About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 12:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Although I generally like the idea of all property being privately owned, I have a hard time with this concept relative to two situations: 1) roads, and 2) national and city parks.

I've tried to imagine what driving would be like if all roads were privately owned, and all I envision is chaos and zig-zag-like interstate highways. Owners could shut down their private roads at any time for any reason, and there would be endless stops and tolls as one small section of private road ran into another.   

If all property were privately owned, I think it would pretty much mean an end to America's great parks. I mean, why would a super-rich land owner want to compromise his private shangri-la by making it available to others for a relative pittance? If, say, Billy Gates  owned Yosemite,what incentive would he have to make it available to anyone else? I think our national parks are true national treasures, and I certainly would not like to see them turned into strip malls and condo complexes by entrepeneurs. The same holds true for me on a city level. I'm from beautiful San Diego--and if the city were minus Balboa Park and Mission Bay Park, it would lose much of its appeal.  

I'd like to hear what others here have to say about public roads and public parks from an Objectivist perspective.         


Post 1

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 3:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If, say, Billy Gates  owned Yosemite,what incentive would he have to make it available to anyone else? 

The profit incentive.  Sure, Gates could keep all that pristine gorgeousness to himself, but why would he? Why would anyone?

I have similar reservations regarding privatizing all roads. 


Post 2

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 5:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since the "Objectivist" position hasn't really been implemented, I wouldn't mind seeing small scale examples, and if successful doing more of it.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 5:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You might wish to look at this work - Street Smarts - regarding this issue....
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=19257&parentid=1&stocknumber=EC9066&page=1&itemsperpage=24


Post 4

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 7:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, profit motive? Most multi-billionaires wouldn't be interested in sacrificing their privacy for a measly few million extra bucks in order to bother with the inconvenience of building toll roads on their property. Not everyone is driven by the profit motive. I'm a mere multi-millionaire, and because I have all the money I'll ever need, I'm now more interested in peace and privacy than in more profit. And if a billionaire were interested in profiting off his
pristine expanse of  land, he sure wouldn't turn into a small-income generating park; he't turn it into a full-fledged commercial development, thus ruining, or at least severly compromising, the natural beauty and energy of the land.

If all land were privately owned, most now huge, wonderful parks would probably be history. When I'm in San Diego, I love biking, skating, and running along the public boardwalk that stretches for a couple of miles between Mission Beach and Pacific Beach. And so do hundreds of thousands of San Diegans and tourists from around the globe. And the same is true of Mission Bay.


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 8:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding public parks, a concept in economics known as "higher and better use" states that a given material value in a free market will move naturally toward its highest and best use over time with respect to human values.  No one "owes" anyone else a place of "natural beauty and energy."  Check your premises.  If adequate market desires demand such a place, a supplier will make it happen for the right price.  If you dislike its absence, put up the money to make it happen, but do not rob your neighbors for your alleged "public" benefit.


Post 6

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 9:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This fall in line with the notion many have that there is an intrinsic value to the world - except that there is no such thing as an intrinsic value, as there must first be a valuer before there is something valued, that the world as such is simply 'there', to be of use to the one who sees a value in whatever part proves of  interest... and, as Luke said, if of interest, of value, then needs be owned [and no, there is no such thing as 'everbody owns' as if all 'owns', then no one owns, for the responsibility of the 'ownership' is passed to 'others' and not the self]

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
The Commons and the Right of Way

There are two concepts in common law which allow non-landholders access to a living and the freedom of travel, these being the commons, which includes pasture land and fisheries and the like, and the right of way, upon which roads are often built at public expense.

I do not believe that a minarchist state can do away with either of these institutions.  Indeed, when selling a subdivision of land, common law and local zoning statutes mandate that that land must either abut a public right of way or an easement must be given allowing passage across the surrounding property to allow access to that land.

Without a public right of way, a minarchist government could not respond to a crime at one location without negotiating access across the private property of all landholders holders in between.

Likewise, if one insists that under a capitalist system, each is free to pursue his own sustenance without the permission of others, both a public right of way to allow the search for better environs and a commons to access for such activities as fishing or the like would make the freedom to pursue one's interests without the permission of others impossible.

