Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

walling people into their own property

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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

J

So an individual would be granted some kind of right to purposely diminish the use value of another individual's property, de jure?

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.

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

J

I disagree the only thing I give up is the use of physical force , contextually. Part of that context is the nature of man and his interactions with reality, Man must actually move around physically change position on the globe , traverse. How do you justifiy physically barring that activity?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this statement. I find that this almost serves as a form of evading answering important challenges...

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

Speaking of evading (or "almost" doing so), I 've noticed that no one has addressed my post #131, the point of which is that we are not discussing "life boat" scenarios here, but that, absent a public road system, all landowners could at any time (depending on which of their neighbors sold property to others) be faced with accusations of "imprisoning" others by not allowing them egress. If my opponents in this discussion had their way, property owners could not make long-term plans to use their property as they saw fit, because, as land sales took place around them, they might suddenly be in a position where a piece of their land would be designated by govenment as a section that cannot be built on, or tilled, etc., because others have the "right" to use it.

So, back to post #131, through how many neighbors' properties can one be given easement by government until one is no longer "imprisoned"?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree the only thing I give up is the use of physical force , contextually. Part of that context is the nature of man and his interactions with reality, Man must actually move around physically change position on the globe, traverse.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean that man must move around the globe? Are you saying that a man cannot survive on a plot of land? If so, you're not talking reality, but are just making things up. It is a simple fact of reality that people can and do live on plots of land without physically changing position on the globe.

How do you justifiy physically barring that activity?

I'm not justifying barring that activity. I'm justifying barring people from using others' property against their will. People have the right to traverse the globe all they wish, but just not by trespassing. You can travel to France, if you please, but once you get there, you are "physically barred" from entering anyone's house you please against their will. Do you understand how their "physically barring" you is their right despite that it rejects any claims that you might make about your survival needs requiring you to traverse through their home?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to post #131, through how many neighbors' properties can one be given easement by government until one is no longer "imprisoned"?

J

The principle of easement would apply individually to each neighbor. The principle would be that if your land surronds another property physically barring egress is a violation of the rights of others to retain the use of their property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. It is a simple fact of reality that people can and do live on plots of land without physically changing position on the globe.

I'm not justifying barring that activity. I'm justifying barring people from using others' property against their will. People have the right to traverse the globe all they wish, but just not by trespassing. You can travel to France, if you please, but once you get there, you are "physically barred" from entering anyone's house you please against their will. Do you understand how their "physically barring" you is their right despite that it rejects any claims that you might make about your survival needs requiring you to traverse through their home?

J

I dont see where in my arguement I ever said I had a right to any improvements, in this context I assume you know what I mean, the context of real estate jurisprudence. I am strictly speaking about egress, period.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle of easement would apply individually to each neighbor. The principle would be that if your land surronds another property physically barring egress is a violation of the rights of others to retain the use of their property.

Okay, so then your position appears to be that you have the "right" to have egress across multiple properties if they happen to be between you and where ever you wish to go, including the "right" to use someone else's private road even if they don't want to allow you to use it. As I suggested in my post #131, in an Objectivist system of property ownership, each landowner will likely be surrounded by layer after layer of other property owners who might not agree to allow you to use their property, and therefore they would all be in violation of your "rights."

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so then your position appears to be that you have the "right" to have egress across multiple properties if they happen to be between you and where ever you wish to go, including the "right" to use someone else's private road even if they don't want to allow you to use it. As I suggested in my post #131, in an Objectivist system of property ownership, each landowner will likely be surrounded by layer after layer of other property owners who might not agree to allow you to use their property, and therefore they would all be in violation of your "rights."

J

Actually I thought we speaking of a specific hypothetical situation of 'walling in', a situation I described in earlier posts as specious. You tried to show how a rational person could use this power to financial advantage, I countered with equally specious examples employing the same principle ie threatening to undermine the topography to dislodge properties at a higher elevation unless ransom was paid.

Why did you not comment ?

If in a rational society it would be common knowledge that egress must be contractually ensured in every real estate transaction , how then would one become the wallee?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

J13, not to be petty (because you and I both want an answer to the same question) but on post #83 I pointed out that, in a society with no Public Ways, all land would be landlocked. I also questioned if private individuals in an O'ist society could own rivers (could the Mississippi or the Columbia River be owned by a private individual?).

Land laws must be clearly defined. I'm working with a developer who, when all is said and done, is sinking around $50M into a project. He can't be held hostage to someone who, after the project is completed, makes a claim that they "need" an easement across his property. No bank in the world would loan my client that type of money if land laws were based upon claims of need and the decision of judges. Under the current system, whether O'ist like it or not, the rules are clearly defined and very much in favor of private property owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this thread has devolved into a morass of ridiculous hypothectical concretes that supposedly denote examples of rationl principles, it is a result of the notion of 'lifeboat ethics'. One cannot derive principles for mans' actions in a societal context based on the actions of humans in a situation that causes them to act in such a way as to merely survive faced with certain immediate death. Nor should one try and argue the merits of a principle of actions appropriate to man in a societal context by referencing the actions of man in the 'lifeboat'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

J

In a societal context rational people receive freebies all the time,you do, i do , everyone does and there is nothing morally wrong with using the freebies. It seems odd you are not aware of the freebies you get.

