A Private Superhighway

"your owning them isn't going to bring you a bit of profit."

That’s fine with me. I’ll fence the sidewalk and alley and put my dogs there.

(Edited by Jon Letendre on 1/03, 9:51pm)

Post 21

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 10:12pm

This discussion has yet to abandon the basic collectivist assumptions that we were raised with. So far, this is like a group of theologians attempting to devise a rational religion, getting close to some answers, but never the basic question, and incrementally working their way to Deism.

We have automobiles because the car makers relied on public roads. They designed vehicles to use them. We built cities of contiguous habitats that depended on common access.

Public roads -- either as unowned property*, or as public property* -- have always been here. If the government were totally, completely, thoroughly, radically, basically, fundamentally removed from the problem, there might be no roads.

We might have unimagined self-sufficiency that greatly reduces the need for travel.

We might have direct, point-to-point travel, whether personal air vehicles or direct matter transmission or something else entirely.

Direct matter transmission is "science fiction." Yet, what is email? About 15 years ago, the U.S. government Postal Service attempted to integrate email into its matrix: you fax or email a letter to the post office; they put it in an envelope and a carrier delivers it to the recipient. That is the kind of solution offered so far for "privatizing" the roads.

Imagine the Founders of the American republic attempting to decide whether to include a Post Office. How would people get their mail, if the government did not deliver it? Who would maintain the "post roads" if the government did not? Yet, here, today, we send millions of times more words electronically than were spoken 200 years ago. We did not need to "privatize the post office" to achieve it.

On the other hand, much of this discussion is going on in a vacuum without any research into the way things really are. For instance, railroads have long since figured out how to charge each other for the use of the track. One solution, about 30 or 40 years ago, was a system of colored bar coding on each car. You can see these on cars. The system failed many times. After all, railroads are heavily regulated by the government and that regulation includes forced unionization of labor. Getting good technology is a challenge in that environment. Even so, one company owned the track. Other companies used it. Accounts receivable were tallied.

Here in Michigan, it is illegal to create a completely bounded property. Everyone must have access to the road. However, as a pilot, I have no problem with a completely bounded property because I intend to fly in and out without using the road.

That raises the issue of who owns the "air space." The mirror image problem is "mineral rights." Under the present system of laws, you own all the space to infinity above your home and you own all the ground down to the center of the Earth. That concept is medieval.

One way to consider this is to view the problem of the unowned continent (or planet or oceans, etc.) What happens when two people land on opposite sides of a planet and cannot "see" each other and both claim the whole thing? Clearly, this is a contradiction that derives from our traditional and irrational notions of property.

One fact that seems to work is that in order to "own" something you must be able to control it. How much air space can you control? A rifle will give you about a mile in any direction if your goal is to keep others out, and that is a good, basic consideration. How much of the land beneath your home can you control with that same tool? A more difficult and subtle standard is to observe whether you can improve the property you claim. ( Yes, you might say that you do not want to improve it because you like it just the way it is, but that begs the original question: how much volume can you reasonably enjoy in lieu of improving? One thing I liked about Albuquerque was the view of the mountains: they were about 20 miles away. Can I claim to be enjoying the daylights out of them and thereby make them my property?)

Before you can figure out who owns the roads, you have to know who "owns" anything.

* "Unowned (potential) property" is perhaps a better phrase and "public property" is a non-sequitar. I apologize for those terms, but public education leaves even me a bit short on rational vocabulary at times. I am open to suggestions for describing what a traditional path between two properties would be called.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/03, 10:17pm)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/03, 10:20pm)

Post 22

Monday, January 3, 2005 - 10:24pm

Well you could be right but I don't think we're that bad. Here is what I see:

Where we are now: Mostly public roads, private roads only in remote areas.

Where we want to be: mostly private roads, public roads limited to land controlled by the government and necessary for its operation.

How to get there: Build all new roads privately, old roads go to highest bidder or owned cooperatively by the people who live around it?

Problems: Several but mostly from eminent domain and who-gets-what?

Please add to this if you want.

Post 23

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:48am

Jon wrote:

Rick,

You ask: “Worthwhile to whom ?”
Worthwhile to those who need ingress and egress of their property in order for “property” to mean something.

Well, of course. That was my point. Your original statement ("some very worthwhile things") ignores the value the current owner places on the property.

Post 24

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 12:15pm

Rick,

I see now that my “worthwhile” statement was made with regard to eminent domain, while I erroneously responded to your question about it as though it had been made regarding sidewalks.

Perhaps that got the misunderstanding going. You do misunderstand me when you say, “Your original statement ("some very worthwhile things") ignores the value the current owner places on the property.”

I do not ignore the value, I have consistently said (posts 9 and 17) that eminent domain takings must be compensated above market, (with different words, though I think my meaning is clear.

Do you hold that the current owner places a value higher than the market? That would be subjective on their part. The market value is the objective value.

