A Private Superhighway

Jordan,

You’ve shown that I am not exaggerating when I describe private sidewalks as precipitating a mess. You say I will not be met with harsh persuasion if I put up some reasonable rules on my property. You go on to name some, including: no dogs allowed; no unaccompanied minors; and no one allowed after midnight.

In the name of individual rights, you would give me the power to strand people who stayed out after midnight, prevent them from walking their dog and force them to walk their child to and from school. That’s truly astounding.

Jon

Post 41

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 12:39pm

Nature,

You wrote: “If all you're doing with that property is using it to house your dogs, it isn't really a sidewalk anymore.”

No it isn’t. That’s the nature of the problem advocates for private sidewalks would have to address.

Your economic comments with comparisons to railroads don’t help me to see how you would solve the problems caused by private sidewalks. I’ll accept your suggestion that the sidewalk in front of my house would likely be made private into the hands of a company that owns long stretches in all directions, you still have to acknowledge that they would have the right to sell me the piece that adjoins my lot. You give good reasons why that may not be likely, but not good enough to preclude it. Maybe I am near the termination of a dead end and it’s not worth much to them and my offer is exceedingly generous—whatever their reasons, I can get that piece, because they will have the right to sell it to me.

In your last sentence you grant me the right to use it, once acquired, however I like. How would you solve the problems that would arise? I would now have the power to strand people, close off access to their property, etc.

Jon

Post 42

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 12:47pm

Jon Letendre writes:

Lenders, brokers, insurers and others assess market values of real estate every day. They use sophisticated models to do this.

That's what they say they do; those are the words they use; but what they are really doing is making their best guesstimate of approximately what the selling price would be if it were actually sold.

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.

Correct, there is no way to know the (market) value of something until it is bought/sold because there are no valuers until then.

What you're missing is that there is no "value" aside from the valuations of the people involved. Value is not intrinsic. Value is not a property of the item valued. Value is a preference and different people have different preferences.

Do not confuse current average selling price with value.

Post 43

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 2:11pm

Rick: “Do not confuse...”

I’ll try to keep that in mind.

Post 44

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 2:22pm

Rick,

Let’s apply your logic to an ’85 Pontiac. You say people have different preferences, and you are right about that. Some people would need me to pay them $1,000 to take my Pontiac, so they would value my car at negative $1,000. Other people are extremely slow and I could talk them into giving me $1,000 for the car. By your logic, my Pontiac is valued at either -$1K or $1K and I have no way of knowing the answer until I actually sell it. That is the most concrete-bound nonsense I have read in the last twenty minutes at this site! Try again.

Jon

Post 45

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 3:11pm

Jon, please try to pay attention. You wrote "By your logic, my Pontiac is valued at either -$1K or $1K" but you left out the most important part: by whom.

You know whether you value your car more or less than you value $1K. What you don't know is person A's or person B's or anyone else's valuation.

I'll repeat: there is no such thing as the value of something. There is only A's ranking of it on his value scale and B's ranking of it on her value scale, etc.

Post 46

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 3:20pm

Jon,

You're mixing up your pet scenario for making sidewalks the specific property of the people who live next to them with the very different question of whether roads and sidewalks could or should be private property. Every time I point out that private property is not a notion restricted to individual ownership of something, you still resort to your pet paradigm of individuals owning parts of sidewalks exclusively for themselves.

Of course such a situation (allocating sidewalks to individual ownership) can degenerate into chaos, but it very well might not. Your proposal for what you could do in such a situation is unreasonable by any rational standard, and yes, you can argue that you are acting within your rights if you conceive property rights as inviolable. However, my point is that anyone who conceives of his property rights as inviolable should be able to live with such behavior on the part of others. Yet you see nothing unreasonable about behaving in a way that would leave others unable to come and visit you by car/foot if practiced consistently.