You can state the freebies you currently enjoy, yes?( hint) Sustaining context is just as vital in reasoning as is integration.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

J13, not to be petty (because you and I both want an answer to the same question) but on post #83 I pointed out that, in a society with no Public Ways, all land would be landlocked. I also questioned if private individuals in an O'ist society could own rivers (could the Mississippi or the Columbia River be owned by a private individual?).

Oh, I hadn't seen that post of yours. Thanks for pointing it out. Nothing "petty" about your doing so.

As for your question about private ownership of bodies of water, I'm pretty sure that Rand had commented specifically on that issue -- perhaps in a Ford Hall Forum Q&A or something -- and was in favor of private ownership of them, including, I think, every last inch of the oceans.

Land laws must be clearly defined. I'm working with a developer who, when all is said and done, is sinking around $50M into a project. He can't be held hostage to someone who, after the project is completed, makes a claim that they "need" an easement across his property. No bank in the world would loan my client that type of money if land laws were based upon claims of need and the decision of judges. Under the current system, whether O'ist like it or not, the rules are clearly defined and very much in favor of private property owners.

Well, it's turning out that certain Objectivists are revealing that they like the current system quite a lot, since they've been unknowingly arguing in favor of it and even going so far as to claim that denying a neighbor access to one's property is a violation of the neighbor's "rights." They like the current system so much that they're willing to twist and distort Objectivism to attempt to make it compatible with the current system's benefits.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a societal context rational people receive freebies all the time,you do, i do , everyone does and there is nothing morally wrong with using the freebies. It seems odd you are not aware of the freebies you get.

You can state the freebies you currently enjoy, yes?( hint) Sustaining context is just as vital in reasoning as is integration.

Where did you get the idea that I'm not aware of the benefits that I receive from government? The point of my comment was not to offer a contextless, blanket condemnation of receiving benefits from government programs that should not exist, but to point out that my opponents in this discussion are expecting to continue receiving the benefits of public roads even in an Objectivist society. They don't want land ownership to be as complex as it necessarily must be under a completely private system, so they're trying to twist Objectivism into supporting the idea that the absence of public roads is a violation of "rights," and not just a minor violation, but one akin to "imprisonment."

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this thread has devolved into a morass of ridiculous hypothectical concretes that supposedly denote examples of rationl principles, it is a result of the notion of 'lifeboat ethics'. One cannot derive principles for mans' actions in a societal context based on the actions of humans in a situation that causes them to act in such a way as to merely survive faced with certain immediate death. Nor should one try and argue the merits of a principle of actions appropriate to man in a societal context by referencing the actions of man in the 'lifeboat'.

No, this thread is not a study in "lifeboat ethics," as I've already explained in post #153. It is a study in the real problems that people will have to deal with in a system of private land ownership.

That's one reason that the discussion doesn't qualify as one of "lifeboat ethics." The other reason is that no one has demonstrated that a person cannot live off of his own property without access to others' properties. No one has demonstrated the claim that his survival is necessarily at stake and that if he isn't given egress he faces "certain immediate death." A discussion doesn't qualify as being about "lifeboat ethics" just because someone has made the unsupported assertion that lives are in the balance.

What would Howard Roark or John Galt do if either could afford, say, only a half acre of land, but not a means of leaving it? Would they whine that they have the "right" to pass through all of the properties between them and their desired destination, and that they would face "certain immediate death" if not given egress, and then lay down on the ground and wait to die if not granted easements from the government? Or would they make productive use of their half acre plot and live off of it? Would they take responsibility for their purchasing decisions and for their preparedness, or would they blame others for their own mistakes or negligence and wail that they've been "imprisoned" by others' ownership of property?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

... Would they take responsibility for their purchasing decisions and for their preparedness, or would they blame others for their own mistakes or negligence and wail that they've been "imprisoned" by others' ownership of property?

Day one: I buy a piece of property with the intent to come and go from it. I leave my property to go to the store for groceries and return for the night.

Day two: Someone (somehow) buys up all the land around my property and confines me to it.

How have I not become "imprisoned" by someones ownership of property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

J

I wasn't using freebies in the sense of things given by statist governments to citizens through redistribution. I meant freebies that we all enjoy by living in a civilised division of labor society.

In a rational society government is the institution by which all members' rights are to be recognized and protected. In a rational society it is necessary that individuals adhere to the principle of abdicating the use of physical force.

Day one: I buy a piece of property with the intent to come and go from it. I leave my property to go to the store for groceries and return for the night.

Day two: Someone (somehow) buys up all the land around my property and confines me to it.

How have I not become "imprisoned" by someones ownership of property?

