About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Stolyarov,

Regarding inner-city grid streets, should there be conditions written onto the deeds to prevent closure and re-purposing?

I am thinking of a situation where one home-owner wins the bidding process and promptly rips up the asphalt, puts up a fence and plants himself a nice, long garden. The other homeowners, who have been parking in front on their home for years, would now have to park one, two, three, or more blocks away from their homes. This wasn’t the deal when they purchased and their home values will drop. Like an uncompensated environmental regulation that lowers value, this looks like expropriation.



Post 1

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Newer technologies may make the concept of private roads more practical, and I think the concept sounds great. I'm not entirely convinced of it efficacy. Certainly the best approach would be to encourage private new road construction, and view the results over 10-20 years.

One trouble is that standards (based on road type, use, and traffic volume) are needed. This tends to drive costs up for investors (and subsequent users).

The current common model is for private developers to build the roads (usually in residential tracts), and to then turn them over (gift them) to local governments - thus escaping future maintenance expenses. These are usually real estate developers who want to finish their tract, get their money out, and move on their next tract without any ongoing responsibilities. Maybe there is a niche market for businesses willing to pay to assume responsibility for those roads.

As far as private developers building new highways, my personal suspicion is that we would likely see a tremendous slow-down in new highway construction. Businessmen like to be sure they'll have enough volume to promptly return their revenues, so are more inclined to wait and let demand build before committing dollars to such a costly project. Governments are more speculative (sometimes guessing wrong), and look at new highways as a stimulant for developing new business and communities.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 8/29, 7:51pm)


Post 2

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Gennady, re your web link Antideath, I understand that you certainly could not have named the city "Pro-life." But antideath sounds little different from "undead."

Maybe something like "Ambrosia" (literally, Greek for bezsmertnij) would be more attractive. You could also use other languages, like Finnish "Ikuinen," or Gaelic "Siorai."

Or use the anagram "Titanhead."

Post 3

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 8:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jay,

Highways are another story, but writing about residential roads, you noted: “The current common model is for private developers to build the roads (usually in residential tracts), and to then turn them over (gift them) to local governments”

That sounds correct.

Also common is for the road to go to the homeowner’s association. When you buy a lot from the developer, it is understood that part of the price is for the cost of building the road. And the road is hardly a profit-making endeavor. Rather, association fees have to be paid monthly for the upkeep. I would be fascinated to hear of any case of an association that makes money from its road. So these roads are “private” in the sense that they are not government-owned, but they bear no relationship to a for-profit enterprise.

If the goal of a privatization process is to mimic what would have happened if the city gov’t hadn’t “been there,” then I would think the city should have no right whatsoever to the proceeds of any auction. There shouldn’t even be any auctions—just gift the road to newly created associations of homeowners. Hopefully your taxes will go down commensurate with the reduction in costs the city bears for maintenance, for surely you will now be facing association fees for that cost.



Post 4

Friday, August 29, 2008 - 11:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's important to point out that the railroads had a distinct, characteristic advantage that highways do not: The absence of the "free-rider" problem. Either you have a ticket, or you don't get a seat on the train -- simple as that. The railroad business had (more or less) full control of their patrons, and to that extent, full control of their revenues.

Highways are inherently different, and thus would require a different means of control. At the risk and expense of creating severe and undesirable traffic jams, I can see no other way to eliminate the free-rider problem than to implement technological communication devices on-par to what G. Stolyarov has suggested. This, however, opens up other issues. How much will this cost everyone who owns a vehicle, and how will it be implemented? I can imagine that vehicles already equipped with On-Star GPS navigation systems can be tweaked to accomodate such provisions relatively easily. But this only means that those who already have higher-class cars (like my mother's Saab 93) will be easily accomodated -- which still leaves a majority of other people in question. What are the costs that people who drive Ford Focuses (like me) will have to pay?

