Question of Property Vs. Liberty?

When I woke up this morning I wandered onto the topic of private road ownership, price discrimination and discrimination in general.

In a town where roads are privately owned is it possible to become trapped on you’re own property unable to legally go to the grocery store to get food across the street?

This is a question of rights: A private owner has the right to decide who is allowed to use his property and who is not. He also has the right to set his prices however he wants to charge people for the use of that property. (Think of children’s meals, senior citizens discounts, etc. All of these are price discrimination in one way or another.)

Let’s say in a town there are private roads. One of these private roads is Hitler Ave, owned by the Nazi’s Inc. This road circles a predominately Jewish neighborhood and outside of that circle is the town grocery store. The Nazi’s Inc, CEO has decreed that no one from the encircled neighborhood is allowed to make use of Hitler Ave. "Its out property" he declares,
"for the use of white, blue eyed, clef chin people only."

Now my questions:

Is price and user discrimination an infringement upon rights?
Am I using the correct meaning of rights?
If the people of the encircled neighborhood cross the road to get to get to their food supply, can they be held on trespassing charges?
Has Nazi Inc. dropped the context of their property rights by not allowing the Jews to use their road?
How is this situation resolved?
Who's rights go by the way side? is someone infringeing somewhere i don't see?

Regards,

~E.

Post 1

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 7:32pm

"In a town where roads are privately owned is it possible to become trapped on you’re own property unable to legally go to the grocery store to get food across the street?"

After war threads and the typical Hitler references, I'm staying miles away from any Nazi examples. My short answer to your above though would be - if you negotiated a really bad contract with the road owner, possible, but it's unlikely private roads would take root with such contracts.

In local cases I'd expect private roads to be owned by a community like a homeowners' association, with required dues but stipulations like universal access for residents, no access to solicitors, and wide access with some restrictions for visitors. The case you're talking about sounds like more of a highway case when an Acme Road Corp owns the road and operates it for profit. In that case, I just see it being very hard for a private road company to stand a chance of being competitive by offering something short of both being universally open to subscribers (barring perhaps licensing and non-criminal requirements) and requiring transferability of subscriptions in case the road is sold. If roads were privatized I think it would be viable and not have egregious imprisoning people in their homes issues because certain subscription 'features' would have to be ubiquitous.

Post 2

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 9:12am

I got deeply into this debate a few months ago with Next Level and Jordan. (Next Level has since been banned from SOLO, nothing to do with that debate.)

It was terrible! We went in circles, ignored each other’s definitions, just terrible.

Eric, your question is a good one. It’s the reason I don’t support private roads. (Highways are different.) I think people –could- get “trapped” and their usage of their own private property is diminished when their access is at the whim of other private owners.

Aaron, I agree with your post. I have no issue with homeowner’s associations owning the roads within the development. I just don’t call that “private ownership.” A town-owned road and a homeowner’s association-owned road differ in being controlled by thousands instead of hundreds of people. And I note your main stipulation: universal access. I agree that’s needed. I ask: Is that not a huge stretch of the term “private property”? If someone told you that your home is yours, your private property—but with universal access—what would you think about that? “Private” in name only, right?

I live in a city laid out like a grid. How are we to privatize the streets? I suppose we could create homeowners associations—my nearby neighbors and me would become the “owners” of the streets around me. Instead of paying a portion of my property taxes to the county for plowing, I’d be paying the association. Either way, the funds are pooled, contractors are signed up and the streets get plowed. I’m not seeing the great leap in liberty.

Jon

Post 3

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 9:42am

I think the "great leap in liberty" would be individuals owning the roads rather than the government. Privatizing any government monopoly is a great leap regardless of what the market or industry is. The only thing that should probably not be privatized is national security. I imagine a private road would be managed by a homeowner association, like you said, except a homeowner association would probably be more efficient than the government in contracting and/or subcontracting maintenance and repair contracts. The government gives out contracts to either the lowest bidder or no-bid contracts to whoever contributed to the campaigns of whichever politician is in power.

I do not think "universal access" to a private road is a political right in any way, shape, or form like any other business, but it would not be in the rational self-interest of whomever owns the road to arbitrarily restrict their market (e.g. by race or ethnicity). The free market will punish them, by loss of profits and/or the entrance of competitors.

Post 4

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 9:52am

Byron,

There’s only one street to my house. There’s no room for more. There can be no entrance of competitors.

You started out as though you were going top explain the great leap, but all you offered was marginally more efficient subcontracting (which is debatable, but it’s easier to just give it to you.) So that’s the great leap: I’ll be paying less and receiving a better plow job. (Pun intended.)