You are quite right that there are problems with private ownership of property, in your scenario, my scenario, or any scenario. and your criticisms are well motivated, because human beings disagree all the time, and there has to be a system in place for settling disputes, whether cultural, economic or legal. However, this does not rule private ownership of sidewalks, even in the form your attack, out of court immediately. Since your use of your property is clearly unreasonable by moral standards, other members of the community will mosty likely see it fit to retaliate against you.

Remember that I'm not an Objectivist - this is one of the reasons why - I do believe that moral obligations to the communal good (based on the rational concerns of others) do require a person to behave in certain ways. Some Objectivists might agree, but it is hard to derive such an obligation from Objectivist principles.

Post 47

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 5:05pm

Hi Jon,

I was giving my opinion of rules I personally would find reasonable. If someone else finds your rules unreasonable, then they'll enact harsh persuasion if they're willing and able. So dog owners, parents who don't want to walk their kids to school, people who are stranded after midnight -- some of them will likely restrict some of their property to your detriment.

Also, I noticed that you left out the rule that owners had to clean up after their dogs. I guess you found that one reasonable. It's a law in some urban areas, not in others. You should know that subways and buses in many urban areas close after midnight (thus leaving many people stranded), that dogs aren't allowed to be walked in various parts of various cities, and that children often have a statutory curfew (so after a time, they are allowed out only with adults present), or they're not allowed in location at all (bars, porn shops, NC-17 rates movies). These laws are in constant effect everyday somewhere in this country, and they're quite similar to the reasonable rules I proposed for your sidewalk. So again, no need to be astounded.

Jordan

Post 48

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 7:00pm

Rick,

In an accident that is my fault I destroy someone’s car. Cars just like it are on lots around the city and in the paper for $500 (not that you would appear to care). My personal valuation of his rusty junk (pre-accident) is $1. I offer him $1 for the destruction I caused. He replies that I owe him “more than a million dollars” because it belonged to his grandfather and that’s what it meant to him. (You had written: “There is only A's ranking of it on his value scale and B's ranking of it on her value scale, etc.”)

Please forgive me if I still don’t grasp your theory. I take that theory as saying I may owe him something, but we can never know how much, as the figure is, by definition, indeterminable because I destroyed the car before he had the opportunity to sell it, the act that would have given us the figure. (You had written: “there is no way to know the (market) value of something until it is bought/sold because there are no valuers until then.”)

What do I owe him?

Jon

Post 49

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 7:35pm

Jordan,

There is no comparison between a curfew and a stranding caused by another citizen. For one thing curfews do not, as you said they do, get people stranded, they get you a ticket. The law can imprison someone for crimes, should I be similarly empowered? I suppose you would say yes, and not to worry because the community will “enact harsh persuasion” and I will thusly be kept reasonable in my exercise of the power.

I see no point in answering your other points, because we clearly disagree fundamentally in our visions of how best to ensure the general peace and tranquility. I see guaranteed open public corridors that connect private parcels together as essential, so that I don’t have to enact any persuasion to move about. You have a different vision, one I think would quickly lead to civil war.

I must credit you with articulating your position as best it can be, and I do sincerely thank you for the discussion.

Jon

Post 50

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 9:18pm

Jon Letendre writes:

In an accident that is my fault I destroy someone’s car.

[...]

What do I owe him?

Whatever you and he agree on. If the two of you cannot reach an agreement then you'll just have to let a court (or some other third party) decide.

Post 51

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 - 9:22pm

Next,

You wrote: “Every time I point out that private property is not a notion restricted to individual ownership of something, you still resort to your pet paradigm of individuals owning parts of sidewalks exclusively for themselves.”

You are correct that private property is not restricted to individuals, since companies, partnerships, etc. can also own property. And companies can own long stretches of sidewalk. None of this excludes me from obtaining the piece adjoining my property. Whoever owns the stretch can sell the piece to me. If they legally can’t, then it’s their private property in name only. Any number of circumstances can lead them to choose to sell me the piece that adjoins my lot. I might be near a dead-end; the value to them is low and my offer high.