Another point to consider is whether the industry will be regulated -- and to what extent. In addition, will highway state patrol officers be replaced by employee security guards that work for business, or will they be mandated (even though the property is private)?
Also will the profit incentives of highway owners be 100% commensurate with the safety of the roads and a flow of traffic that is optimal for safe driving? Naturally, a Wal-Mart of Highways would want the maximum volume of customers at the highest rate (i.e. speeds) possible -- but this can conflict with the blend of volume and speeds that are ideal for human safety, not maximizing revenues. Hence, you can bet there would be some struggle between revenue-maximization and standards of safety.

In theory, if it all worked out, then it would yield higher levels of efficiency in people's driving, and therefore reduce pollution to their optimal levels. This is because people naturally do less of something when the cost of doing it is raised. In a commercialized system where everyone would have to pay for the road they used, you can be sure that people will be more mindful of where they go, how many trips they make, and so on. They would economize their vehicle-usage much more efficiently. This, in turn, would decrease the amount of traffic congestion, and further decrease the amount of pollution, and lessening all sorts of negative externalities.

But there's a darker side to that. People love freebies, like it or not. It's one thing to propose a much more economically efficient system -- but it's another thing to get the general public (especially the tax-cuts loving kind in our country) to approve and follow through with it. Economics can tell you what is required to arrive at some outcome -- politics can tell you why we won't get there.


Post 5

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 6:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I love the idea of privatizing the roads and I have no doubts that human ingenuity will come up with clever schemes to make it better than we imagine from where we are today.

But, this is one of the last things to be converted in achieving the ideal economy. Practically, we need to get rid of things like welfare, farm subsidies, foreign aid, the patriot act, etc. first.

Picking the right targets first makes change much more likely and a momentum can build as free enterprise proves itself to the electorate - then something that would strike the average voter as just plain strange is much more easily accomplished.

I'm particularly fond of putting foreign aid, farm subsidies and income taxes together as a package to be eliminated. It is an attractive proposal when you tell people that by eliminating subsidies that will drop the cost of groceries, and stop sending their money to the dictators of the world, that it becomes possible to eliminate the income tax.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 6:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

What is E-ZPass?

E-ZPass is an automatic, electronic toll collection systems that quickly and efficiently moves traffic through toll facilities in Virginia and along much of the East Coast. A motorist with an E-ZPass transponder mounted on the inside of the windshield or on the license plate, can travel through E-ZPass toll lanes and the toll is automatically deducted from a pre-paid account. It's like having exact change every time, but even easier.

The E-ZPass Connection

E-ZPass users have a smooth and easy drive on toll roads not only in Virginia, but also in other states that use E-ZPass. Just drive through any toll lane marked 'E-ZPass', and you will be good to go.

Current E-ZPass States: Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Indiana and Illinois.

E-ZPass Benefits 


  • No more searching for loose change.
  • Electronic toll lanes cut down wait times at tollbooths.
  • Discounts are offered at some toll facilities.
  • E-ZPass is easy to install -- no tools required.
  • Use helps reduce emissions, conserve fuel, and ease traffic congestion.
There is no high tech installation required here. These things are mounted with velcro. I have one in both of my vehicles, and neither one is a luxury car.


Post 7

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Privatizing the roads was discussed somewhat extensively, as I recal, in the Tannehill's "The Market for Liberty" (~1968), which was the primary intellectual starting point for most of the East Coast Anarcho-Capitalists.  The subject was also covered in the same time frame in a series of articles for either "The Individualist" or "The Rational Individualist" from SRI or SIL, which merged to form ISIL (International Society for Individual Liberty), by Jarret Wollstein, entitled "Public Services Under Laissez Faire."  Wollstein's work was included in later editions of "The Market for Libety."

Issues still remaining to be dealt with include eminent domain - one person or a group of persons using the fact that they are the last holdouts for an expensive road project to leverage land prices, rights to passage, uniform fees, etc.  Under the absolutist concept of property rights derived from the Divine Right of Kings, to which, paradoxically, most Objectivists seem to subscribe, there is no easy solution.  Once the property has been transferred to the road owners, then they can do what they will with it, including barring use (or charging exorbitant fees) by personal enemies, or people of the wrong religion, or skin color.  This happened all over the deep South for about a century with regard to businesses such as retail stores and restaurants.

