[Zagadka]

I asked this question last week in some random thread I've forgotten about, but I'll put it up again to the brain trust of libertarians and non-libertarian trolls.

Let's assume you have a total dream libertarian state. The government doesn't do shit except protect personal property rights. Let's also assume that you have a city like, say, Los Angeles, which basically has 2 main mountain passes to reach the outside world, or San Francisco, which, not counting the government-built bridges, obviously only has one way out.

Let's also assume that one rich guy/group owns the property of the mountain passes or the southern edge of SF (or has built a bridge). These are routes that the city relies heavily upon traffic and trade through these areas. Let's also assume that the rich owner(s) are assholes and decide to extort the fuck out of anyone wanting to travel.

How is the tyranny of this owner different from the tyranny of government ownership? Does the minimized government have the ability to protect the property rights of the people living in the choked-off cities?

[Plaro]

That is a good example. But they will probably says something like, "The magic force of the market will prevent that".

Libertarians are anarchist turds, therefore some people refer to them as Libertards.

[Nunt]

First, this kind of question is unfair as it sets liberatarianism up to fail. You assume a far fetched worst case scenario. But this is not a good basis for comparing state versus liberty. I could also give examples of (not so) far fetched worst case government scenario's. For example, what if the government starts a mass genocide? Will the magic forces of democracy stop this?

But I will give some possible solutions.

-It is unlikely that their is only one way out. If people want a way out bad enough, they'll create one. Either by building bridges, tunnels, ferries, air transport, etc. The government isn't the only one who can build bridges. For the concrete example that you give, ferries seem to be the most obvious short term solution. Later on, their can be investments in tunnels and bridges.


-It unlikely that people would go live in a place in which their is no guaranteed way out. There are two possibilties: either the mountainpass owner was there before the city was. Then people wanting to found a new city would ask the mountainpass owner to sign a contract in which he guarantees passage. The other possibility is that the city came first and then someone tried to obtain ownership of the mountainpass. But as the city people have been using the mountainpass they would have some ownership rights over the mountainpass and thus the mountainpass cannot be legally closed off.

Both these solutions combined seem to solve the problem.

[Wolfman]

You assume a far fetched worst case scenario. But this is not a good basis for comparing state versus liberty.

Actually, that's not a far fetched scenario. At the very least, you could look at a small city which has one road in and one road out, if you think that this scenario is so horribly unfair to you. Lincoln Nebraska is a fairly large city and if you include the adjoining smaller cities, there's only (iirc) three roads that connect to it.

I could also give examples of (not so) far fetched worst case government scenario's. For example, what if the government starts a mass genocide? Will the magic forces of democracy stop this?

That is actually an insanely far fetched scenario.

-It is unlikely that their is only one way out. If people want a way out bad enough, they'll create one. Either by building bridges, tunnels, ferries, air transport, etc. The government isn't the only one who can build bridges. For the concrete example that you give, ferries seem to be the most obvious short term solution. Later on, their can be investments in tunnels and bridges.

OK, I'm the owner of these roads, and then I bought the rights to the river. Get your trespassing ferry off of my river.

-It unlikely that people would go live in a place in which their is no guaranteed way out.

LA is the second largest city in the country, you knucklehead: they're already there! And even if not, there's this thing called "concentration" which can happen.

The other possibility is that the city came first and then someone tried to obtain ownership of the mountainpass. But as the city people have been using the mountainpass they would have some ownership rights over the mountainpass and thus the mountainpass cannot be legally closed off.

So, in otherwords, the mountain is (gasp) public property? Brilliant.

[Nunt]

OK, I'm the owner of these roads, and then I bought the rights to the river. Get your trespassing ferry off of my river.

LA is the second largest city in the country, you knucklehead: they're already there! And even if not, there's this thing called "concentration" which can happen.

So, in otherwords, the mountain is (gasp) public property? Brilliant.

Step 1: Don't build your house in a place to wich you have no contractually guaranteed access.
This would be sufficient if we started out from a libertarian world. But since the US is not currently libertarian, nobody bothered to secure access to their homes, so we need a transition program. This transition program could go as follows:
Step 2: People living in a city have homesteaded access rights to the city. Thus even if someone buys the road, he would not own the right to stop the city's current inhabitants from using that road. They would have easement rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement).

These two steps combined would effectively stop people from being locked-in somewhere and correspond with libertarian ideas. You may call the second step "public property" and gasp at it. That really isn't an arguement. I wouldn't call it public property. Its private property to which a group of people have some easement rights. The city's inhabitants can have easement rights over maintain passes, roads, tunnels, or ferry routes. Libertarians don't have a problem with common ownership btw. A group of people can share ownership, e.g. a firm is jointly owned by the shareholders.

