|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:
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.
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.