As to DA's point, what would be the principle that protects the continued enjoyment of property ownership the individual had prior to physically leaving said property? Or is there none?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think post #131 speaks to the heart of this matter -- or at least poses the right question.

People keep speaking of some right of "egress" from one's property. But if all property is private, then every instance of "egress" from one's property must simultaneously be access to someone else's property.

If Joe's parcel of land were surrounded by 10 different properties with 10 different owners, would the "right to egress" we're discussing involve Joe being able to cross all 10 properties? At any point he wishes? And to what end? To reach the border of those properties immediately bounding Joe's? And if those property holders wished to deny Joe access to their lands, what then? Does this "right to egress" involve being able to go simply wherever one chooses at any time? Obviously it cannot. But then, what would it entail, specifically, and on what (philosophical) grounds?

It almost seems as though this "right to egress" is an ad hoc right, that only has application when we're discussing the specific scenario of someone being "walled into their property." But the justifications offered appeal to the context of rights -- that one has a "right to life," and therefore must be able to leave his property. But it is hard to follow this argument. Leave to go where? To do what?

Whether this context of "right to life" also entails being able to take those necessities of life from others, against their will, should they refuse access to those necessities (claiming some sort of "property right" in them) has not been addressed to my satisfaction. It seems that if a man needs travel across some parcel of land, he is right to take it, property be damned. But if a man similarly needs food, or clothing, or shelter, or medicine -- not just in an emergency/lifeboat situation, but as a way of life (as an easement is not a one-time crossing, when disaster strikes, but a permanent arrangement) -- would the same context/principles not apply?

Whether specific easements are, or are not, ultimately justified by previously established routes of travel (which may answer some of the issues raised here, but perhaps not others), or can be simulated by contractual arrangement (which are not easements as we're discussing; just a function of contract as any other), I am not satisfied that easements are justified en masse by any so-called right of egress...

Edited by DonAthos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Day one: I buy a piece of property with the intent to come and go from it.

Before you purchased the property, did you check if it contained voluntary contractual arragements with the contiguous landowners that would protect the property from becoming landlocked in the event that those landowners sold to others? Or did you just decide that, having lived in a statist system your entire life, the statist rules and benefits to you should apply in Objectiland, and you therefore didn't have to take the responsibility to concern yourself with the details of property purchasing in a non-statist system because later, after the consequences of your nonchalance and negligence kicked in, you could always make a public show of tugging at people's emotions by claiming that you're a victim of "imprisonment"?

I leave my property to go to the store for groceries and return for the night.

Day two: Someone (somehow) buys up all the land around my property and confines me to it.

Day one: I leave my property to visit the other side of Objectiland, trade with clients, and return for the night.

Day two: No one has purchased the properties next to mine, but several different lots along my route have been sold, inlcuding a few roads (which have been sold to political activists who hate my ideas and refuse to allow me to use their roads). So, it turns out that I have no way to access those upon whom my business depends. I am therefore "confined" to my property and limited to interacting with nearby landowners who have no need of my products and services. I am therefore "imprisoned" by your use of the term, no? If I can't go anywhere that I want to, I'm "imprisoned" by your use of the term.

How have I not become "imprisoned" by someones ownership of property?

People who are imprisoned are actually physically confined and incapable of leaving, such as in cages. The surrounded landowner in this scenario is not. He has the ability to leave his propery by trespassing, turning himself in to authorities, paying the fine and restitution, and then going on with his life, perhaps even choosing to retaliate against the landowner who surrounded him by buying up all of the land around him.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to DA's point, what would be the principle that protects the continued enjoyment of property ownership the individual had prior to physically leaving said property? Or is there none?

The liberty to pursue self sustaining actions... like going to the store for groceries...

What is the principle that sanctions confining an individual to property they previously had egress to? Or is there none??

People who are imprisoned are actually physically confined and incapable of leaving, such as in cages. The surrounded landowner in this scenario is not. He has the ability to leave his propery by trespassing, turning himself in to authorities, paying the fine and restitution, and then going on with his life, perhaps even choosing to retaliate against the landowner who surrounded him by buying up all of the land around him.

House arrest is still arrest.

What principle of property ownership sanctions confining your neighbor to his property?

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

It does seem quite the stickey wicket. In a Castaway(Tom Hanks movie)/Robinson Crusoe context society and ownership have no relevance, see a coconut eat it. A rational society on the other hand must be based on principles of action that replicate the freedom of action enjoyed by the Castaway, but in a societal context.

Is the question more that the concept of ownership , has differing legal/moral definitions as it pertains to differing species of things owned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What principle of property ownership sanctions confining your neighbor to his property?

Property ownership is, by definition, the right to exclude others from it. All private property ownership, regardless of whether one's property is surrounding another's or not, is the act of "confining" everyone else from one's property and to their own.

Btw, I'm getting the impression that certain people here have always lived in cities, and have never farmed, mined, etc. It sounds as if they've never had a direct productive connection to the land which is actually capable of providing their living needs, but have always looked at it as nothing but a space on which they can set up a desk and do some paperwork. Am I correct?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
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...