[Wolfman]

Step 1: Don't build your house in a place to wich you have no contractually guaranteed access.

Your house is already there. You already live in LA. Now, someone just bought the road and said that either you cannot pass, or you have you pay a large sum of money to use their road.

Step 2: People living in a city have homesteaded access rights to the city. Thus even if someone buys the road, he would not own the right to stop the city's current inhabitants from using that road. They would have easement rights

So, the road owner's property rights are irrelevant. Brilliant.

[Eran]

Nunt had it just right. The transition from current, public use of roads to a privatized one would have to take into account easement rights acquired by people through the use of the roads.

In practice, it would mean that new owners of privatized roads would be somewhat limited in their right to exclude people from using the road, at least for a period (say until everybody who used to use the road dies). They could probably still charge a toll to cover maintenance costs, etc., and apply reasonable regulations (say speed limits).

The same limitations wouldn't hold with respect to new roads built subsequently.


As for locations that currently have only a single road leading to them, the geography is not typically one in which only one road is possible. If the road owner starts charging excessive tolls, he will create economic incentives for competitors to build alternative roads. Knowing that, sole road owners are likely to refrain from excessive tolling.

So, the road owner's property rights are irrelevant. Brilliant.

No, they are just limited by pre-existing easements. Property rights are often thus restricted. Libertarians actually have a nuanced understanding of property rights which you obviously don't appreciate.

[Wolfman]

They could probably still charge a toll to cover maintenance costs, etc., and apply reasonable regulations (say speed limits).

I own every road leaving the city you live in. The cost to use my roads is $1,000 per mile. Enjoy.

As for locations that currently have only a single road leading to them, the geography is not typically one in which only one road is possible. If the road owner starts charging excessive tolls, he will create economic incentives for competitors to build alternative roads. Knowing that, sole road owners are likely to refrain from excessive tolling.

Also own the land outside of town fit for construction. You're stuck using my extremely expensive roads.

No, they are just limited by pre-existing easements. Property rights are often thus restricted. Libertarians actually have a nuanced understanding of property rights which you obviously don't appreciate.

Your "nuanced understanding of property rights" seems to be just making shit up as you go along.

[Nunt]

I own every road leaving the city you live in.

In a libertarian world, you wouldn't own the rights to the road. You assumption of total road ownership is incompatible with libertarian property rights. If you want to know more, I think you should read more about libertarian property rights, because at the moment it is clear that you do not understand the libertarian point of view.

This is the level of your discussion: "Say in a democratic state 51% of the people has just decided to execute the other 41%", discuss! You just make stuff up. Easement rights would prevent one person from locking people out of a city. What is your arguement against this exactly? Isn't it possible? Easement rights are possible, they exist today. Did we make stuff up? Nope, easement rights exist today. Would they solve the problem? YES.

[Wolfman]

Contradiction, yay!

[grassroots1]

Why is total ownership of a certain type of property e.g. roads incompatible with libertarianism?

[Nunt]

Why is total ownership of a certain type of property e.g. roads incompatible with libertarianism?

Not incompatible. Its just highly unlikely that any one person would be able to obtain full ownership rights of all access routes to a city. This would mean that for existing cities current inhabitants would have voluntarly given away their easement rights or for new cities that people build their homes in places to which they have no contractually guaranteed access. This would for example be equivalent to someone building his house behind a skyscraper and then when his house is finished realizes that the skyscraper blocks car access to his house.

What is incompatible with libertarianism is Publius' approach to property rights. He starts by assuming that the heavens, earths and rivers and whatnot are owned by 1 single person and then demands that we explain how this would not be a total disaster. However, by framing the problem like that, he sets libertarianism up to fail, which is of course his goal. A much more relevant question is asking whether it is possible that one man would completly own all the heavens, earths and rivers. I think I have sufficiently shown that such a situation will not occur.

[grassroots1]

But libertarians do recognize that concentration of wealth is the tendency of capitalism, don't they? Combination and consolidation have been facts of capitalist development. So why is it so inconceivable that one company or group of companies could choose to exploit a population more effectively by monopolizing key resources? This has HAPPENED before.

[Wolfman]

What is incompatible with libertarianism is Publius' approach to property rights. He starts by assuming that the heavens, earths and rivers and whatnot are owned by 1 single person and then demands that we explain how this would not be a total disaster. However, by framing the problem like that, he sets libertarianism up to fail, which is of course his goal. A much more relevant question is asking whether it is possible that one man would completly own all the heavens, earths and rivers.

