to action. The untrapped neighbor can act to leave from and return to his property without assistance, without permission and without interference. The trapped neighbor cannot. Is this a good start? Does it remain to prove that such action (leaving from and returning to one's property without costs imposed by others) is a right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a simple reassertion of the claim.

Let's try this. What is the principle behind the claim that the enclosed property owner has a "right" to have others be concerned with his need.

Is concern with the need of a man to be free the principle behind laws that ban kidnapping?

Edited by Craig24
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems discussions of this sort, the what if format, try to show or question the possibility that in a truly rational society would there ever be rights in conflict. I would submit that the answer is always no, rights are never in conflict. Rand ,I think, was very clear on why this is never the case. So when I encounter these seemingly specious arguements I try and find where the line of reasoning blanked out on the premise, eg check your premises. Just because you construct sentences with words and concepts doesn't legitimize the core of the reasoning.(Rationalism)

Rand said her philosophy is derived from reality and that it is a guide to living as man qua man here on earth. If the premise is that in a capitalist society a person or persons could 'wall someone in', I would ask is there a conceivable context in which a productive rational individual would derive any advantage to the walling in. Or do posts of this sort actually argue what should or could take place within such a society to combat or protect rational acters from the irrational?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

As we all know, private property was of fundamental importance to the founding fathers. There can be no individual rights without property rights.

The US form of government is such that the Federal Government defines the boundary of the Country. The boundary of the Country is subdivided by States, and States are in turn subdivided by County and Municipal governments. County and Municipal governments are subdivided into Public and Private lands. Public lands are comprised primarily of roads and bridges, shipping canals, ports, lakes and rivers, etc.

It's my understanding that, under Objectivism, all the forms of Public Lands listed above would be privately owned? And the use of any of the above, by any individual , would be a the sole discretion of the private owners?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Property cannot have rights. Only individuals can have rights. Rights are to be construed in such a was that applies to all (rational) individuals, that is, the right of the individual cannot negate the right of the individual. "Property Rights" deal with individual rights as the right of the individual with regard to or pertaining to property. Under capitalism, all lands would be private, but the sole discretion of the private owners does not extend to include the negation of the rights of others. This specious landlocked scenario tries to circumvent or obfuscate this by using the concept of rights while trying to ignore or brush aside what gives rise to the concept. Easement by necessity, while perhaps poorly worded, addresses this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you want to use these thought exercises as mere entertainment, it would be more fun to bring them to a more esoteric level. Would Roark be the waller or the wallee in this scenerio? Would he act to purposely reduce the physical enjoyment of ownership of one or more of his neighbors? Or would he conclude that his only moral alternative is to purchase a vertically ascending vehicle,assuming the waller didn't also restrict his airspace ie antiaircraft weaponary? Or wait that would silly because in a capitalist society that type of weaponary would be considered beyond the pale of purely defensive personal weapons.Ad infinitum and I may include naseum

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dream @ #81

Would owners of roads, rivers, ports, lakes, etc. be compelled by the State to provide "easements" (or, a better term, access agreements)? And if so, how does this reconcile with the notion of "private property".

In a society with no Public Ways, all land is" landlocked". All property would be "walled in". If you were to cross 8 properties to get to the grocery store, would you would need to execute, and have recorded on each Title, your access agreement with each property owner?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To just chew over a bit on the idea of roads, they are already "paid for" via tax dollars. Roads in this country, America, started out being developed privately. Business underwrote them initially, understanding the benefit it provided through facilitating trade. In a sense, by the state imposing itself in this matter, I have to wonder if roads would have evolved differently under continued private ownership? Are they made safer or more dangerous by state intervention? In general, I have found private solutions far more innovative and desirable than any mandated by the prescription of law and edict not constrained or delineated to the exclusive domain of identifying and establishing the protection of individual rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dream @ #81

Would owners of roads, rivers, ports, lakes, etc. be compelled by the State to provide "easements" (or, a better term, access agreements)? And if so, how does this reconcile with the notion of "private property".

Yes, the theory is that every point in the country is privately owned by one or another individual person in such a way that every owner of a piece of the surface of the United States finds that his property is surrounded by the properties of other persons. Insofar as a person has a right to access, an easement, then those persons who own property over which another person has an access right never had a right to prevent such access in the first place, thus they are compelled by the legal system not to interfere with such a right. Just like if I own a bike and you have it in your garage, the legal system might compel you to hand it over, or might compel me to access your property to get it.

In a society with no Public Ways, all land is" landlocked". All property would be "walled in". If you were to cross 8 properties to get to the grocery store, would you would need to execute, and have recorded on each Title, your access agreement with each property owner?

