Question of Property Vs. Liberty?

Aaron,

You raised some interesting points, but I have concerns with the scenario. My question is why charge Zeke $1,000,000 a year knowing Zeke cannot possibly pay for it? In the first place, why even bother owning a road to the house of a person you did not want to deal with? These are not choices even the worse businessmen in the real world would make in our mixed economy, and ones who do would not last long in business. Why would one do it in the free market when there is so much to gain by dealing with each other reasonably? It appears that the implicit assumption here is that the government would act more reasonably than private individuals and, hence, the government should run things. That is the mantra of communism, if you ask me.

Of course there are going to be problems if we move from public ownership to private ownership of roads overnight. Like Robert Malcolm pointed out, cities and neighborhoods were planned and built with the assumption that the governments own the roads. Private individuals should and would change their behavior accordingly when roads are privatized. The same thing is true of taxation or anything I'm sure most Objectivists would agree should be privatized or eliminated. I'm sure no reasonable Objectivist wants taxation, but none would want taxation eliminated overnight either.

Post 21

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 2:56pm

Ok, sorry I was unable to get back before now folks.

Just as a general comment: I am looking to understand the function of a town in a capitalist society. I am looking into how one might move a real town over to a capitalist town and how issues would be resolved. I am trying to think in concrete ways that it would function so that I can write about it. Roads, travel, and private property questions are what I am focusing on right now.

I will be addressing my comments to one person at a time:

Robert Bidinotto:
You wrote:

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.

So if I understand you correctly, after reading your article on this issue as well. It is your position then that a trapped landowner has the moral right to egress because his being trapped by another�s land ownership is counter to the justifying philosophy of rational self-interest? Is this egress only allowed in the instances where ownership is counter to the justifying philosophy of rational self-interest? Or am I allowed to move through my neighbor�s property whenever I care to do so? I will attempt to answer my own question using your ideas, that I believe one would only be able to move through if doing so would be in accordance with the philosophy of rational self-interest?

Getting away from my example:

What about the ideas of trespassing, private property, and privacy? Originally I thought one would be able to bar passage of a person if they owned the property? Or in short, my property my say so on who passes?

I am ultimately looking to figure out how the rights, most particularly property rights, would work concretely. Any examples you may be able to offer or things you might recommend me to read would be appreciated. When I talk with people, I like to be able to offer concrete examples of how things might work under such a system.

Byron Garcia:

You wrote:
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?

This is actually the fear I have with this problem as well. I do not want the government involved in roads. Yet, I do not want people stuck on their property. Yet, I want to maintain the private part of property. I am going to be reading in detail more on what Robert has to say to see what of those three things he thinks should give in this situation.

You also wrote:
Like Robert Malcolm pointed out, cities and neighborhoods were planned and built with the assumption that the governments own the roads. Private individuals should and would change their behavior accordingly when roads are privatized.

Right, but presuming we move that way eventually. What, concretely, would change their behavior accordingly mean? How would a small town say or any other place get there using our understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism?

Presuming a town moved over to a private roads system, the old roads from under the governmental system would be the first private roads. In the future we may move to some system that is more efficient for the market. But immediately we would have to deal with the structure of the old roads, this might give rise to a trapped land owner issue.

How do we resolve the issue? What gives in this instance? Robert offers that the trapped landowner has a right to egress because simply trapping someone on purpose is counter to the justifying philosophy of rational self-interest. But does everyone have universal right to egress? If they do then how does at road company function in a market at all? Who would pay?

Thanks everyone else for your contribution to the thread, Jon, Aaron, Robert Malcolm.

Regards,
~E.

Post 22

Friday, April 15, 2005 - 3:26pm

Eric,

Right, but presuming we move that way eventually. What, concretely, would change their behavior accordingly mean? How would a small town say or any other place get there using our understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism?

Presuming a town moved over to a private roads system, the old roads from under the governmental system would be the first private roads. In the future we may move to some system that is more efficient for the market. But immediately we would have to deal with the structure of the old roads, this might give rise to a trapped land owner issue.

If I was in a position to change things, I say the first step is to privatize the DOT and every state DMV. I am sure you know Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used to be government agencies before they were private corporations. Their experiences can be a model for the transition. This new transportation corporation (or corporations) can issue common stock in an IPO to finance the transition if need be. They will continue to "regulate" the transportation market in the same way the NASD and FASB (both private organizations) exclusively regulate the securities and accounting industries, with the backing of the government. They will continue to charge registration and license fees to anyone operating vehicles on their roads, again with government backing. The difference in this first step is that, instead of involuntary taxes, their income will only be from the IPO, selling bonds, and their service fees. Like any private corporation, they have to conform to existing laws, like laws against discrimination, so there should be no concern about preventing customers from using their services based on sillly, arbitrary factors like race.

That is but a first step, until we can implement massive changes to our infrastructure, and I think it is a reasonable first step in our mixed economy. Again, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the NASD, FASB, the AMA, and the ADA are all mostly self-sustaining private organizations that exist in our mixed economy and which functions in a similar manner to a federal agency. I want to blow away this premise that somehow the government acts in a more fair, reasonable, and just manner than a private businessman in the free market would. As a capitalist, I am confident the opposite is true.

Post 23

Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:00am

Byron:

I want to blow away this premise that somehow the government acts in a more fair, reasonable, and just manner than a private businessman in the free market would. As a capitalist, I am confident the opposite is true.