The name of the country escapes me, atm, but there is a country which auctioned off it's water resources to a private company, and one company bought all of them. It then raised the price of water above what anyone could really afford. So, people started collecting rain water in buckets instead. Then the company that owned their water informed that what they were doing was theft, since that company owned all of the water in the country, including rain water. I don't have to do anything to show that your ideology is full of shit other then show you the kinds of people that get ahead in your ideal society.

I think I have sufficiently shown that such a situation will not occur.

You've shown it to be impossible with logic. But, empiricism will always trump logic.

[Zagadka]

In a libertarian world, you wouldn't own the rights to the road. You assumption of total road ownership is incompatible with libertarian property rights.

... what? So if you own a house, you wouldn't own the rights to that house?

[Nunt]

But libertarians do recognize that concentration of wealth is the tendency of capitalism, don't they? Combination and consolidation have been facts of capitalist development. So why is it so inconceivable that one company or group of companies could choose to exploit a population more effectively by monopolizing key resources? This has HAPPENED before.

If there is one institution that monopolizes key resources, then its the government. Governments claim ownership of resources over an entire geographic area. See for examle this thread as an illustration: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=138346, another example would be OPEC.

So I do dispute the statement that a free market would lead to more monopolization than governments would. More free market would mean a more globalized world. You would be less dependent on your local government for resources and you could obtain resources from all over the world.I think it is more likely that you would have more monopolies in a world which is compartamentalized by governments.

[Nunt]

The name of the country escapes me, atm, but there is a country which....

An example of government stupidity isn't really anti-libertarian.

[Wolfman]

So, because a government gave away it's rights to water to a private individual, and that private individual is the devil, then the problem is the government? Are you serious?

[grassroots1]

But the comparison between government and monopoly is flawed, because governments don't run schools or fix roads for a profit. Their only motive is to provide those services, free, to every person. And ideally, that government responds to the will of the people. A monopoly exploits its customers and workers by its very nature. You think that if government didn't exist you would be able to open up a store that could compete with Wal-Mart? Hell no, they are light years ahead of you already. This is not a "free market" in the way that many conservatives want to understand what that is, so long as there is this immense concentration of wealth in existence. That concentration of wealth is equivalent to slavery.

[Nunt]

... what? So if you own a house, you wouldn't own the rights to that house?

Please realize that property rights can be nuanced. It isn't at all black or white. For example: http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

Most of us think of homesteading unused resources in the oldfashioned sense of clearing a piece of unowned land and farming the soil. There are, however, more sophisticated and modern forms of homesteading, which should establish a property right. Suppose, for example, that an airport is established with a great deal of empty land around it. The airport exudes a noise level of, say, X decibels, with the sound waves traveling over the empty land. A housing development then buys land near the airport. Some time later, the homeowners sue the airport for excessive noise interfering with the use and quiet enjoyment of the houses.

Excessive noise can be considered a form of aggression but in this case the airport has already homestead X decibels worth of noise. By its prior claim, the airport now “owns the right” to emit X decibels of noise in the surrounding area. In legal terms, we can then say that the airport, through homesteading, has earned an easement right to creating X decibels of noise. This homesteaded easement is an example of the ancient legal concept of “prescription,” in which a certain activity earns a prescriptive property right to the person engaging in the action.
On the other hand, if the airport starts to increase noise levels, then the homeowners could sue or enjoin the airport from its noise aggression for the extra decibels, which had not been homesteaded. Of course if a new airport is built and begins to send out noise of X decibels onto the existing surrounding homes, the airport becomes fully liable for the noise invasion.
...

Given a prescriptive easement, the courts have generally done well in deciding its limits. In Kerlin v. Southern Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1941), a public utility had maintained an easement by prescription of telephone poles and wires over someone else's land (called the “servient estate” in law). The utility wished to string up two additional wires, and the servient estate challenged its right to do so. The court decided correctly that the utility had the right because there was no proposed change in the "outer limits of space utilized by the owner of the easement." On the other hand, an early English case decided Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution 147 that an easement for moving carts could not later be used for the purpose of driving cattle.

Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution By Murray N. Rothbard
Originally published in the Cato Journal 2, No. 1 (Spring 1982): pp. 55-99.

So you could own your house, but other people may have some rights as well. Say you build your house in front of another house and the owners of the other house were using part of your yard as a road to their house, then those people would still have the right to walk over your yard to get to their house.

So, because a government gave away [...] then the problem is the government? Are you serious?

Yes, you said it yourself.