No one can answer such a question a priori. Maybe, maybe not. Some persons would possess property restricted by easements, others would own unrestricted property depending on the individual circumstances in which they came to own the property. Some areas might require individual prior agreements, others might not. Some areas might be rather restrictive to get into, others might be more commercial and open. Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some roads did begin as private developments, true, but the concept of Public Ways (rivers, lakes, canals, roads, etc), has existed since colonial times. The US was unique in the world in that the founding fathers understood the importance of individual ownership of land (as opposed to the various European models, including Colonial America and Britain) -- and the Government was structured to promote this.

When cities were incorporated (often by land speculators, villagers and farmers) from Counties, they defined an area of land and sought permission from the State to form a municipal corporation for the express purpose of public "ownership" of such things as water, sanitation, roads, courts, law enforcement etc. Cities were surveyed in such a manner as to create parcels of land that have frontages on Public Ways (so as to avoid being landlocked). Citizens who chose to move to a City and enjoy the benefits of paved roads, sanitation, etc. purchased the parcels and are required to pay a tax to the municipal corporation to fund the use of roads and utilities. They can also participate in the election of the people who run the municipal corporation (ie the Mayor, town council, treasurer, recorder, etc.)

This is the way that America developed. And while it is not perfect, I doubt that any form of government will ever be. I have said on other similar posts, that while I agree that 100% private ownership of all land and utilities is possible -- cities formed in such an environment would look nothing like they currently do. I also question the feasibility of converting current cities to another model - since they are the creatures of a very complex legal system that has been in place for hundreds of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To just chew over a bit on the idea of roads, they are already "paid for" via tax dollars. Roads in this country, America, started out being developed privately. Business underwrote them initially, understanding the benefit it provided through facilitating trade. In a sense, by the state imposing itself in this matter, I have to wonder if roads would have evolved differently under continued private ownership? Are they made safer or more dangerous by state intervention? In general, I have found private solutions far more innovative and desirable than any mandated by the prescription of law and edict not constrained or delineated to the exclusive domain of identifying and establishing the protection of individual rights.

In the chewing aspect this is interesting. Prior to lets just say 1776 property ownership was ultimately controlled by the British monarchy, an arguement could be made that the King utimately built all roads while at the same time allowing private rights to be enjoyed by the subjects of the various colonies. My point being when America came into being as a sovereign state ,say by 1789, all landowners were longer no in legal possession of property at the behest of the prior legally recognized government. I guess my point here that one will encounter,more likely than not on Oist blogs/forums, the unspoken idea there existed a near rational society in human history at some time. The principles of rational government that the constitution is founded on were the actual establishment of the possibility of achieving the existence of such a society.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

The principles of rational government that the constitution is founded on were the actual establishment of the possibility of achieving the existence of such a society.

vs.

And while it is not perfect, I doubt that any form of government will ever be.

I also question the feasibility of converting current cities to another model.- since they are the creatures of a very complex legal system that has been in place for hundreds of years.

Benevolent vs. Malevolent Universe Premise?

A rational solution potentially exists i.e.: Capitalism, or existence/human beings are inherently flawed and a system such as Capitalism is idealistic at best?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When cities were incorporated (often by land speculators, villagers and farmers) from Counties, they defined an area of land and sought permission from the State to form a municipal corporation for the express purpose of public "ownership" of such things as water, sanitation, roads, courts, law enforcement etc.

Ownership should not be in scare quotes there as if it isn't really ownership. Corporations are legal persons for the purposes of property ownership and the ability to enter into contracts, and so are governments. Objectivist politics holds that governments ought to be established, and they ought to be effective, and governments require facilities, equipment and means to pay for them. Governments are property holders now and they would as well be in an Objectivist inspired free society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is concern with the need of a man to be free the principle behind laws that ban kidnapping?

We aren't getting any further here. What principle gives the landlocked person a right to use another's persons property. I'm not asking what a non Oist government that may or may not exist has to say about this. I'm asking a philosophical question in the context of Oism.

Property rights extend to one's OWN property. Why should one consider, before buying a property, that the neighbor has a right not only to his own property but the surrounding property as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't getting any further here. What principle gives the landlocked person a right to use another's persons property. I'm not asking what a non Oist government that may or may not exist has to say about this. I'm asking a philosophical question in the context of Oism.

Property rights extend to one's OWN property. Why should one consider, before buying a property, that the neighbor has a right not only to his own property but the surrounding property as well?

What principle gives one individual the "right" to landlock another?
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Figure it out yourself," which seems to be increasingly the mentality of those who cannot (or, if we're going to be naively generous, "choose not to") explain themselves, is not really an appropriate stance for people participating on a discussion board.

If I could "figure it out myself" -- meaning without this discussion being the most convenient option for me, given my personal context, though in a stricter sense, I certainly must ultimately understand things on my own regardless of where I go for knowledge, what I discuss, and with whom -- I would certainly do so without dealing with jerks like yourself. The value of these discussions is increasingly tenuous, and your "manner" is foul. I make an initial attempt to address ideas in good spirit, and you immediately spit in my face.