Jon

Post 5

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:03am

Another question related to this is: if all roads are privately owned, would law enforcement officials need a warrant every time they wanted to drive somewhere?

Post 6

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:21am

Jon,

The great leap was taking away a government monopoly going back to a limited government, whose only purpose should be defense against the initiation of force. Limited government is one of the essential principles of Objectivism, capitalism, and libertarianism (the minarchist variety at least). Forgive me but I assumed you agreed with at least one of the above. Did I assume incorrectly? I'm not being sarcastic, since I do understand that there are those here who have dissenting views.

I also meant "great" from the perspective of morality and justice (e.g. one less reason for involuntary taxes), though I do think it also has great "utilitarian" benefits compared to the costs. Every industry that has been deregulated if not privatized has led to noticeable decreases in costs and increases in efficiency (e.g. banking, telecommunications, overnight mail).

As for the one road leading to your house, in a free market that would be a factor you would have taken into consideration when purchasing or renting your property. If it was not there when you purchased or rented it, I'm sure you would have noticed all the construction going on outside your door and took the necessary steps before it was completed (e.g. moving elsewhere if you can't come to an agreement with the road owners). The free market does not guarantee you happiness and success, only that you have the freedom to pursue it.

Nate,

A good question that I never thought of until now. I imagine that law enforcement agencies would make deals with the owners of roads in the same way they make deals with the manufacturers or retailers of weapons, police cars, and uniforms. It would be in the self-interest of both law enforcement agencies and the owners of roads to cooperate with each other in a fair and just manner. That is an answer I got off the top of my head, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were other implications that I didn't think of.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 4/14, 10:21am)

Post 7

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:23am

Regarding the notion that someone could be allowed to buy up property around someone else, and then deny the surrounded person transit across that property:

Once again we see the folly of an intrinsicist conception of "rights," derived without reference to a justifying philosophy of rational self-interest. By this conception, "property rights" become a jail, trumping the freedom of the surrounded person to take actions necessary for his survival.

Fortunately for us, those who long ago crafted the precedents for today's laws that govern such issues weren't libertarian or anarchist morons, wedded to some platonic notion of "rights." They incorporated "rights of transit" into their conception of land ownership, so that nobody could claim the "right" to deny another person free access to, or egress from, his own property.

Post 8

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:31am

What Robert is talking about is called "easements", a principle of real estate law that resolves the dilemma of being a prisoner in your own property (like in the scenario of Nazis building roads around a Jewish community).

Post 9

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:44am

Byorn,

This is off-topic, but I can't resist. You wrote:

The government gives out contracts to either the lowest bidder or no-bid contracts to whoever contributed to the campaigns of whichever politician is in power.

I'm sure that it must be quite a comfort to a soldier going into battle to know that his guns and other stuff were built by the lowest bidder...

//;-)

Sorry... back to road construction...

Michael

Post 10

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:59am

Michael,

Don't get me started on that topic!!!

Post 11

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:18am

Byron,

The source of our disagreement, as it was with Next and Jordan, is the question of the political right of movement. You rejected it in your post #3, referring to streets as just another business. While I see it as fundamental to the government’s job to protect my right to the pursuit of happiness and defend my right to property.

I see it as a basic individual right to move around—from my home to the store, to your home, to the town square to protest something and back home. Movement only with the prior approval of every sidewalk and street owner between my home and where I want to go is not conducive to the pursuit of happiness; it’s a sure way to construct a society to guarantee conflict.

Jon

Post 12

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:21am

Good post, Robert,

I made one of your points in the Private Superhighway debate of a couple months ago:

The governments job to protect my private property must include protecting my absolute right of ingress and egress, or my “private property” is useless and meaningless.

Jon

Post 13

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:57am

Jon,

I see what you mean now. How about this . . . is it not reasonable for only one company to operate within a specific geographic area, such as a city, county, or state because that is all a market will have room for? It is true for some industries like professional sports and cable TV providers. If there is going to be only one company per geographic area, then you will only have one company to deal with whenever you want to leave or come back to your property.

In a way, it is true now. In the United States, you deal with the state DMV if you want to operate a vehicle on their roads. You have to pay a registration fee every year, pass a written and road test, and obey their traffic regulations. If you don't, you cannot legally drive on their roads (i.e. no license and registration). Pedestrians also pay indirectly by paying sales tax at the stores and restaurants they patronize, and the stores, restaurants, and pedestrians all pay income tax to the state. If they don't, they go to jail and won't be using roads anytime soon! In other words, you still have to meet some criteria they set for you to consume their product.