You wrote: “Your proposal for what you could do in such a situation [fence with dogs] is unreasonable by any rational standard”

Why? Is it my property, or not?

You continued: “and yes, you can argue that you are acting within your rights if you conceive property rights as inviolable. However, my point is that anyone who conceives of his property rights as inviolable should be able to live with such behavior on the part of others.”

I do conceive of property rights as inviolable in this context, in the way that I take you to mean. And I am ready and able to live with reciprocal behavior. Remember, I favor private property and public access corridors. Let’s talk about my house. No one here (I hope) will find me repugnant or antisocial for barring passage from my front door through to my back door. And I am very happy to live in a city where all my fellow citizens behave similarly. I can live with it, because I can get where I am going through public corridors. I don’t have to be nice, or reasonable, I just walk where I want to go. They don’t have to let me through their house for a short-cut and I don’t let them—because, this is the point, every parcel is connected to the next by a corridor I do not have to pay, beg, harshly persuade or bully my way through (though I pay taxes for upkeep.)

You wrote: “Yet you see nothing unreasonable about behaving in a way that would leave others unable to come and visit you by car/foot if practiced consistently.”

It certainly is an unreasonable outcome. Privatizing what should be open public corridors causes it.

You wrote: “However, this does not rule private ownership of sidewalks, even in the form [you] attack, out of court immediately. Since your use of your property is clearly unreasonable by moral standards, other members of the community will [most] likely see it fit to retaliate against you.”

Again, no one wants to retaliate against me for barring passage through my house. The chaos, the retaliations and counter-retaliations arise when open corridors are removed and powers they should never possess are granted to individuals (or companies, etc.) The government should properly maintain and keep open sidewalks that connect private parcels.

Jon

Post 52

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 6:03am

You give good reasons why that may not be likely, but not good enough to preclude it. Maybe I am near the termination of a dead end and it’s not worth much to them and my offer is exceedingly generous—whatever their reasons, I can get that piece, because they will have the right to sell it to me.

Not if the sidewalk company contracts with property owners to provide transportation (in the manner of a utility company). Dividing up the sidewalk in a way that would prevent some customers from having guaranteed access to transportation would then be a breach of contract.

Of course, I guess you can argue that the company always has the right to not renew its contract with certain customers and cancel its service to that area. But really, the same thing applies in principle to existing utility companies—a power company could sell a section of its line to a customer, who could in principle cut off part of the grid from the power plant. But surely you don't suggest because of this that power and water lines need to be publicly owned as well?

Post 53

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 7:49am

Jon,

There is no comparison between a curfew and a stranding caused by another citizen

That wasn't the comparison I was trying to draw. I was comparing the (a) current situation of buses and subways stopping to the (b) private sidewalks closing up for the night. As for curfew, I'm not sure why you didn't focus on my stronger example of how various places currently completely disallow children. Instead, you focused on my weaker example of curfew, but you're right; kids today just get a ticket, so would you be okay with citizens ticketing kids? But this all just misses my point, which is: if someone finds one of your rules unreasonable, they probably will restrict their property against you. This would be how people might peacefully and non-aggressively but directly ultimately settle their differences.

That said, I'm just painting a picture of how all this might work. I think it has the potential to be a hellova lot less efficient than our current situation, and indeed I'm quite skeptical that it would lead to greater aggregate peace and tranquility. But I'm not sure why an aggregate peace and tranquility should be a goal that one seeks. I think libertarians (little "l") generally resist speaking in terms of aggregate peace and tranquility, and this is probably what fundamentally separates you from some discussers here.

I want you to know that I don't necessarily think that private sidewalks are the way to go. I'm just exploring the idea, not espousing it. Like Aristotle says, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it."

Jordan

Post 54

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 12:53pm

Jon,

I'm not sure what the point of your argument is anymore. How are you using the word "public" - as synonymous with government-owned or as synonymous with open-access to individuals who do not own the property?