I agree with you, I don't think the government should be in the biz, the last thing I wanted was a government agency in charge. I am just trying to figure out what kind of entity would be incharge. Your proposal is interesting but how do we trancend these privatized DMV's? I suppose we would have to wait until they are too unstable to maintain all the roads and either collapse or smartly sell off their least used roads and routes? At least then the easement proposal would function as a mandatory part of the sale?

~E.

Post 24

Monday, April 18, 2005 - 7:15am

Eric,

The next step from those partially privatized DMV's would be to fully privatize them by taking away the government backing (something they should also do with the quasi-private organizations in our mixed economy like the NASD and FASB). Perhaps conditions of the full privatization should clauses in their corporate charter that include easements, where appropriate, and other stipulations reasonably close to "universal access".

How about that? We solved the so-called "problems" of road privatization! President Bush should appoint me the new Transportation Secretary and you the Transportation Undersecretary. I'd have to turn it down 'coz I'm working on peace in the Middle East next.

Post 25

Monday, April 18, 2005 - 8:40am

HA HA HA!

If anyone I know ever gets elected president I will recommend you for the position so you can turn it down. Then you can get your nobel peace prize for peace in the middle east.

I like how you solved the road problem. I don't see any problem with it. What about people ghosting over this thread? you people have anything further to say?

~E.

Post 26

Monday, April 18, 2005 - 6:46pm

Another similar challenge is waterways. I posted about fisheries management privatization a little while back, so I have an interest in these types of issues.

It is easy to apply the property rights principle to ponds and small inland lakes, just as it's easy to conceive of private roads in gated communities and subdivisions. However, when you start talking about large navigable waterways, things get trickier. For example, in the case of rivers and streams, you have a current flow which impacts your neighbors downstream. Say you own several hundred acres around a small stream and want to dam it up to make your own private lake. Well, you might have reduced the streamflow for your neighbor down stream and turned his favorite weekend fishing hole into a moist ditch.

Or, let's say you live on a river that had installed a series of dams and locks to make rapid water navigable for boating. Well, a wealthy river enthusiast decides he wants a certain stretch of river to run wild for kayaking and improved fish migration, so he buys a few dams and removes them. Suddenly, areas you once were able to boat to are now impassible by rapids.

And then when you start talking about the Great Lakes, seas and oceans, privatization schemes get even trickier. I hope I'm not too far off topic here - if so, let me know and I'll start a new thread. Otherwise, let me know your thoughts.

Post 27

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 5:48pm

Your still on topic pete. Waterways are just another type or road.

I never really thought about waterways. That would be problematic.

Are there any books that brainstorm on these issues of implimenting Capitalist style government? Anyone know?

I think privatizeing waterways is rather difficult. When you consider the dynamics of natural rivers, lakes, and oceans. They move over time or dry up or spill over with flooding. One of the questions I have just come up with is how property lines are drawn up? I know it changes from place to place.

Some places keep track of it using landmarks while others use surveying. I wonder if any of them use GPS? If you have landmarks as your property lines, when the river moves you either gain or loose land. If you have Surveys or GPS keeping tack of property lines then you own a section of the planets surface and the natural aspects of the world move in and out of your property as normal. So that section of property may have a river near on its boarder today and it might errode the shore and get larger or move away from that property line.

Anyone know any Objectivist Lawyers who have perhaps worked up Objective Real Estate Law?

~E.

Post 28

Friday, May 13, 2005 - 11:05pm

Private roads are not problematic or impossible. Neither, since you mentioned it, are private waterways. There are many of private roads and private waterways in this world, none of which make it a habit to flood people out or lay property-line sieges. I mean right now; as we speak. So no, it's not just some objectivist pipe dream. Private roads (and rivers) work better in real life.

I understand freedom is a scary thing to some people, and it's easy for those timid folks to imagine all kinds of disastrous scenarios if freedom was ever implemented in this field or that. Get over it! People in countries with nationalized phone systems are just as unable to imagine privatizing that field. I hope most objectivists at least favor totally private phone systems and would be able to argue against the government-phone-apologists' fallacies. Government-road apologists possess the same fallacies.

For historical perspective, consider that once upon a time in the States united, all the roads did private be. Self-interested investors funded hundreds upon hundreds of miles of roadway. Between 1794 and 1840, 238 private New England turnpike companies built and administered about 3,750 miles of road. New York had over 4,000 miles as of 1821 (no, New York is not part of New England if any of you were confused). Pennsylvania had a peak of about 2,400 miles. This was a booming business. So much for the free-rider problem.

The states made early ventures into transportation, yes, but all of these were such unmitigated financial disasters that by 1860, only two states, Massachusetts and Missouri, had not amended ther constitutions to prohibit the use of tax dollars for road building! How do you like them apples? Also, Missouri and Massachusetts did have laws against taxes being used for roads, they just hadn't gotten around to passing a constitutional amendment on the subject. Now there's some old-fashioned American values and practicality. A project didn't work, then it went bankrupt, and was not tried again. How come we never let government ventures go bankrupt nowadays, huh? Instead, today the worse some nonsensical state plan fails, the more money is thrown at the boondoggle.

For some papers on private roads, visit http://libertariannation.org/b/roads.htm

Post 29

Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:46am

John-

Thanks for the very interesting post about private roads in history. The big question I have to ask though- when, why and how did states become the (near) monopoly creator of roads?

Post 30

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 9:08pm