Roads

Political Philosophy
21

I was, however, just trying to clear up the issue with oil. Such scenario is possible without the society having to rot away. Someone may have built a resort or a shopping centre above the reserves of oil, without knowing that there really is any oil.

Just to add an example… my family owns some land in Texas where this is a marginal amount of oil underground. This oil is ours because the property rights for the land extend 300 feet below the surface. Would could legally stop anyone from taking our oil even they found a way to suck it out from across our borders (if we expected to sue them though we would need proof of how much oil is there and of how much oil was removed). Eventually though, if prices go up enough to make it profitable, we will end up giving permission for an oil company to come in while taking a reasonable percentage of the profits.

In the case you presented it would seem the resort would have a wonderful hidden asset if people stopped going on vacations. :smiley:

22

…

What Bryan is suggesting that he should give that up for “the common good” because there is oil and his land is a good one for drilling, and, to put in some paranoia to the argument, this may be the last resource of oil on Earth, and we absolutely need it badly.

The individual who owns the land above the reserves of oil has every right to deny access to that oil. But he only has the power to do so within the borders of his property. This is one of the most basic rights of man and denying this would be denying his freedom and denying him to live. There is no disagreement, Bryan. You are in error, because the “right to access property,” most clearly in this case, shows that it is in contradiction with this basic man’s right. Read the chapters of Peikoff’s OPAR which speak of Concept-formation, Objectivity and Reason. Peikoff there clearly states that all new knowledge must be logically consistent with all the rest that is already acquired and validated. Trying to make such an arbitrary insertion of a single right, as you suggest “the right to access one’s property” destroys the whole idea of concept-formation. The system of knowledge is compromised because it is no longer logically consistent and it threatens to fall apart, and with that man’s ability to survive wanes.

Rights are not arbitrary statements, and no man, no need of man, and no court should have the authority to claim otherwise.

To start off, please do not put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. I never suggested anyone surrendering his or her rights for “the common good”. I am specifically talking about a property owner that owns land that has oil or gas reserves being able to access those reserves, extract them and sell them. This has absolutely nothing to do with the common good as such. Of course multiple parties do benefit from the action; the property owner, the oil company that operates and markets the gas, and the person who purchases the gas.

When original land titles were issued, a landowner owned all the land from the surface all the way down to the core of the Earth. In some cases when land changes title, only the surface title changes hands and the original owner retains the property (and all the rights applicable to that property) below the surface.

This being the case, it can be argued that when you purchase just the surface rights to a piece of property you do so with the understanding that the owner of the property below the surface may need to access his property at some point in the future. A similar example is when someone purchases a house in a development where there is a homeowner’s association. The buyer understands that in order to live on the property he must abide by the rules and regulations of the HOA, he does not have complete and total property rights.

Getting back to the surface and mineral issue, it can also be argued that the mineral owner understands that when he gives up his property rights to the surface that he may not be able to access his property below. So when a dispute arises, which landowner is correct, the surface owner or the mineral owner? Both owners have legitimate claims to their land. It is not a simple issue, and it can be even more clouded if both the surface and mineral titles have changed hands many times. A lot of the problems could be avoided if well-defined terms are drawn out in a contract before a title change takes place, but in a lot of cases they are not.

23

Bryan, you are muddling the water… I am only interested in one issue here: that your property rights do not entail a right under any circumstance to violate someone else’s property rights. The problems you bring up are somewhat legit, however you yourself have hinted that they can all be solved with private contracts – and that is the answer as well a completely different subject entirely.

Getting back to the surface and mineral issue, it can also be argued that the mineral owner understands that when he gives up his property rights to the surface that he may not be able to access his property below.  So when a dispute arises, which landowner is correct, the surface owner or the mineral owner?  Both owners have legitimate claims to their land.  It is not a simple issue…

It is a simple issue. If the mineral owner made a contract with the surface owner upon sale to the effect that access would be provided for the minerals – the mineral owner could have the contract enforced by the government (this isn’t a ‘right’ to access, but most defiantly a ‘guarantee’). If the mineral owner had no such contract then he’s out of luck.