Whether built and owned by a private firm or by the government, why should the users of a highway have to pay many more times the normal cost (for an elevated road, for example) because some hot dog stands and strip malls are holding out? I am open to having the evil of eminent domain proven to me—but from where I sit, the hot dog stand and the pet shops and vitamin outlets can go somewhere else much easier than a road project in a congested city where there is no someplace else to locate it.

There should be a very high qualification for eminent domain. It gets abused now; I have no doubt of that. And I sympathize with those who have sentimental attachments to a home or a piece of farmland along a highway being widened; perhaps they should get a multiple of value. But (here comes more blasphemy) all of us have the need for transportation. We need the ability to go for a weekend drive and actually get out of the city before the weekend is over. Whether privately or publicly built there are plenty of clear cases where there is no other way to get the project done without some holdouts being forced to take the generous cash and evacuate. Boston’s Big Dig is an example.

Again, I’m open to proof otherwise. What will not do it for me are examples of some road somewhere going over a parcel—that’s easy and bears no resemblance to a project like the Big Dig or the task of widening a one hundred mile stretch of highway, which would cost trillions to elevate.

Jon

Post 25

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 2:31pm

Jon,

You can switch from the current situations because there are some benefits to private ownership of property that government ownership cannot provide. The transfer and leasing of rights is usually easier for private owners, for example, and so is development of property.

The pro bono aspect, if it can really be called that, is the choice of the owner. I haven't really tried to put forth a more thorough market conception of roads and transportation (of the posts so far, Mike Marotta has come closest to putting that vision and has pointed out that competing, private alternatives are often myopically viewed when there are government-sponsored choices that hide costs). I'm just saying that ruling it out requires more than the belief that the market can't provide what we call public goods because private ownership always brings up thoughts of "Scrooge" (not such a bad fellow, by the way) and not "Starbucks Cafe" -pretty much no one throws you out of Starbucks unless they have a really good reason to, and it rarely involves not buying a cup of coffee.

Post 26

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 5:21pm

Next,

We’re now talking about two things: Eminent domain and the feasibility of private ownership of sidewalks and alleys. For clarity we should keep them separate. I take your last post to be mostly about sidewalks and alleys, so let’s address that.

NEW development is admittedly different. I want to deal with existing cities and the feasibility of switching to private ownership of public corridors in this setting.

Let’s ground the issue with a real example: my home, my block and me. My home is surrounded by: Private homes to the East and West, a public sidewalk (and then a public street) to the South, and a public alley to the North. You correctly point out that transference is eased under private property, so let’s assume that I come into ownership of the sidewalk, street, and alley that abut my property. My lot is small, so this would substantially expand my yard. As soon as I get these pieces of property I am going to fence them and put my dogs inside to preserve my garden. I am not going to allow public access. If other homeowners on my block act like me, then sections of homes will have their access blocked. We will have trespassers charged for their crime. How would the market deal with this problem?

(Please don’t say in your response that property owners would never act this way. THIS owner will behave precisely as described above. I don’t need easement revenue. I want yard space. My neighbors are in the same situation. Also, don’t bother with bridges because I’m going to exercise my right to install very tall antennas on what were the sidewalk, street and alley, on the same day that I purchase these parcels. I will also drill wells. Your bridges and tunnels would destroy my property, not allowed.)

How would the market deal with this? When you respond, please also answer this question: Can I have the abandoned homes?

Jon

Post 27

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 5:51pm

Jon,

I will state upfront that it is impossible to deal with indefinitely unreasonable behavior.

I'm not an ideological defender of the market, and I'm not an anarchist either. Economics is about costs and benefits, and there are always limitations in every system. There is no economic or political solution which doesn't rely on some reasonable assumptions about human behavior. Maybe people are more comfortable with the government officials overriding their preferences. I can't defend free markets by looking for common acceptance - I can only argue that they still benefit many of the people who do not accept them.

In the real world, there are a variety of solutions to your recalcitrant behavior, some commonly accepted, some morally repugnant. They include applying eminent domain to your property to murdering you to begging you to reasoning with you to ostracizing you if your sentiments are not those shared by the community. There is no commonly accepted solution to dealing with perceived unreasonableness.

However, one thing I do know about human beings is that they started mutually cooperating after they saw that combative solutions were not always optimal. You might decide to be unreasonable, but there is no reason why others will not retaliate against you in an effort to make you conform.

Post 28

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 7:39pm

Next,

Murder me? For enjoying my private property my way?

You stated, “one thing I do know about human beings is that they started mutually cooperating after they saw that combative solutions were not always optimal.”

I take it you would favor leaving public corridors in place.

Jon

Post 29

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 8:47pm

Jon,

I never called it ("murder") a good solution. You tried to make your hypothetical as unreasonable as possible so I decided to bring in some unreasonable elements too.

