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

Justification for easement?

rated by 0 users
This post has 3 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 40
Points 2,255
The Bomb19 Posted: Sat, Jun 2 2012 6:21 PM

How could the use of someone's property (assuming they acquired it through just means) without their consent ever be justified? Would you consider someone buying up property around your house an act of aggression? What if they happened to do this by mistake?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sat, Jun 2 2012 6:29 PM

I'm bored. You know what? I'll get into an ethical debate on mises.org.

"How could the use of someone's property (assuming they acquired it through just means) without their consent ever be justified?"

  1. What makes it their property?
  2. What defines "just means" in this instance?
  3. My response: The fact that I want to use it and I consider there to be no ethical problem with this.

"Would you consider someone buying up property around your house an act of aggression?"

No, why would I?

"What if they happened to do this by mistake?"

Then they are silly. Obv. 

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

@The Bomb19

You don't mention "easement" at all in your post, but I'll assume you actually meant to talk about it.  The point of easements is that the just owner HAS consented to the use of his property by another in a specific way.  So I don't believe that you OP has anything to do with easements.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Sun, Jun 3 2012 1:33 PM

I agree with you, the question is not about "Easements".  Easements are things the property owner, or acquirer, voluntarily agrees to.  These would include drainage ditches, utility delivery, restrictions on the plants the owner is allowed to add, etc.  These are moral actions.  Now a wetlands declaration, change in zoning, take over through eminent domain, confiscation, etc are all immoral actions.  (Provided the ower was not aware of these prior to purchase or homesteading.)

I think the question about surrounding property goes to the fear that out of spite or profit interest some rich dude will simply purchase all of the property around yours and cut you off from the rest of hummanity.  Of course this is silly as the owner of one piece of property would have agreed to access points by other owners first.  Then that same owner could reach their own property by homesteading the air above the property.  Furthermore any lender would not want some rich dude surrounding their property as they would hold loans with the worthless property as collateral.  The important point here is this is simply a form of Realestate Predatory Pricing.  And without government support no predatory pricing scheme can be successful in the long run.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS