Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Compulsory purchase orders, and the transport system

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 13 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 500 Contributor
225 Posts
Points 4,195
Vladimir Ulyanov posted on Tue, Oct 25 2011 6:26 PM

With real property rights, it would be impossible to obtain a compulsory purchase order.

Therefore, would road and rail companies not encounter problems when trying to build new routes if the property owners refused to sell their property? How could this problem be solved?

'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking

All Replies

Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Pay more? Buy other people's property instead? How is this necessarily a problem?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
225 Posts
Points 4,195

Well if the property owner owned 1000's of hectares and there was no way of building around it, and the owner refused to sell their land for any price. You would not be able to buy the any other persons land. This would make the new route impossible to build.

Also, would property owners not have the incetive to pretend they want the land more than they do and sell at inflated prices.

This is also a problem if boats or ships travel on bodies of water that don't belong to them. They would be tresspassing. Although I don't see this as really being a major problem, I thought I should highlight it.

'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Vladimir Ulyanov:
Well if the property owner owned 1000's of hectares and there was no way of building around it, and the owner refused to sell their land for any price. You would not be able to buy the any other persons land. This would make the new route impossible to build.

Then the new route is impossible to build. So what? Are you saying that the road/rail-builder has a higher claim over the land than the land's actual owner?

Vladimir Ulyanov:
Also, would property owners not have the incetive to pretend they want the land more than they do and sell at inflated prices.

Who says the prices are inflated?

Vladimir Ulyanov:
This is also a problem if boats or ships travel on bodies of water that don't belong to them. They would be tresspassing. Although I don't see this as really being a major problem, I thought I should highlight it.

If a person owns a lake and doesn't want certain/any ships on it, that's his right - right?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,051 Posts
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Tue, Oct 25 2011 6:50 PM

I don't see how this is a problem.  It's their land, they don't want to sell, a new route isn't made, so?  Thing is, you're not going to design a route without acquiring the land first, so if they can't get the land that route won't even hit stage 0.25 yet (not saying someone won't make a presentation to see the possibilities, but you should have more than one.  If you run a company and your whole project relies on buying someone's land, and nothing else.  Well, sucks for you.)

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
225 Posts
Points 4,195

I suppose your right.

I just thought it could become a major inconveniance, and most likely prevent growth in certain cases. However, I agree. The individuals property rights must be protected - even if it sucks for some people.

'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Remember, the free market is not a panacea. Anyone who thinks it will be all things to all people - whether necessarily or incidentally - is being foolish.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
225 Posts
Points 4,195

I agree. Look to the socialists for a utopian society. Haha.

'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,922 Posts
Points 79,590

Some socialists. Even your namesake apparently didn't think communism, let alone socialism, would be utopia.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

REMEMBER: your property claim doesn't extend from the center of the earth to the stars in the sky. You can build tunnels ;)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
225 Posts
Points 4,195

Yeah, although he was somewhat of a lunatic, he seemed to be quite an intelligent and reasoned person. It's a pitty that he was so misguided. One of the few good things he did, though, was warn about Stalin. Too bad this message wasn't  heeded, or as widely broadcast as it could have been.

'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
225 Posts
Points 4,195

Can you really?

By this reasoning one could mine under another individuals property. And if your claim doesn't extend to the bottom of the earth, how would you decide where it does? I suppose it would have to be decided by law. Right?

'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

You have to look at homesteading. You gain property through homesteading, which in turn depends on first use. While I use the general structural integrity of the ground to build a house on (and hence have a right to not having my house collapse due to someone undermining it), said integrity may be preserved even with tunnels underneath the house. Notice that the Channel Tunnel and the metro system exist without us falling into the ground. Am I using the land which is underneath me? Not really. Hence, someone else can use it as long as they don't mess with my property.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

As to how it's decided -people being reasonable and trial-and-error. I do not really think this would be a big problem.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS