Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Juan:I'm afraid I still don't get it. Are you saying companies don't strive to lower prices in order to attract new customers ?
A company cannot set prices lower than it has supply to meet demand. It cannot set prices higher than it wants to keep supply in reserve. Ultimately it is the demanders that choose prices as much as the company.
Juan: Let's say supplier 1 is more efficient than supplier 2, so supplier 1 can sell at a lower price, which benefits consumers and at the same time forces supplier 2 out of business...I thought that's what competition was all about, no ?
If supplier 1 is more efficient than supplier 2, then it will make more profit from selling its supply, but it won't be able to sell at a lower price unless it has produced enough supply to meet all the demand for the good. If it has not then there will be a shortage from supplier 1 and supplier 2 will be able to sell the same good at higher prices.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Would this mean that all roads become toll roads?
Not necessarily. Back when Brooklyn developed, private developers built roads and provided trolleys as an incentive for people to move out there. Many homes have driveways, which could be considered private roads.
Only one highway exists between my town and my nearest city. Won't the owner of this highway then have a virtual monopoly and be able to charge as much as he likes?
But hey, why did you move there in the first place? Either there was not a road to your town until this guy came around, or he had bought up all the existing roads. If there was no road to begin with, you wouldn't have moved there. And if for some reason you had already lived there, the new road, however expensive, is better than no road.
What about if someone bought the only existing road and wanted to screw you? There's a few ways this could go , but abuse of the monopoly will only hurt the operator. First, people in your town would use the road less often, leading to lower revenues. Second, people may just leave your town, leaving the road operator with a worthless road. Third, someone else would acquire land to build a competing road, thus ending the monopoly.
There would only be a few rational reasons for the road owner to not want as much traffic as possible. One reason for it is that the road owner sees a more optimal use for the land the road sits on. If so, he could destroy the road and use the land more optimally. Sorry... Nonetheless, it is unlikely for the owner of a huge piece of land not to provide at least the bare minimum of a roadway, especially if your town is sizable and would provide a decent revenue.
What if the owner of a major highway wanted to prevent some arbitrary group, say, Norwegians, from using the highway, and felt so strongly that he went to great lengths to make sure no Norwegians drove on his road?
This would be a very expensive way to stick it to the Norwegians. I don't think the investors would be too happy to forgo the income from the potential Norwegian costumers. Most likely, the situation would be similar to the town situation. People would move away, and competition that allows Norwegians succeed. The first example that comes to mind are the law schools that grew rapidly as a result of major law schools not allowing Jews...
What is to stop someone buying up the roads that surround my house and decides that I cannot go on it? Am I a prisoner in my own home?
It becomes an issue if you can no longer use your property because someone bought all the property that surrounds your home, you cannot come or go. Walter Block calls this forestalling. It is a violation of property rights, and would not be permissible in a libertarian society.
Block does however believe that property rights do not extend infinitely up and down over the footprint. He argues that you would have the right to tunnel under or bridge over the property. I am not convinced by this, because I should be able to own the space above and below my property, even if I am not using it productively.
I don't know exactly the best way to confront forestalling. A state could prohibit it, but without a state I'm not sure. I would imagine the land owner would have to provide an easement (as someone mentioned).
I hope this helps.
Adam
Market Urbanism
Market Urbanism:Block does however believe that property rights do not extend infinitely up and down over the footprint. He argues that you would have the right to tunnel under or bridge over the property. I am not convinced by this, because I should be able to own the space above and below my property, even if I am not using it productively.
You could argue that you are accustomed to using the space above your home to enjoy the view of nature. You should have a larger claim to it than someone who wanted to make normal society a basement. As far as forestalling, it seems that a forestaller could not make such a convincing argument if someone attempted to bridge over his property.
There is a slippery slope, however. Can I simply declare any wild land I stumble upon my own nature preserve?
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Market Urbanism: What is to stop someone buying up the roads that surround my house and decides that I cannot go on it? Am I a prisoner in my own home? It becomes an issue if you can no longer use your property because someone bought all the property that surrounds your home, you cannot come or go. Walter Block calls this forestalling. It is a violation of property rights, and would not be permissible in a libertarian society. Block does however believe that property rights do not extend infinitely up and down over the footprint. He argues that you would have the right to tunnel under or bridge over the property. I am not convinced by this, because I should be able to own the space above and below my property, even if I am not using it productively. I don't know exactly the best way to confront forestalling. A state could prohibit it, but without a state I'm not sure. I would imagine the land owner would have to provide an easement (as someone mentioned).
What is UNREAL about the example is that it presupposes that you NEVER had access rights of any kind.
If someone buys up all the land (or roads) surrounding your property, you STILL have whatever access rights you had prior to that action. No one could sell your access rights but you.
This applies whether State exists or not. As long as there are recognized rights to "buy" and own land (yours and the one who buys all around you), the same applies to your rights of access.
Very insightful. Where do we draw the line of what is property and what isn't? "Access" as a property right seems good from a utilitarian perspective, but what about say, views? Does someone have the right to protect his scenic views of the sea?
Truth and Liberty:Why would anybody want to own a road, unless they intend to make it a toll road? Would this mean that all roads become toll roads?
Ads. Billboards. What does Google charge people?
Le Master: Truth and Liberty:Why would anybody want to own a road, unless they intend to make it a toll road? Would this mean that all roads become toll roads? Ads. Billboards. What does Google charge people?
Google doesn't pay bandwidth and connection for every user.
Market Urbanism:Where do we draw the line of what is property and what isn't? "Access" as a property right seems good from a utilitarian perspective, but what about say, views? Does someone have the right to protect his scenic views of the sea?
An argument of property should be an argument of scarcity. If someone else's actions have not shown evidence of sufficiently depriving someone else of something they could properly said to have homesteaded or acquired via a proper contract, they should not be guilty of theft.
Also, remember homesteading is mixing labor with nature. If there is no evidence of labor to have put a scarce element of nature to identifiable use, it should not be considered homesteaded. Consider a farmer and a skyscraper construction, as neighbors. Who is entitled to the sunlight the building will obstruct? He who first mixed his labor with nature to put that pattern of sunlight to identifiable use.
meambobbo: Market Urbanism:Where do we draw the line of what is property and what isn't? "Access" as a property right seems good from a utilitarian perspective, but what about say, views? Does someone have the right to protect his scenic views of the sea? An argument of property should be an argument of scarcity. If someone else's actions have not shown evidence of sufficiently depriving someone else of something they could properly said to have homesteaded or acquired via a proper contract, they should not be guilty of theft. Also, remember homesteading is mixing labor with nature. If there is no evidence of labor to have put a scarce element of nature to identifiable use, it should not be considered homesteaded. Consider a farmer and a skyscraper construction, as neighbors. Who is entitled to the sunlight the building will obstruct? He who first mixed his labor with nature to put that pattern of sunlight to identifiable use.
Is mixing of labor with nature the only justification? What about pleasure? Is enjoyment of nature similar to mixing labor? I mean if someone moved to a location because of a beautiful natural scene (which is scarce), should they have similar property rights as someone who mixes labor more clearly "identifiable use, such as a farmer?
I'd like to add that untolled private roads are currently abundant in the form of private driveways. The concept could be expanded to a private community.
Stranger: Google doesn't pay bandwidth and connection for every user.
Wouldn't that nearly be the equivalent of a driver paying for his car and gas? Do you not think advertising could finance a road?
Le Master: Stranger: Google doesn't pay bandwidth and connection for every user. Wouldn't that nearly be the equivalent of a driver paying for his car and gas? Do you not think advertising could finance a road?
Advertising cannot even finance a newspaper, and the record shows that people hate urban advertising.
Le Master:Do you not think advertising could finance a road?
No. It's a similar problem to what Facebook and DIGG face right now. They have to maintain high user metrics (drivers in this case) to attract advertisers, but their constituency wants to drive with minimal distraction, not look at ads.
If you look into the Trans-Texas Corridor plans, they had a very interesting model, which was a combination of leasing commercial space, running pipelines, selling offramp exits etc along with the road. These are secondary revenue streams and models. In some cases, they can add to the driver experience, instead of trying to interfere with the driver experience (advertising).
Truth and Liberty:Why would anybody want to own a road, unless they intend to make it a toll road? Would this mean that all roads become toll roads? Only one highway exists between my town and my nearest city. Won't the owner of this highway then have a virtual monopoly and be able to charge as much as he likes? What if the owner of a major highway wanted to prevent some arbritary group, say, Norwegians, from using the highway, and felt so strongly that he went to great lengths to make sure no Norwegians drove on his road? Is there anything to stop him? Would the Norwegians have to find another route? What is to stop someone buying up the roads that surround my house and decides that I cannot go on it? Am I a prisoner in my own home? Please can someone explain this briefly and/or provide links? Thanks, Truth and Liberty.com
First of all, yes, I do want to own roads! I think private ownership of roads would achieve safety and convenience as well as a road for every kind of driver.
Roads to drive sedately on for compacted living in a city, and super-speed highways between cities on which people are paying for the privilege of being able to drive as fast as they literally can. No speed limit. Because they love to drive fast. Privately owned roads would mean that owning a vehicle would be a distinct pleasure, because you drive on the kind of roads you enjoy and there will be a pretty wide variety of ways to get from A to B.
The first guy to build a highway is just that - the first guy. Other guys will think up new ways to traverse the distance and rather than replace, it will augment and add to the sum total of our knowledge of ways to get from A to B. Yes, he owns the monopoly over that road, the road he built. If you would rather make another road instead of using his, is up to you. You can stay where you are or you can pay him to use his road. Your net options have just increased because the road is there for you to use if it suits you. The essential choice here is to be able to say no thanks to an offer without being hurt other than by the loss as a result of saying no to the opportunity to travel on that road and see what's on the other end of it or along the way and once again chances are there are things of value along and at the end of that road so the sum values have increased in the world whether or not this or that person agrees with me. Or him. Or you.
As for the Norwegian point, it is his right to make such a strange rule. It is our right to ask why if we care. If his answer makes sense, then we might all look differently at Norwegians. Most likely his story will involve an individual Norwegian, and it's the man's individuality as a human being from Norway speaks of him, not necesssarily of any other, never mind all, Norwegians.
It's an odd request without a good reason and could cause him to lose custom from what would otherwise have been long-time steady customers of whatever he is selling on the roads.
What is the point of roads? Some serve inside the town, some house accommodations for the city's people, some serve as conduits and still also provide business addresses and homes above the store. The art of owning downtown roads is different from residential, highways, construction roads, etc. People owning their own roads means more efficient use of scarce time and limited ready resources. The Earth may be a ball o' resources, but many of them require a lot of work to get them ready for basic production of building materials for different climates on Earth.
Then of course there are people who own sidewalks. But I digress.
As for the road ownership of the road you occupy, here's what I think will happen. There's no slow way to do it. We just have to face the fact that it's now time to do it.
If you are interested in road ownership, meaning the piece of road outside your house, then you own it. You would look up and find some road pavers and probably end up paying a guy that some of your neighbors are paying too. Maybe half dozen of the remaining 8 or 9 choose some other outfit to do their paving. Both companies can operate - the job gets done. The people who don't offer to pay anyone to do their road - maybe they're willing to sell the rights to their road to someone else. Or they might be unwilling to sell to anyone. So that's when bridges are born.
Having a right of way to leave your home on foot is about paying what they used to pretend was being paid by our property taxes. The difference when you let the voluntarily entered free market do it, you get what you paid for and more.
You want to use the sidewalks - the price you pay for a year's use covers snow removel too. Same with the roads. As a property owner, you have to decide what you want to do with the bounty of frozen water deposited on your land each winter. That there is worth money, that water. A fortune right under our Canadian/North American noses. It's all very well having a desalinator in the ocean but there's no substitute for unlimited fresh and clean water, as only mankind can deliver it.
If you're a hermit and do not want to leave your land, then you'll end up paying for the road indirectly via the delivery cars and vans you arrange to deliver your life needs to your door.
If you want to use the roads or the sidewalks and leave your home, you do have to pay someone for it. Sorry but if you don't like it then don't live in a city with all the possibilities for wealth at your command for the price of a few hours' work.
Sorry if I got too over-excited about roads. I think the possibilities for roads are just beginning. The whole lot can be put together a lot better in a free market environment than it has been when government was permitted to try to force it to happen. Coercion won't ever get that kind of job done. Once you stop relying on the ability to fall back on initiating force to get your way, and learn to apply your mind, your thinking apparatus, to figuring out a real answer, you'll discover what it is to live as a human being.
Truth and Liberty:Only one highway exists between my town and my nearest city. Won't the owner of this highway then have a virtual monopoly and be able to charge as much as he likes?
Sure, if he wants to lose revenue and go bankrupt
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?