It is presumable that there would be something of good value the mineral owner would be trying to dig out - but if the surface owner was unwilling to lend, lease, or sell enough land for an excavation – obviously not valuable enough.

24

To start off, please do not put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head.  I never suggested anyone surrendering his or her rights for “the common good”.  I am specifically talking about a property owner that owns land that has oil or gas reserves being able to access those reserves, extract them and sell them.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the common good as such.  Of course multiple parties do benefit from the action; the property owner, the oil company that operates and markets the gas, and the person who purchases the gas.

When original land titles were issued, a landowner owned all the land from the surface all the way down to the core of the Earth.  In some cases when land changes title, only the surface title changes hands and the original owner retains the property (and all the rights applicable to that property) below the surface. 

This being the case, it can be argued that when you purchase just the surface rights to a piece of property you do so with the understanding that the owner of the property below the surface may need to access his property at some point in the future.  A similar example is when someone purchases a house in a development where there is a homeowner’s association.  The buyer understands that in order to live on the property he must abide by the rules and regulations of the HOA, he does not have complete and total property rights. 

Getting back to the surface and mineral issue, it can also be argued that the mineral owner understands that when he gives up his property rights to the surface that he may not be able to access his property below.  So when a dispute arises, which landowner is correct, the surface owner or the mineral owner?  Both owners have legitimate claims to their land.  It is not a simple issue, and it can be even more clouded if both the surface and mineral titles have changed hands many times.  A lot of the problems could be avoided if well-defined terms are drawn out in a contract before a title change takes place, but in a lot of cases they are not.

I don’t think someone has the right to drill through another man’s property because of an inconsistency in bureaucracy. However, if he has actually signed a contract where it is stated that he will allow drilling, then the issue is settled even without courts.

But please! This should be written on a contract. One can’t be expected to buy a piece of land “understanding” anything about what someone might want to do on his property one day, unless the contract says so. Things like this are prearranged, and if they are not and the owner of the surface land doesn’t allow the drilling, it’s a tough luck for the oil company. There is no “we forgot to tell you” after the contract has been signed.

As for putting words in your mouth: what you suggested earlier - the courts forcing an agreement between two parties, is a sacrifice. It means that the rights of one man - the owner of the surface land - are to be sacrificed. For the sake of whom, I thought, was irrelevant, so I suggested the almighty “common good.” If you meant someone else, I apologize. To an Objectivist, a sacrifice is one of the greatest “sins.” Sacrificing oneself for the sake others, or others for the sake of oneself is all the same and we see a lot of both lately. Usually it is those who preach the former, that practice the latter or a little of both (by sacrificing others for the sake of someone else).

25

Can you elaborate on this point? This has come up before in a conversation I had with a friend and I didn’t have any answers.

How is it a violation of property rights to surround someone with land I purchased and then refusing access to them, thus trapping them. What is the specific form of ‘initiation of force’ taking place here?

It’s as different from initiation of force as physically kidnapping and dragging a person to a jail cell is from waiting till he falls asleep somewhere and then building a prison, complete with iron bars, ball-and-chain, and unbreakable locks, all around him.

You are either preventing the person from using his own property by your body or your property standing in the way, or you are preventing the person from associating with others or using some other of his own property by the same method.

26

By digging a hole through his property? Of course he can! That’s the whole point of private ownership. He who owns the oil will just have to find another way to get to it.

True, it is his oil, and he has right to profit from it, but not by sacrificing the rights of others. The courts that try to force an agreement in such a case is counterproductive - instead of protecting rights, it is violating them.

It has been said before, but I will repeat it once more - there is no “right to access your property.” You can see already from this example, that it is in contradiction with other rights, which have been proven to be “legitimate.” (true)

Mineral rights means not only the right to own the minerals, but also the right to access them. In fact, that’s the entire purpose of mineral rights and the entire reason people purchase mineral rights - ownership of the Nazi variant (controls on everything, but the deed is in your name) is not ownership.

27

Mineral rights means not only the right to own the minerals, but also the right to access them. In fact, that’s the entire purpose of mineral rights and the entire reason people purchase mineral rights - ownership of the Nazi variant (controls on everything, but the deed is in your name) is not ownership.

In the few sentences you wrote, you have made quite a number of errors.

First of all, noone can have a right which overrides someone else’s right to something else.

Second, when last I looked, this thread discussed on how things should be, not how things are.

Third, the Nazi variant of “ownership” is - the state controls everything, but the deed is in your name. What we are talking about here is private property.

Fourth, no individual has the right to control the property of another without this being agreed upon (voluntarily!), which means that the owner of the mineral has more than just deed to property - he has claim to it.

Fifth, the “right” to access property cannot and should not exist in the form that was defined here.

As for your reply to AndrewSteinberg, read a post made by GoodOrigamiMan in reply to Brian.

28

  1. I was assuming that the purchase of mineral rights from the owner of the surface rights, or the other way around, was done with enough forethought to plan for access to the minerals. I don’t mean that you have the right to trample over others in order to access most easily whatever you own. I meant that the purpose of purchasing mineral rights from the owner of surface rights, or the other way around, is on one side for the purpose of accessing the minerals.

  2. This tangent discusses how things are, specifically, what access rights are and what their scope is, whether they exist or whether they contradict others’ property rights.

  3. I meant the purpose of owning mineral rights is accessing the minerals. Purchasing mineral rights without the chance or ability ever to access the minerals serves no purpose.

  4. When somebody says “I have purchased mineral rights here” I immediately jump to the conclusion that he also has contracted with the owner of the surface rights to be able to access the minerals.

  5. That was not intended to be a definition of property or the right to access it. It was a whimsical exploration into the general meaning and context of mineral rights.

I see I made three errors in severe terseness, the lack of clarity, and jumping to conclusions.

29

If you wake up one day and discover that irrational people have bought up all the land around you and don’t want you to cross theirs, and still they don’t want to buy your one parcel as well, then we will discuss that nightmare when it happens.

The freedom of man’s will means that people may choose to be evil even in the best of societies.

Assume that you live in a perfectly capitalist country, which also happens to be by far the world’s most prosperous and powerful one. Most of your fellow countrymen love the nation’s freedom and wealth and are proud of it, but there are some among them who, much like today’s American “liberals,” are ashamed of and hate their country for its “greed” and “imperialism.” They YEARN to prove capitalism wrong. While other people save for Ferraris and trips to the moon, they collect money to be able to pull the prank of their lives: a demonstration of “market failure.”

Need I continue?

30

The freedom of man’s will means that people may choose to be evil even in the best of societies.

I’m doubtful of how much harm an organized group of liberals could do in a capitalist society. Sure, they could choose to demonstrate a pseudo “market failure” but I can’t imagine any scenarios where they could profit from this – in other words: it would be a big waist of their time and money.

Another thing… you cannot mine roads to keep people off of them or shoot trespassers on sight – so while everyone has the right to defend him or herself not one of the issues in this thread has suggested criminal actions. Therefore the worst that could happen in any of these scenarios would be that everyone ends up in a courtroom.

…If I was the poor sucker whose land was surrounded I am not suggesting that a court could give me the right to walk thru the other guys land – but I am noting that a courtroom is a better alternative then starving on my land. I think you could argue that if someone was being irrational and malicious by trying trapping with no choice but to violate their rights your actions would in effect not be punishable – this argument could only work once, because you would have a choice to go back to your land thru theirs. Regardless it is an extremely bizarre situation that I doubt I will ever occur as things stand today, must less a in capitalist society.

31

I can’t imagine any scenarios where they could profit from this – in other words: it would be a big waist of their time and money.

You assume here that liberals want to profit. They don’t; they hate profit. What they want is to keep other people from profiting.

…If I was the poor sucker whose land was surrounded I am not suggesting that a court could give me the right to walk thru the other guys land

The court certainly couldn’t give you that right, since you wouldn’t even be able to go to the court. You’re trapped! :thumbsup:

32

You assume here that liberals want to profit. They don’t; they hate profit. What they want is to keep other people from profiting.

I didn’t assume, my point is that they wouldn’t be able to keep it up for long; they will run out of money and be thereafter impotent.

The court certainly couldn’t give you that right, since you wouldn’t even be able to go to the court. You’re trapped! :wink:

My point was - if you did trespass you’d be arrested and end up in a court anyways. :thumbsup:

33

…If I was the poor sucker whose land was surrounded I am not suggesting that a court could give me the right to walk thru the other guys land – but I am noting that a courtroom is a better alternative then starving on my land.  I think you could argue that if someone was being irrational and malicious by trying trapping with no choice but to violate their rights your actions would in effect not be punishable – this argument could only work once, because you would have a choice to go back to your land thru theirs.  Regardless it is an extremely bizarre situation that I doubt I will ever occur as things stand today, must less a in capitalist society.

Actually these types of situations occur quite frequently. Not to the extreme where somebody is “trapped” in their home surrounded by someone’s property who will not let them pass, but let me give an example. Let’s suppose you purchase land in a mountainous area and desire to build your dream home on it. Due to geographical restrictions, the only way to build a road to your property from the main road is to build it along the edge of property that somebody else owns. The other landowner is reluctant to allow you to do this, even though he doesn’t live on this property or even use it for anything. You offer him more than fair compensation to build the road, it actually adds value to his property if you build the road on it, but he still refuses. Is your land doomed to stagnation until you can afford a helicopter or have enough money to build a tunnel? Why must you suffer because of someone else’s irrationality? Right of way agreements that are organized through courts are common resolutions to these types of problems.

34

I don’t think someone has the right to drill through another man’s property because of an inconsistency in bureaucracy. However, if he has actually signed a contract where it is stated that he will allow drilling, then the issue is settled even without courts.

But please! This should be written on a contract. One can’t be expected to buy a piece of land “understanding” anything about what someone might want to do on his property one day, unless the contract says so. Things like this are prearranged, and if they are not and the owner of the surface land doesn’t allow the drilling, it’s a tough luck for the oil company. There is no “we forgot to tell you” after the contract has been signed.

As for putting words in your mouth: what you suggested earlier - the courts forcing an agreement between two parties, is a sacrifice. It means that the rights of one man - the owner of the surface land - are to be sacrificed. For the sake of whom, I thought, was irrelevant, so I suggested the almighty “common good.” If you meant someone else, I apologize. To an Objectivist, a sacrifice is one of the greatest “sins.” Sacrificing oneself for the sake others, or others for the sake of oneself is all the same and we see a lot of both lately. Usually it is those who preach the former, that practice the latter or a little of both (by sacrificing others for the sake of someone else).

I agree that prearranged contracts would circumvent all these problems. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred a contract exists and everything is fine. But there are those isolated cases where there are problems. Let’s put this gas situation into context here though. Somebody will own the surface of a huge tract of land out in the middle of nowhere (when drilling a well, its is designated by a 40 or 80 acre spacing unit, every single mineral owner within that spacing unit gets a royalty on any oil or gas profit from the well), they don’t live on the property, they don’t even use the property for anything, its just there doing nothing. I’m not talking about somebody who has a half an acre in a subdivision and you go in there with a tractor and dig up their back yard and put a huge pump or oil derrick there. This is land that is of no value until the oil or gas is discovered.

The surface owner is offered a large annual compensation for the use of the surface so that he can actually turn a profit from his previously useless land by doing absolutely nothing. He refuses, leaving all the mineral owners that own the land below high and dry. There is no contract that pre-ordains what to do if this situation arises.

What do you do? Why would you automatically default to his rights over the rights of the mineral owner(s)? If it taken to court and the court forces him to take (his now larger) annual profit for his previously useless land, what exactly is being sacrificed? The only thing that I see being “sacrificed” here is the surface owner’s irrationality. This situation I describe is not an exaggeration, it occurs all the time.

35

Actually these types of situations occur quite frequently.

Just because they are easy to imagine doesn’t mean they occur “quite frequently.”

Right of way agreements that are organized through courts are common resolutions to these types of problems.

Awesome! I am so happy that I can get a court to force my neighbor build a road thru his property! :thumbsup:

36

I didn’t assume, my point is that they wouldn’t be able to keep it up for long; they will run out of money and be thereafter impotent.

It’s enough for each of them to do it once. Once they bought the land, it’s theirs. And they needn’t buy much land; it’s enough to buy a 1-inch-wide strip along each side of your home, extending say 200 feet into the ground and the same amount into the air, and the trap is ready.

Not to mention that they can sell the land when you have starved to death!

37

I agree that prearranged contracts would circumvent all these problems.  Ninety-nine times out of a hundred a contract exists and everything is fine.

Do you see a similarity here between your approach to validating “a right to access” and an altruists approach to validating “a right to values”?

And lets not lose focus on what were talking about here… your position, as I understand it, is that your right to access property justifies the disposal of someone else’s property. Meaning if I own property surrounded by someone else’s land I have a right to go thru their land in order to access my land. As you are putting it, is it or is it not putting your right to access in conflict with my right to my land?

38

It’s enough for each of them to do it once. Once they bought the land, it’s theirs. And they needn’t buy much land; it’s enough to buy a 1-inch-wide strip along each side of your home, extending say 200 feet into the ground and the same amount into the air, and the trap is ready.

All I need is the side facing the road – and since all that land is owned by me up until to land owned by the roadman I have very little to fear. Anyways you can be my guest trying to enforce property rights for a 1-inch-strip. I forget what they are called but any residential area would probably have the private equivalent of “zoning” – I hate to say this but as it stands now we can not even paint our house a different color without permission from some bungalow association, so good luck trapping me in Pasadena. Actually, come to think of it, 3 fourths of our property already has a 1-inch-wide strip that I can’t cross – its called a fence. :smiley:

Not to mention that they can sell the land when you have starved to death!

I’ve already mentioned that nobody is going to starve over this and why. <_<

39

Actually these types of situations occur quite frequently.  Not to the extreme where somebody is “trapped” in their home surrounded by someone’s property who will not let them pass, but let me give an example.  Let’s suppose you purchase land in a mountainous area and desire to build your dream home on it.  Due to geographical restrictions, the only way to build a road to your property from the main road is to build it along the edge of property that somebody else owns.  The other landowner is reluctant to allow you to do this, even though he doesn’t live on this property or even use it for anything.  You offer him more than fair compensation to build the road, it actually adds value to his property if you build the road on it, but he still refuses.  Is your land doomed to stagnation until you can afford a helicopter or have enough money to build a tunnel?  Why must you suffer because of someone else’s irrationality?  Right of way agreements that are organized through courts are common resolutions to these types of problems.

The context is, I believe, you already own the mountain home, and then somebody buys the property at the foot of the mountain and prohibits you to cross it, effectively cutting you off from your home, or cutting you off from the world. Buying the propert after knowing the conditions isn’t the question. Some other person coming along and blocking or entrapping you is. If you already know you will not be able to access the property before you buy the property, then you ought not to have any claim to access it in violation of others’ rights once you purchase it.

Who was there first? is a major part of the question. Because the one who gets there second, in questions like these, is the one who attempts to initiate force against and violate the rights of the one who was there first, either by blocking/entrapping, or by trespassing.

40

Awesome! I am so happy that I can get a court to force my neighbor build a road thru his property!  <_<

I doubt that you could. In order to get a court order for a right of way there has to be some pretty extreme extenuating circumstances. I’m not talking about direct property seizure here, I’m talking about reasonable disagreements between neighboring property owners. I’m on your side about property rights, I’m just trying to point out examples where two parties property rights are in legitimate conflict. What has to be presupposed about court arbitration is that the court is objective and fair. We all know that this is not always the case, but that is another discussion altogether.

When cases go to court the court looks at the situation and makes a decision that is reasonable and fair for both parties involved. It could be the case that the judge says, “No, it is unreasonable for you to demand a road cutting across this man’s property. I cannot allow it.”

But he can also say, “A road along the edge of the property is not unreasonable. There is simply no other place to construct a road, so that his man can access his property. Special considerations will be taken when constructing the road to make sure that the environment is disturbed as little as possible. You will be paid an annual fee of $2.00 per square ft of your property that this road takes up. Hopefully at some point in the future you will realize the benefit of having such a road built on your property should you choose to develop it, or sell the land to someone else who does. Please submit a contract for this right of way for me to approve.”