A private company will have to operate in a similar fashion. The difference is a private company would have to give you the best product for the best price if it were to maximize profits, or else it will not last long in a free market. A private road would be run far more efficiently than any state bureacracy ever could. Maximizing vehicle traffic and pedestrian flow is also in the interest of the company, because that means more commerce, and hence more revenue (possibly from fees paid by other businesses as a percentage of income).

You are right that there will come times when the business and the customers cannot come to an agreement and it may call for the courts to arbitrate a dispute. That is not too different from what the courts do either now or in a capitalist society. Like I said, "easements" are but one way that the courts have resolved problems in the past.

Post 14

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 12:08pm

The reason I am hesitant to condone the government owning roads, as reasonable as it may appear, is because I fear sliding down a slippery slope. If we argue that it is okay to make an exception with the government owning roads because we need roads to live a happy life, how does that principle not apply to other things?

For example, there are utilities. Don't you need water, gas, and electricity in your home to live a happy life? What if Nazis own all the utility companies in your city and they don't want Jews to have any water, gas, or electricity in their homes? Does that mean it is okay for the government to own utilities companies or else private property become meaningless?

How about something more basic, like food and shelter. Doesn't everyone need food and shelter in their property to live a happy life? What if the Nazis owned all the farms, groceries, and construction companies in your area and they don't want the Jews eating or living under a roof on their property. Does this give the government an excuse to step in a take over the food and construction industry?

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt once pushed to have the government issue every child in America a toothbrush because brushing teeth was good for their health. When someone told her that was not practical, she replied asking how are children going to brush their teeth then? The chills I get at the thought is the same chills I get when another Objectivist says it is okay to make an exception and allow the government to nationalize any industry.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 4/14, 12:18pm)

Post 15

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 1:52pm

There is another point to consider here - namely that the present structuring of these villages, towns, etc. came as a result of the government 'owning' the road, not as if such systemization would be the case if all had been private...

Post 16

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:17pm

"A town-owned road and a homeowner’s association-owned road differ in being controlled by thousands instead of hundreds of people. And I note your main stipulation: universal access. I agree that’s needed. I ask: Is that not a huge stretch of the term “private property”?"

I guess I'd gotten into an urban/suburban mentality, where multi-tenant units or subdivisions are the norm; a homeowner's organization fits there, and the negotiations to use roads outside the division would be with the organization rather than individuals. In the more rural case of a single homeowner getting to a large road you do have more of a concern. Universal access I was stating as a feature which would have to be practically offered on the road market, not necessarily as a political mandate. If roads started being privatized, I think a clumsy phase of settling onto common road access features would have to happen on the market, and government mandating even what I see as a very important feature would somehow manage to make it worse.

Thinking about this has also convinced me that nothing would prompt the development of efficient personal flying craft like privatizing the roads.

Post 17

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:37pm

Your scenarios have prompted me to wonder about two elements, which weight heavily to either side of homeowner or roadowner. First one in this post.

Assuming a case of private roads, where I own the only road by a homeowner's (call him Zeke) house. He unfortunately has not negotiated or purchased a contract stipulating universal access.

1) If I choose not to deal with Zeke because he has ugly lawn art or bad breath or whatever reason, my property has indeed created a barrier to his movement. Zeke, being a contextualist recognizes valuing of life requires that he trespass, and he chooses this as the ethical path for him to take. I understand this.

Suppose, however, that I will deal with him. I will allow him access to the road for $1,000,000/year. He balks at my price, more than he makes or even owns, and obviously refuses to pay it. Having done so, he is again entrapped by my property - and considering context, he chooses to trespass.

I offer access for $10,000/year. He can afford this, but it is a heavy cost and there are many other things he'd prefer to buy. So again he refuses, is surrounded by my property he may not access, yet his ethics permit that he trespass.

Exasperated, I offer him access for $100/year. He could easily afford this, and it's far less than my maintenance cost. However, why should he choose to purchase my services even now? At any price, there is no point to Zeke paying to access my road, since any attempt to deny him access would necessarily prompt his contextualist decision to trespass regardless. Any voluntary trade, any profit motive for me owning the road, would be lost due to his ethics.

Post 18

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:43pm

This is the flip-side, practically a trump card for the road owner. It could be argued that this is why Zeke would pay $100/year, but in as much as this can be used against that case it could also be used in $1M/year case or even outright forbidding access.

2) In each case when I want to deny him access for not paying, Zeke takes the contextualist approach that is an ethical decision for him, of choosing to trespass on my road. How much does the decision of his ethics really matter when I choose to rightfully defend my property by shooting trespassers?

Post 19

Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:05pm