The concept of common lands and public rights of way already exist.  Very few people will argue that the existence of I95 violates their rights.  Of course the use of eminent domain is a huge problem.  Also, roads should be administered economically, perhaps by contracts at bid.  And the use of existing public lands can be addressed.  But I do not see the existence of Yosemite National Park or the Interstate Highway System as symptoms of tyranny.  Before one attacks them, the concepts of the commons and the right of way should be discussed and invalidated, if indeed that is possible.  I for one see no way to define a nation except as a ethno-culturally united people, their private property, and the commons and right of way which joins them. 

Ted Keer



Post 8

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would disagree on the Commons concept, only on the part where it overrides private property. The Commons would only work if we acknowledge that if we need land for a highway (the I95 or we can even take the I-135 pass here in the heart of Wichita that had to cut through entire neighborhoods and factories to get built) must be bought, in that the value of the land to the owner must be covered. The Commons cannot override this, otherwise it overrides all property rights. Thusly, the Commons only comes as a consequence of living in a populated area, so it's only conditional and not absolute (if I live in the middle of nowhere like parts of Kansas are, then there can be no real commons, beyond possibly contributing some land for a county road for me and my neighbors to get around off our parcels.). But that's just my take on it.

-- Brede

Post 9

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Feudalism Redux

I am not making up these concepts out of whole cloth, they are as old as common law.  The commons does not include just parkland and does not justify the appropriation of existing private property, it simply refers to undeveloped public lands, marshes and waterways, the air, and other property which is not normally considered real estate.

Be aware that I am not making up new concepts here, although some people may not be very familiar with them.  I am not arguing for the nationalization of private property, but for the recognition that a minarchist state does require a public right of way, which in itself is a type of commons.  The administration of the commons should be done in the best possible manner, such as having private companies maintain roadways.

There is a name for a system where all land is privately held (or a no-man's land) and the name is feudalism.  The development of the nation-state from feudalism is in a large part the development of freedom of movement along public rights of way without baronial consent. 

Ted Keer 


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Owners could shut down their private roads at any time for any reason
Supermarket owners could presently shut down private stores at any time for any reason, would you therefore advocate the nationalization of this industry?


Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've tried to imagine what driving would be like if all roads were privately owned, and all I envision is chaos and zig-zag-like interstate highways. Owners could shut down their private roads at any time for any reason, and there would be endless stops and tolls as one small section of private road ran into another.
As Jonathan Faust pointed out, the owners of supermarkets could shut down their supermarkets at any time for any reason, but it's not something we have to worry about, because they'd have no reason to do it.  The very reason they went into business in the first place - to make a profit - would be a reason they would choose to stay in business.  As for chaos and zig-zag interstate highways, it would be in the self-interest of owners to try to attract users, so they would negotiate with other roadways to facilitate that goal and to make it as easy as possible to access their roads.  As for endless stops and tolls, you're evidently not familiar with the use of automated billing currently in operation within many countries throughout the world.  

For example, on a toll road in the province of Ontario, Canada, the rear license plates of all vehicles are photographed when they enter and exit the road.  A bill is mailed monthly for the driver's usage, similar to a utility bill.  Lower charges are levied on the road's use who carry electronic transponders in their vehicles.  A transponder is an electronic device that is mounted in or on a customer's vehicle to deduct toll fares from a pre-paid account as the vehicle passes through the toll barrier.  Another method of identifying and billing customers relies on GPS technology (satellite global positioning systems).  User fees work well in other parts of the world, including Singapore, Norway, Israel, Brazil and Chile. I don't see why they wouldn't work here.