My main point was that if you want to define unreasonable behavior within property rights as you choose without accepting that the behavior will have consequences for you, then you are free to do so. I cannot argue against such a hypothetical case on your terms.

You don't need easement revenue, but you are perfectly willing to pursue a policy that if consistently pursued you admit will lead to your being unable to entertain visitors or even leave your home.

I take it you would favor leaving public corridors in place.

It depends on how you define "public". I have argued that certain forms of privately owned spaces are not incompatible with your notion of public corridors. This doesn't mean that such spaces do not have their own problems. It just means that the idea should not be rejected outright.

Post 30

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:08pm

Next,

Why did you place murder in quotes? You’re not quoting me—you wrote it. And I didn’t say that you said it was a good solution. I’m glad to hear that you would not regard it so.

Jon

Post 31

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:27pm

Next,

Jon: “I’m glad to hear that you would not regard it so.”

You never actually said this.

Would you?

Jon

Post 32

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 9:54pm

Next,

However I take you as saying it would be unreasonable. I’ll accept that.

Why do you see my choices as unreasonable? I have dogs and limited space. Why all the somber consequences? If it’s my private property, what are you talking about—that people can threaten me because my dogs need space? Did you mean to say that public corridors should stay public in exactly the meaning we both understand? Say it.

Jon

Post 33

Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - 11:46pm

Is whether or not it works well or not irreverent? The moral action is not letting the government take away an individuals private property so if it works, that’s just a bonus

Her Holiness Ayn Rand said,

"The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does – if that catch-phrase has any meaning – but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."

So wouldn’t that apply here with eminent domain?

Post 34

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 7:00am

Jon Letendre wrote:

I do not ignore the value, I have consistently said (posts 9 and 17) that eminent domain takings must be compensated above market, (with different words, though I think my meaning is clear.

Do you hold that the current owner places a value higher than the market? That would be subjective on their part. The market value is the objective value.

If the current owner does not wish to sell there is no market and hence no market value. Market value is the price at which a voluntary exchange actually takes place. Anything else is mere guesswork.

Post 35

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 7:00am

Jon,

My answer to your hypo is: if people around you can't bear to deal with your fenced in sidewalks, they will either move -- seems like a good way to get rid of pesky neighbors -- or retaliate. You will probably be shunned at your workplace and on other people's sidewalks. You probably won't be able to get very far from your little private area because everyone else will have a restriction on their personally owned but otherwise rather public walkways saying, "NO JON ALLOWED!" And not only will they post this restriction, but they'll also post another, "NO THROUGH TRANSIT TO JON'S PROPERTY!"

How about it?

Jordan

Post 36

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 8:48am

Rick,

Lenders, brokers, insurers and others assess market values of real estate every day. They use sophisticated models to do this. The results are objective, in part because the models include considerations of actual recent sales. There is no “guesswork” involved. By your logic there can be no way to know the value of my house and no one would insure it because without my selling it, they can only guess its value. In fact, my insurer, my lender and others know the value of my house with confidence.

Jon

Post 37

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 9:21am

Next and Jordan,

I am astonished that both of you correctly perceive details of the mess that privatization of sidewalks would cause and instead of decrying such a plan, you decry the moral shortcomings of people like me whose only crime is controlling his property as he sees fit. Your solution to the problems caused by privatization of sidewalks is to run people who have the temerity to use their private property their own way right out of town.

You find my plans for MY property repugnant and gleefully predict violent retribution against me and my being shunned at work (which I assume means being fired.)

You would appear to hold that the only acceptable course for my private sidewalk is universal public access. That sounds like private in name only, it sounds like the current public situation, it sounds like you agree with me.

Jon

Post 38

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 10:18am

Hi Jon,

I wasn't really offering a solution so much as a description of what I think could happen if people were to retain individual rights. My description has no violent retribution against you, just harsh rights-abiding persuasion. If your sidewalks are important pathways, then of course people who would benefit enough from them are going to be pissed at you. I think it's human tendency to stop giving if their not getting. It's just a matter of rights-abiding reciprocity, and reciprocity is important even in a completely privatized world.

You would appear to hold that the only acceptable course for my private sidewalk is universal public access.

Nah. I doubt you'd meet with harsh persuasion if you put up some reasonable rules on your property: no dogs allowed, or dog owners must scoop the poop from your sidewalk; no unaccompanied minors; no one allowed after midnight; no loitering; no loud music; walk at your own risk; etc. Plus, you could do stuff on your sidewalk that would otherwise not be allowed, like make it out of rubber, or paint pictures on it, or put speed bumps down.

To reiterate, you don't own your property in a vacuum. Sometimes there are social consequences for doing antisocial things with your property. You have to determine whether it's more important to fence the sidewalk to keep in your dog or to have easy access to someone else's sidewalks to get to work. No need to be astonished.

Jordan

Post 39

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 10:51am