If sidewalks are privatized in the manner that you, and only you as far as I have read on this thread, have proposed, then where do the public corridors come from?

If there are public corridors, then who cares about sidewalks, since they are no longer functioning as access routes?

We seem to be talking past each other. Please clarify.

Post 55

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 1:47pm

Nature,

Utilities and the question of ownership (control) of corridors are intertwined, so we must discuss utilities in the context, but not as an analogy to, corridors.

Alternative A:
This is the current situation of corridors (streets, sidewalks and alleys that link private parcels in towns in cities) being publicly controlled. Utility easements work smoothly. One (usually city) government grants an easement and the private firms lay their wires, pipes, etc. The public interest (the interests of all the individuals in the city) is served by facilitating the means for private business to be conducted. Some problems exist, such as granting only one easement for cable TV and phone and inefficient pothole repair. These can be rectified without changing control of the corridors. Private property is kept inviolable: I don’t receive any pressure, non-violent of otherwise, to allow wires under my property. I can tap in and pay for cable TV, or not. And I have guaranteed ingress and egress of my private property; I don’t have “get along” with others to enjoy my parcel.

Alternative B:
The disappearance of public corridors. All private parcels abut one another with no buffer between them. Utility easements would not work smoothly. Some landowners will grant easements, others would not. Some might grant some easements, but not for natural gas. The public interest (the interests of all the individuals in the city) is poorly served as the means (easements) for private business to be conducted would be drastically curtailed. Some homes would be able to receive gas while others would not. Private property would be violated: As Jordan admitted, things like murder could be foreseen to occur. Property owners who do not grant easements would be subject to harsh retaliation. In other words, one way or another property owners would be forced to allow easements they do not want. Shootings, retaliations—these mean open civil war.

You wrote: “a power company could sell a section of its line to a customer, who could in principle cut off part of the grid from the power plant.”

This cannot happen under alternative A because the city simply forbids it. It can happen under alternative B. And the customer doesn’t even have to own it, just disallow the easement, (until he’s shot, whereupon the wire goes in.)

You asked: “But surely you don't suggest because of this that power and water lines need to be publicly owned as well?”

No. And not quite privately owned, either. The right of the citywide easement is owned by the utility. I’m reluctant to say that the wire itself is their property, since that would imply their right to sell sections. Let’s call it publicly controlled wire privately placed and maintained as a conduit that facilitates private transactions. (And please, let’s not get stuck in semantics. I realize that when they sell to another utility company that the wires, and not just the easement is transferred.)

Jon

Post 56

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 2:27pm

Next,

You said: “I'm not sure what the point of your argument is anymore.”
The government should properly own, maintain and keep open sidewalks, alleys and streets that connect private parcels.

“How are you using the word "public" - as synonymous with government-owned or as synonymous with open-access to individuals who do not own the property?”
Government owned with guaranteed open access to all. Owned by a company or an individual, I am never guaranteed access through a street. If they truly own it, then I can be blocked.

"If sidewalks are privatized in the manner that you, and only you as far as I have read on this thread, have proposed, then where do the public corridors come from?"
First, I don’t propose it. Pete offered the question and I have been denouncing the idea. Without government-owned streets, alleys and sidewalks there would be no public corridors. Private parcels would abut each other in all directions. We could move about only with the consent of other landowners.

“If there are public corridors, then who cares about sidewalks, since they are no longer functioning as access routes?”
See above.

Jon

Post 57

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 4:03pm

Hi Jon,

Private property would be violated: As Jordan admitted, things like murder could be foreseen to occur.

Forgive my nitpicking here, but I didn't speculate about the possibility or likelihood of murder. I think that was Next. I was just painting a picture of how I thought people could or probably would retaliate without violating private property.

Jordan

Post 58

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 7:01pm

That’s not nitpicking, Jordan!
My apologies.

Jon

Post 59

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 7:11pm