Note that there were competing restaurants.  Thus, a white owner could open the door to blacks, at the risk of retaliation, including violence.  However, often there were not competing restrooms or water fountains.  Imagine that you are black in a town connected to other towns via highways that forbid passage on non-motorized vehicles, such as a bicycle, and the only bus line is white only.  You are effectively imprisoned. 

Now imagine that the owners of all or enough of the roads that happen to run through your neighborhood have effectively encircled your residence or neighborhood, such that you can no longer walk from one side of the road to the other - or at least without paying a substantial fee for use of the crosswalk.  These and innumerable other conflicts are direct reflections of a faulty concept of property to begin with.

The reason the Divine Right model of property rights has worked, more or less, to date, is that it was employed in a context in which there was plenty of commons available and relatively few serious interactions between property uses.  Thus, one person's claim to absolute ownership to a physical piece of land - probably understood to be a conic section to the center of the Earth - had little impact.  That model no longer applies nearly as well.  The Earth is getting crowded, and a more appropriate model is that of a space colony, in which every piece of property has a title and an owner. 

Then, on space colony Earth, no physical "property" would be seen as absolute, yet the strictures and contracts applying to property rights could themselves be as objective as anything coming from the Divine Right concept.

Under this Common Law view of property, every property would embody constraints that derived from its source in the commons.  Our free market road builder, for example, could not build roads that prevented people from following a passage from A to B that they had used previously.  Instead, a legal, title mechanism or something similar would require that proper compensation and alternative routes be provided.  

The general principle for morally valid property titles is that the property may not be stolen, in part or in whole.  If it was stolen, then the ownership resides with the original owners, not the thief nor someone the thief has transferred the property to.  The ownership starts with the commons and moves toward private ownership as people find uses that require exclusivity and are willing to pay the owners of the commons - everyone - for the right to restrict their usage.


Post 8

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 1:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The existence of covenants restricting property usage is common place and would easily cover most of the problems with someone attempting to restrict access on a private road. When a tract developer puts in the roads he then creates the covenants that prohibit any private owner down the line from closing the road to traffic, charging exorbitant fees, etc.

As to the fact that private property owners have expressed their irrational prejudices in restricting people from private property by skin color is a fact of life. The alternative is to have an elite that tell us the politically correct way to run a restaurant. And this is why people would be very careful to put in solid, comprehensive covenants on private roads. (It is a fact that you can't have utopia until all people are perfect.)

If someone wants to change a covenant, the mechanism exists, and it is nothing more than getting all who are effected to sign a waiver - so a person could take a road out existence, converting it to, say, a building space, as long as all who held rights (scope of covenant) agreed.

Property, to use the term properly, isn't the 'thing' like say an automobile. It is the ownership of a right to take a kind of action relative to that thing. My ownership in a thing is the sum of the bundle of rights I hold that relate to that thing. Say I leased the automobile, then I don't have the right to sell it - that didn't come with bundle of rights when I leased it. But I did get the right to drive it, maybe the right to sub-lease it. This is a legal understanding that derives from an absolute view of ethical, i.e., individual rights. The legal descriptions retain the absolute nature of the individual rights in that they are by right and not a permission and they adhere to, and arise from, the individual and not society or government. They serve the practical nature required of law and allow for the very complex nature of relationships that can come into being. There may be many 'owners' of that automobile - the person who purchased it from the dealer and collects lease fees, the person who leased it and then sub-leased it, the person who sub-leased it and is driving it, and maybe there is a person with the right to repossess the car if the first person doesn't make payments on a loan to which the car is pledged collateral.

Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 1:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Issues still remaining to be dealt with include eminent domain - one person or a group of persons using the fact that they are the last holdouts for an expensive road project to leverage land prices, rights to passage, uniform fees, etc.
I don't understand this objection. Why shouldn't they have a right not to sell? It's their property. The implicit premise of your objection is that they are somehow obligated to sell for the sake of the common good, and that their right to hold out in order to "leverage" land prices interferes with their discharge of that "obligation."
Under the absolutist concept of property rights derived from the Divine Right of Kings, to which, paradoxically, most Objectivists seem to subscribe, there is no easy solution.
Check your premises! If one believes in individual rights, there is no "problem" that requires a solution.
Once the property has been transferred to the road owners, then they can do what they will with it, including barring use (or charging exorbitant fees) by personal enemies, or people of the wrong religion, or skin color. This happened all over the deep South for about a century with regard to businesses such as retail stores and restaurants.
You could make the same argument against all other privately owned and operated goods and services. The answer is that it's not in the owner's economic self-interest to behave in this arbitrary a manner.

Consider the railroads in the deep South, which were segregated by law, not by the railroads themselves, which opposed racial segregation. For example, railroad companies in Louisiana opposed the state's separate but equal accommodations law and rarely enforced it. In fact, in 1896, the Louisiana and Nashville Railroad agreed to assist in a test case challenging the law. The case, that of Plessy v. Ferguson, concerned an incident in which Homer Adolph Plessy, who was one-eighth black, bought a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway, and choose a seat reserved for whites. The case went to the Supreme Court which upheld the separate but equal law by ruling that it did not violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

With the 14th Amendment now largely bereft of authority, Southern states could impose segregation virtually at will. Nevertheless, segregationist laws were as unpopular with the streetcar companies in other states as with those in Louisiana. As economic historian Jennifer Roback notes, opposition by the companies to separate seating laws spanned the entire geographic range of the South, including Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee and Texas.

In 1891, five years before Plessy v. Ferguson, Georgia had passed a law requiring segregation on all railroads and streetcars within the state, but the law was ignored by the Augusta Railway and Electric Company until 1898 when the company was finally pressured into enforcing it.

There was similar opposition to segregated streetcars in Savannah, Georgia, where the City had ignored the state law for 15 years, until 1906. At that time, the following report appeared in the Atlanta Journal:

"The Savannah Electric Company of this city is now facing a boycott from the negroes (sic) on account of the putting into effect here yesterday of the law providing for the separation of the whites and blacks on streetcars. The action on the part of the company was not voluntary. The city council...passed a city ordinance forcing the company to separate the races on the cars." (Emphasis added)

In Houston, Texas, an ordinance was passed in 1903 requiring segregated streetcars, but a similar black boycott ensued, and a year later, the company petitioned for a change in the law. In Jacksonville, Florida, segregation was mandated in 1901, but the Jacksonville Street Railway Company did not enforce it until 1905, and only after political pressure was brought to bear. Montgomery, Alabama passed a municipal ordinance in 1900 requiring segregated streetcars. Two years later, after a black boycott caused a "25 to 47% loss of revenue", the streetcars were desegregated. Mobile, Alabama passed a segregation ordinance in 1902 which the Mobile Light and Railroad Company refused to enforce until its conductors were arrested for noncompliance. Tennessee passed a law in 1903 segregating streetcars, over the bitter opposition of the Memphis Street Railway which refused to enforce it. After the company was arrested, it challenged the law, and got the state courts to declare it unconstitutional.

Although popular demand had already caused railway companies to set aside segregated sections for smokers and non-smokers, there was no such demand for racially segregated sections, even by the white passengers. For that, it took a government mandate, which the white streetcar companies vigorously opposed, even to the point of civil disobedience.

Such opposition by the Southern streetcar companies to segregated streetcars is a little known fact -- even to economic historians. The only organized opposition to segregated public conveyances that most people are aware of is the black boycott sparked by Rosa Parks' celebrated refusal to sit in the back of a public bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955.
Note that there were competing restaurants. Thus, a white owner could open the door to blacks, at the risk of retaliation, including violence. However, often there were not competing restrooms or water fountains.
That's because these segregated facilities were mandated by law. They had to be; otherwise the profit motive would have caused businesses to integrate voluntarily. For example, in 1922, the South Carolina Criminal Code §45 included the following provision:

"That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of cottons textile manufacturing in this State to allow or permit operatives, help and labor of different races to labor and work together within the same room, or to use the same doors of entrance and exit at the same time, or . . . to use the same stairway and windows at the same time, or to use at any time the same lavoratories, toilets, drinking water buckets, pails, cups, dippers or glasses."

Installing separate facilities for blacks and whites, such as additional restrooms and water fountains, increases the cost of doing business and is therefore uneconomic. Moreover, Southern bureaucrats could, and often would coerce employers into racist hiring practices by threatening to deny them zoning permits or to close them down on the pretext of finding health and building code violations. And as if that weren't enough, there was the omnipresent threat of "nightriders" -- the Ku Klux Klan vandals and terrorists -- who would trash or torch any non-compliant business or establishment, while local authorities simply looked the other way.

Even in the heavily racist South, private businesses wouldn't have installed segregated facilities voluntarily. For that, it took the threat of force and violence, both by the government and by racist vigilantes.
Imagine that you are black in a town connected to other towns via highways that forbid passage on non-motorized vehicles, such as a bicycle, and the only bus line is white only. You are effectively imprisoned. Now imagine that the owners of all or enough of the roads that happen to run through your neighborhood have effectively encircled your residence or neighborhood, such that you can no longer walk from one side of the road to the other - or at least without paying a substantial fee for use of the crosswalk. These and innumerable other conflicts are direct reflections of a faulty concept of property to begin with.
Nonsense. That would never happen, especially in this day and age! It is a paranoid fantasy that is completely unrealistic. The same paranoia could be entertained under any other social system. Whoever is in charge of enforcing the laws could conceivably be bribed, could be corrupt and unscrupulous, etc. But what is true of any social system cannot be an objection to any social system. What is needed is a system that minimizes the incentives for that kind of arbitrary and unjust behavior. Capitalism and the absolutism of property rights does that better than any alternative.
The reason the Divine Right model of property rights has worked, more or less, to date, is that it was employed in a context in which there was plenty of commons available and relatively few serious interactions between property uses. Thus, one person's claim to absolute ownership to a physical piece of land - probably understood to be a conic section to the center of the Earth - had little impact.
A conic section to the center of the earth is not a proper concept of land rights. If the earth beneath of one's property can be mined without disturbing one's use of the property, there can be no objection to it. One does not automatically own the ground beneath one's property down to the very center of the earth. That's ridiculous! And to refer to the Objectivist concept of property as the "Divine Right" concept is equally ridiculous!
Then, on space colony Earth, no physical "property" would be seen as absolute, yet the strictures and contracts applying to property rights could themselves be as objective as anything coming from the Divine Right concept.

Under this Common Law view of property, every property would embody constraints that derived from its source in the commons. Our free market road builder, for example, could not build roads that prevented people from following a passage from A to B that they had used previously. Instead, a legal, title mechanism or something similar would require that proper compensation and alternative routes be provided.
True, but this does not gainsay the absolutism of property rights. Implicit in one's passage from A to B is the right to go from B to A. It's an implied contract or agreement. If I pay you a welcomed visit at your home, you cannot then deny me the right to leave, on the grounds that you own your own home and can therefore regulate the behavior of anyone on your property. That would be a perversion of the very concept of property rights.
The general principle for morally valid property titles is that the property may not be stolen, in part or in whole. If it was stolen, then the ownership resides with the original owners, not the thief nor someone the thief has transferred the property to. The ownership starts with the commons and moves toward private ownership as people find uses that require exclusivity and are willing to pay the owners of the commons - everyone - for the right to restrict their usage.
Ownership does not start with the commons. This is a collectivist view of property rights, if I ever heard one. Ownership starts with individual rights.

- Bill

Post 10

Monday, September 1, 2008 - 4:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
BTW, there is an essay on just this topic, by Professor Walter Block, in Tibor R. Machan, ed., The Libertarian Reader (Rowman & Littlefield, 1982).

Post 11

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 9:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Eminent domain is one of what I consider the more difficult questions for Objectivism. Certainly much of the progress that we have all benefitted from in the US can be traced to developments where eminent domain was employed to force the sale of private properties.

I didn't like eminent domain before, and I absolutely hate the way it is being practiced now (under Supreme Court's mockery of justice). However, I do think that here have been tangible benefits to having the mechanism available.

I haven't heard any effective alternatives for dealing with the question of the stubborn or greedy landowner. "Go around" isn't always an option.

jt

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay,

Your presumption is that violating property rights had no negative effects worth mentioning... like leading to slippery slopes such as the current tendencies in eminent domain. And to the loss in property rights that would likely come in the future of that kind of trend. That's the thing about principles, if you forget that they are principles and try to look at them as only pragmatic guidelines, you get in trouble. Like not letting the Neo-Nazi enjoy free speech and before long you have practices like those springing up in Europe where PC speech laws can get you thrown in jail for "Hate crimes" that amount to no more than saying Muslims shouldn't kill sheep just as a ritual (Google "Bridgitte Bardot Muslim").

The other unstated assumption is that human ingenuity wouldn't have solved the problems in ways we are don't see since we didn't go down that road. And that any differences between how we solved the problems that the free market never even had a chance to solve versus using eminent domain was worth the loss of absolute ownership - an awful precedent.

If someone chooses to ignore the moral dimension, ignore that law should only arise out of a proper understanding of ethical principles, ignore the fact that free enterprise overall is more effective and better suited to human flourishing, ignore that a free market when allowed to work will present more options and choices and solutions than government intervention, and ignore the slippery slope that freedom is put on... well, yes, then what is left over could be looked at as "tangible benefits" - but only because ALL of the important contexts have been totally dropped! Dropped in favor of, "Hey, let's take his property at gun point because we think we have a really good project that requires it."

And last, what in the world is "greedy" or "stubborn" about someone wanting to keep their own property? And if someone does choose to be "greedy" isn't that their right? Or, is it okay to take away a person's property because they are "greedy" or "stubborn"?

Post 13

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I haven't presumed that there are no negative effects. The negative effects are obvious, which is why I referred to the question as being difficult.

I believe your point is that free market could, but has never been given the opportunity to solve such property issues such as handled by 'eminent domain'. Correctly, Objectivism would require that the parties involved deal with each other rationally, and in reasonable self interest. The problem I see (the problem I always see) is that not all people behave rationally, or in reasonable self interest. The only cases where alternate solutions might be sought are those where one party or another make irrational demands.

"Greed" and "stubborn" were poor word choices. The more accurate term is "irrational". And the irrational behavior may be on either the buyer's or the seller's side.

The ideal result of any such transaction is that the price paid be - at a minimum - a fair market value. In most such dealings, the seller is willing to sell, and only the price is in question. In some cases though, the seller may have sentimental attachment or other personal commercial plans for the property, and seriously does not want to sell. These are the two basic cases to be dealt with.

Those cases where the property owner is already willing to sell, but is holding out for a higher price, current eminent domain laws can act much like an arbitrator in negotiating a fair market value (although usually through a court). In those cases where the property owner simply has their own vision for the property (whether as a personal home or commercial endeavor), eminent domain becomes a tyranny.

One can try rationalizing one's way around the second case. For instance, is sentimental attachment to one's personal home a rational enough argument for refusing to sell? Technically, I'd say yes, it is, although this is an emotional, not a rational decision. Is having a personal commercial project for the property a rational enough argument? Depending upon the location and features of the property that may be true. However, if there is a viable alternate site available to the owner, then refusing to sell may be an irrational decision.

Just recently, I did get to see an example of a private shipping terminal beating an eminent domain action by a local port authority, so I know that when handled properly by the courts, a fair result can be achieved. In this case the company had purchased a waterfront facility with plans for building a bulk terminal. The port authority, which only wanted to 'bank' the land against future needs, tried eminent domain to force the sale for the original purchase price. Worse, to cover their expenses, the port authority also made an offer to one of the company's customers to provide the same services on the property that they could only obtain by eminent domain. The courts set the final market value price at a figure four times higher than the port authority had offered, so they finally quit.

These types of cases beg for a solution, and the only one offered so far has been eminent domain. I'd like to see another, less intimidating solution.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/03, 6:59am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 8:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay, wrote, "Objectivism would require that the parties involved deal with each other rationally, and in reasonable self interest. The problem I see (the problem I always see) is that not all people behave rationally, or in reasonable self interest."

Objectivism demonstrates the value and virtue of rationality, but it doesn't force it on anyone. People are free to be irrational and to not behave in their self-interest - happens all the time. As a psychologist I can tell you that I know of no one, no one at all, that has been 100 percent rational or always acted in their self-interest.

Jay writes, "The only cases where alternate solutions might be sought are those where one party or another make irrational demands." Unless I've misread this, "alternate solutions" is a call for totalitarian powers to be vested in some bureaucrat or government structure that will decide when a property owner is being "irrational" and will then step in and exercise eminent domain, ripping him from his home.

People will behave irrationally - so what, don't be frightened of that, get over making that the reason you want to throw individual rights and freedom out the window. All that we need are laws that derive as best we can from individual rights and our best efforts at their enforcement - the result will be the best (not perfect, not utopian) environment for us to run around, live, be rational or irrational, and with the least fear that others will use force, fraud, or theft to have their way.

Jay writes, "Those cases where the property owner is already willing to sell, but is holding out for a higher price, current eminent domain laws can act much like an arbitrator in negotiating a fair market value..." Eminent domain law is a gun at the head of a legitimate property owner, that should never be given the title of "arbitrator" - that is like calling a "torturer" a negotiator.

Jay writes, "...is sentimental attachment to one's personal home a rational enough argument for refusing to sell?" Jay, you have an extreme flaw in your grasp of the purpose of government, the nature of Objectivism, the nature of human rights. Your logic would allow me to say, "He has a sentimental attachment to his life and that is not a rational enough argument for not killing him, given that he is not a productive member of society." Where are individual rights in your analysis? Where is it said that the purpose of government is to enforce "rationality"? Where is it said in Objectivism that others must be rational for me to have a good life? Where is it said that, somehow, magically enforcing rationality is a rational goal?

Post 15

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 5:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

First, thanks for your response. You write the most cogent responses of anyone here, except for Ted.

I quite agree with your point on Objectivism and rationality. It is not required BY Objectivism. It still remains though, an important - I would say Key - point when discussing Objectivist systems of governance. The irrational actions of individuals can play havoc with many of the well thought out and fair-minded Objectivist solutions that have been variously proposed.

"Alternate solutions" - I cannot refute your assertion that any alternate solution could be considered "totalitarianism". However, eminent domain is a mechanism that can only be implemented through the courts, so the owner of a property does in fact have some legal recourse - something not available in a true totalitarian regime. It is also quite fair of you to say that it is "a gun pointed at his (property owner's) head. However, as practiced in the US, the owner can still obtain a stay, if not a reprieve, from that execution. I provided an example in my post.

I agree that I was being overly kind when I suggested the term arbitrator. Arbitrators don't pull out guns. The whole legal process is certainly more akin to torture, as you suggest.

Certainly, I never intended that my argument about "rational argument" be extended beyond the context of the case presented, although I understand (correctly, I hope) your position that principles do (and must) be applied in all cases - they cannot be suspended for someone's (or some group's) perceived good cause.

That nevertheless leaves a question of what method- other than a mechanism such as eminent domain - could be used to avoid stalemates when a particular plot of land is essential to completing a large project. I don't have a reliable answer for that question, and I suspect anyone who does could become a wealthy consultant.

jt
(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/03, 5:07pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay,

On the issue of stalemates, that is simply a fact of reality - people don't agree and a potential project is put on hold, maybe forever. I don't see that as a problem so much as just the fact that economic activity flows from humans but in a free market, only to the degree that they agree. And that freedom to agree or disagree is the important thing - not the project. When people let go of one project where they can't get agreement they can go on to another.

You said, "The irrational actions of individuals can play havoc with many of the well thought out and fair-minded Objectivist solutions that have been variously proposed." The only havoc that needs stopping consists of actions that violate individual rights. All the rest is part of the fabric of social intercourse. There are lots of things in the culture that I don't like - they are a product of the likes and dislikes of others - to bad for me, that's the way it goes. My job is to negotiate my way to the best outcomes for me, using in the world in front of me.

It isn't possible to outlaw irrationality, it wouldn't be right to attempt to outlaw irrationality, and trying to build systems that are fool-proof against irrationality will most likely lead to a life of frustration for those that pick up that Sisyphean task. Let go of any fear that irrational others will ruin things and have to be prevented and it becomes easier to see the principles that really matter.



Post 17

Wednesday, September 3, 2008 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The underlying principle that resolves the various conflicts such as eminent domain lies in the recognition that we all had equal usage of the commons to start with.  If someone wants to decrease my access to the local blackberry patch or pleasant swimming hole by "privatizing" it, then there should be an objective social/economic mechanism by which that person can bid to purchase that right from me and all the other affected individuals.  That's only fair.

Post 18

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 10:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

urQ And that freedom to agree or disagree is the important thing - not the project. When people let go of one project where they can't get agreement they can go on to another.

Your first sentence is true, but your second sentence is not always true. You cannot always route a highway around the cow pasture. Topography, geology, and financial feasibility are all important factors to some projects.

As for the ramifications of failing to complete projects, consider how many major works we have now that simply would not exist. Then consider the variety of consequences to safety, to national economy, to national defense, etc. that we would face. Are you absolutely sure there can be no happy median?

I'll say this. Just on the basis of your strong position, you'd certainly be my candidate for working out a happy median between the two objectives.

Lastly, I don't suggest outlawing irrationality, but (like in traffic laws) I do think there is a valid need to provide ourselves some protection from it. In fact, that's the main reason we have a constitution.

jt

Post 19

Thursday, September 4, 2008 - 11:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay,

You are mixing up violations of individual rights and irrationality. The constitution is intended to structure government in a way that minimizes the violations of individual rights - not irrationality, which is a much, much broader category. If we value freedom, which is defined by individual rights, we also MUST stand up for the right of anyone to be irrational, as long as the particular form of the irrational act does not violate an individual's rights. It is just like free speech - you are for it or not, and if you are for it, you have to tolerate the fact that Nazi skin heads can speak their vile thoughts.

We completely disagree on the results of eminent domain - on what we would have today if there had never been an eminent domain. And we disagree on what would exist in the future without it. I have a view of human nature that doesn't see irrationality as such a potent force, nor do I see the actions of humans in the economy as so linear as to think that ingenious ways wouldn't be found to bring about agreements and that we wouldn't achieve equally desirable results in different ways when a particular agreement couldn't be made.

But even with those disagreements, you need to decide if you are a person willing to violate the rights of others for the sake of a project. If you are, then you are not in agreement with Objectivism and should be advocating for some form or fascism or socialism or mixture thereof that meets your priorities and attempt to define what those laws would look like and how that ethical system would look - it would have to be some variant of altruism.

If the government puts a gun to my head, forcing me to move out of my home, against my will, no matter what the project is, the need to provide moral justification for that act exists.
By what moral right can that be done?

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.