Moreover, the profit motive would lead road owners to raise the tolls during peak periods in response to increased demand, which would tend to reduce traffic congestion, as those who did not have to use the roads during these periods would use them at other times of the day when the tolls were cheaper.
If all property were privately owned, I think it would pretty much mean an end to America's great parks. I mean, why would a super-rich land owner want to compromise his private shangri-la by making it available to others for a relative pittance.
Why do you assume that all privately owned park land would be the estates of the super rich to be used only for their personal recreation?  Haven't you heard of the Nature Conservancy, which is a group that wants to preserve certain wilderness areas by purchasing land specifically for that purpose?!  Surely, there would be similar investors who, recognizing the demand for park land by the public, would invest in and maintain natural wilderness preserves for recreational use.  They would charge a fee based on consumer demand.  If the demand was high, they would raise the fee, thus ensuring against overcrowding.  During periods when the demand was low, they would reduce the fee in order to maximize profits by increasing the number of customers. 
If, say, Billy Gates  owned Yosemite,what incentive would he have to make it available to anyone else?
Why would Bill Gates buy Yosemite for his own private recreational area, when he could make it available to the public for a fee and still enjoy its scenic beauty? 
I think our national parks are true national treasures, and I certainly would not like to see them turned into strip malls and condo complexes by entrepreneurs.
Well, in a capitalist society, resources tend to flow towards their highest valued uses, as reflected in the prices people are willing to pay for them.  The more valued is a product or service, the more money people are willing to pay for it, and the more profitable it is to produce.  If people value strip malls and condo complexes more than they do parks and wilderness areas, then who are you to claim that your preferences should take precedence over theirs? 

Moreover, which is more important: to the average person -- housing or parks?  If  you had to choose between having a nice place to live and being able to access a park or wilderness area, which would you choose?  One of the reasons housing prices are so high is that the supply of housing has been limited by environmental restrictions on development.  Consequently, far fewer people today can afford to buy a home and more are crowded together in densely populated apartment complexes with higher levels of noise and less privacy.  As a result, their quality of life is lower.  Is this an improvement on the human condition?  I don't think so.

You may not care to have a nice place to live and may be willing to forgo housing in favor of parks.  Most people are not, and in any case, you don't have the right to prevent people from producing the goods and services that improve the quality of their lives, just so that you can enjoy more scenic beauty.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/09, 5:47pm)


Post 12

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Once again we have a conversation going on which ignores centuries of history, law and precedent, and which starts with the mistaken premise that all property must be privately owned.  Courthouses are not privately owned under a minarchy, and neither are the police or the army.  Again, Rand addressed this fallacy under the "competing government" subheading of the anarchism entry in the AR Lexicon. Those who advocate otherwise are not advocating Objectivism.

But of course, knowing what an easement or a variance or a right of way or a commons is doesn't matter if you've read TVoS.  That book alone makes you an expert on everything.

Ted Keer


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Public property is a contradiction in terms... conventions do not proclaim truths, merely a continuing of past actions usually based on little more than authority - much like cyclic actions of animals, not of thinking beings....

Post 14

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William's response was excellent, and made all the necessary points. 

A courthouse can be purchased on the market like anything else, so my view would be that government services would exist where they are most economic to exist by simply being another entity in the market.  They would buy land for military use, or sell it, as they saw fit.  They could do the same for courts.  There is no reason they have to exercise any force to do any of the functions they need.


Post 15

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vide "Competing Governments" Ayn Rand Lexicon 

Rand specifically derides those who, like statists, see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of businesses.  "Private" or competing governments or privately owned government institutions are not part of a capitalist system.  Not to draw a distinction between public and private is, according to Rand, simply to chose the other side of the statist coin. 

Such public institutions should be minimal.  They should be efficiently administered. Where possible, all activities non-essential to the actual administration of justice should be contracted out.  But whether or not one wants to call it real estate or not, government facilities and institutions in a republic (res publica - "the public thing") are indeed public property. The existence of a public right of way is implied in the freedom to travel, to trade, to emigrate, and for the motion of officers of the law. 

Those who argue that all land should be privately held are arguing for feudalism.

Ted Keer


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 12:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Feudalism is a non-trader mindset of property, where property was mostly obtained thru conquest - it is not the only form of all-private ownership...

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
Once again we have a conversation going on which ignores centuries of history, law and precedent, and which starts with the mistaken premise that all property must be privately owned. Courthouses are not privately owned under a minarchy, and neither are the police or the army. Again, Rand addressed this fallacy under the "competing government" subheading of the anarchism entry in the AR Lexicon. Those who advocate otherwise are not advocating Objectivism.
From "What is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." - AR [Emphasis added]

Under laissez-faire capitalism, government buildings (like courthouses and state capitol buildings) are property that private citizens have financed through voluntary contributions. Even though the buildings are used for government functions and are in that sense nominal "public" property, they are still private in the sense that they've been delegated to the government by private citizens for a specific purpose. Government officials do not "own" public buildings in the same sense that private citizens own their own homes and factories. They cannot sell the buildings to the highest bidder or do whatever they want with them, but must use them in a way that is consistent with the designated functions of government.

