Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3

Post 60

Thursday, January 6, 2005 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply


Hotel lobbies “public spaces”? How’s that? Because members of the public can be found there? Members of the public can be found in my living room. I’m sorry; Next, this discussion has lost its allure. I confess that I have presented my position as best I can.

Thanks for the discussion. Perhaps we can meet again on another thread sometime.


Post 61

Friday, January 7, 2005 - 3:21amSanction this postReply

Your last post shows that you have misunderstood my position.  Maybe distinctions have to be made between ownership (private or government/public), function (transport, commercial, residential) and access (public/unrestricted and private/restricted), but since the discussion has lost its allure for you, there isn't much point in continuing the discussion.

Your convictions seem pretty secure.


Post 62

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 9:31amSanction this postReply
Its a pity I missed this thread while it was happening.

I live in a society that is still rapidly urbanising, but unfortunately has a high crime rate. New villages, so to speak, are created on the outskirts of cities, with private roads (and high perimeter walls) mainly to restrict access to criminals. In essence the citizens buy a piece of land as well as a share in a company (or trust) that builds/owns the roads. The shareholders/trustees decide the rules of whom to let in, speed limits, the operational levies etc. This works very well. By buying the property in the first place you agree to abide by the majority vote (and thus the nature of existing/prospective shareholders is often a buying criterion).

I see no reason why this should not in essence be extended to roads connecting villages etc. and eventually to superhighways. (A "tree with branches" analogy is useful here). Of course, a way out of our current council owned roads would have to be found - probably not that problematic.

As to eminent domain - I presume this is the state's ability to seize the property of an individual. Its obvious to me that this is impossible in an Objectivist society - for how would it be exercised without the initiation of force (back to principles). So I would have to support the right of that one person who refuses to sell to the superhighway company.

Superhighway problem
A simple way around the problem (faced by the superhighway entrepreneur living in a society without the imminent domain law) is to purchase options to buy property from the whole community at a prescribed price. Once he has options with a suitable route, he exercises them, buys the properties and builds the highway. If insufficient people take up the options he needs just up their price. If an entire community refuses even to buy the options then the need for the highway must be questioned.

As an aside, to me it's obvious that there is no market value without a willing buyer and willing seller - just try and trade in an unlisted or small cap stock.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3

User ID Password or create a free account.