And as to my "incomprehension of all things Objectivist," how certain are you of that, scale of 1 to 10?

We've been round and round on property rights before in other threads, and since you have direct personal knowledge that I have explained myself and can explain myself this is simply a lie. You have seen all the explanations, mine and others', you simply refuse to accept them. I decline your generous invitation to waste more of my time pretending you can be reasoned with.

Also, notice that I managed to make my displeasure with your posts known without resorting to namecalling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle that one can do whatever he wants with his own property.

If there were such a principle, you would be right. But there isn't. Within the limits of one's right to act one can do whatever he wants with his own property, but only within the limits. The limit is where other men's rights begin. Rights and property rights are not context-free absolutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't getting any further here. What principle gives the landlocked person a right to use another's persons property. I'm not asking what a non Oist government that may or may not exist has to say about this. I'm asking a philosophical question in the context of Oism.

Property rights extend to one's OWN property. Why should one consider, before buying a property, that the neighbor has a right not only to his own property but the surrounding property as well?

In such cases where one does have an access right it follows directly from the homesteading principle. In other words, because he was there first, he already homesteaded the access right before the other person ever came along.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On topic:

Well, I regret to announce that moderators have indeed put me on the posting queue. As such the number of posts I will be making (for better or worse) will be dramatically reduced (I'm not fond of delay).

I will try to use this opportunity to clean up a few final issues:

-snip-

3) of course I'm not abandoning my own kid, are you insane?

Definitely trolling, in the sense of advocating a position not sincerely held.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were such a principle, you would be right. But there isn't. Within the limits of one's right to act one can do whatever he wants with his own property, but only within the limits. The limit is where other men's rights begin. Rights and property rights are not context-free absolutes.

My statement pressuposes the very same context. Of course one doesn't have a right to use his property to take another's right. We are still at te level of waiting for someone to offer an argument for why any context permits one the "right" to another's property. The only implicit principle offered is that ones need provides a context for claiming another's property.

So we don't have another question begging post I'll state the question at issue.

Someone actually support the philosophical position that one has a right leave his property irrespective of the rights of those around them.

The landlocked persons rights end where the surrounding property owners rights begin is my claim as well. In this case his begins where his property line starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My statement pressuposes the very same context. Of course one doesn't have a right to use his property to take another's right. We are still at te level of waiting for someone to offer an argument for why any context permits one the "right" to another's property. The only implicit principle offered is that ones need provides a context for claiming another's property.

So we don't have another question begging post I'll state the question at issue.

Someone actually support the philosophical position that one has a right leave his property irrespective of the rights of those around them.

The landlocked persons rights end where the surrounding property owners rights begin is my claim as well. In this case his begins where his property line starts.

What? No we're not waiting for anything other than people to acknowledge and respond to the arguments already offered. People were claiming they didn't even want to read them out of pure laziness! No one is saying someone's need is the principle involved, why is there the need to invent such claims out of the whole cloth?

Of course there is no context-free absolute right to leave your property through someone else's. That was never the claim.

Also, there are tons of contexts where Lockean property rights permits one use of anothers property. For example, suppose Smith buys a car from Jones. The car is sitting in Jones' driveway. The title of ownership has changed whilst the physical location has not. Not suppose Smith wants to get the car, does Jones have a right to say "No you can't!" and build a wall around it? Can Jones then claim that his property rights are being violated when the police come to confiscate the car? What has happened here? Specifically, Smith's right of ownership to the car permits him to come onto Jones' property and take it by force, if such a situation is necessary. The same applies to the concept of easements. Someone already owns access to, or leave from, his property in certain contexts, and thus denial of his access is tantamount to Jones' walling off of Smith's car in his driveway.

Edited by 2046
Link to post
Share on other sites

My statement pressuposes the very same context. Of course one doesn't have a right to use his property to take another's right. We are still at te level of waiting for someone to offer an argument for why any context permits one the "right" to another's property. The only implicit principle offered is that ones need provides a context for claiming another's property.

So we don't have another question begging post I'll state the question at issue.

Someone actually support the philosophical position that one has a right leave his property irrespective of the rights of those around them.

The landlocked persons rights end where the surrounding property owners rights begin is my claim as well. In this case his begins where his property line starts.

The lines that define the properties in question are not the lines that define the rights at question. Property rights are not equal to the property. Whatever property is referred to in a particular case is a concrete while a right is necessarily an abstraction. What is referenced when we refer to a property and we refer to a property right are very different things. Recall that the meaning of a concept is what it references. Therefore we have two very different concepts in 'property' and 'property right'.

I am willing to go on and be the someone that defends 'the philosophical position that one has a right leave his property irrespective of the rights of those around them', but first you should have the opportunity to respond to this.

Link to post
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...