Incidentally, this has nothing to do with "competing governments," which is the view that conflicting legal systems should be allowed to enforce their own laws within the same geographical area (which is a self-contradiction. How do you allow for the enforcement of mutually exclusive laws? Answer: you can't). Although Rand does address the theory of competing governments under the "Anarchism" entry in the Objectivist Lexicon, she does not discuss the issue of whether the government's property is to be considered public or private.
But of course, knowing what an easement or a variance or a right of way or a commons is doesn't matter if you've read TVoS. That book alone makes you an expert on everything
Easement or right of way can be handled by contract and in a free society would be handled that way. No one would buy property without certain stipulations regarding the right of ingress and egress. Besides, there is always an implied agreement that when one enters another person's property one is free to leave. If there were not, then one wouldn't enter it in the first place.

- Bill



Edited to remove extra bar.[Joe]
(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 10/10, 4:31pm)


Post 18

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 4:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
there is always an implied agreement that when one enters another person's property one is free to leave. If there were not, then one wouldn't enter it in the first place.

VERILY!!!


Post 19

Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hope you're enjoying yourself, Ronald.

The best reference on this subject is probably the anarcho-capitalist bible, "The Market for Liberty," by Morris and Linda Tannehill, which also includes the essays entitled "Public Services Under Laissez Faire," by Jarret Wollstein.  You don't have to be an anarchist to appreciate their exposition on how various things currently run by states could be much more efficiently run by individuals or private companies. 

In fact, ironically, every major objectivist spokesperson who I've heard discuss the "Competing Governments" aspect has said essentially the same thing: ~"In a real laissez faire capitalist society, much and probably most of what state's actually do, including roads, etc., and even most of the courts - so long as you had a state appellate and supreme court - could and would likely be privatized.  I've even heard Yaron Brook, subject of a long front-page article in today's OC Register, BTW, imply that just maybe, when we get to that point, we might discover a way to get rid of that last .1% of the state as well - who knows?, altho he certainly hasn't come out on the anarchist side ...   yet.  ;-)

My own view has trended strongly in recent years toward a position that integrates ideas of property, commons, and social contract.  All the things that are said in defence of private property, morally and economically are generally true.  You DO have a fundamental right to property, which follows from your basic right to life.  Without property, it is impossible to plan for the future.  However, that does not conflict - among rational people - with the equal right that everyone else has in the same physical objects.  When you make something private, you take it out of the commons, where it either already was in use or potentially was available for use, which you have now closed off.

Thus, a rational way has to be found to reconcile the opposing claims.  Looking at it from the point of view of a potential Martian colonist, able to get everything right on the outset, I favor a social contract system, in which to start everyone holds a non-transferable share in the whole of mankind, thus giving them a stake in the general success of everyone else right from the get go.  I.e., humanity as a share-holding trust.

If you want to make something private, then you bid against whoever else wants that particular piece of land or whatever.  This is how they settle property disputes in divorces.  Each party bids whatever they want for the various pieces of furniture, etc., and then the money is split at the end.  So the money that goes into the pot is distibuted among the shareholders, giving them another specific incentive to hope that the most productive people are engaged as much as possible.

The property does not - and never has, for that matter - consist of the physical land (what, a conic section through the mantle and molten core?), but rather a bundle of rights, which are contextually absolute.  And major misuse that endangers or devalues the property of your neighbors is handled by the fact that everyone has to post bonds or get insurance to cover that very kind of risk.

In such a system, a private company might buy the roadways and - perhaps taking advantage of an eminent domain clause in the social contract that guaranteed that the land owners would make a substantial profit by losing their land - buy the right to run the roads, with the caveat that they could not refuse access to anyone without objective cause to believe that they were a traffic hazard - as in DUI - nor could they charge excessive fees.  Otherwise, they would be largely free to run the roads however they thought best.

I note that something like this is allegedly done almost as the rule in mainland China now.  Private companies are reported to be building super-highways like crazy in the new industrial cities, altho I think that the level of graft, etc., is quite high there, as you might expect with a criminal gang running the show from the top.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.