nirgrahamUK: Bardhyl N. Salihu:No legitimate owners among those many. As in, "which of you owns how much of the road?" This isn't an issue for me, because again, there are already-defined rightful, original owners. I simply raised this question in regard to the argument of "taxpayers and users" as homesteaders. I have no idea what you are saying, you are presenting contradicitons. on the one hand "No legitimate owners among those many" on the other "there are already-defined rightful, original owners"
Bardhyl N. Salihu:No legitimate owners among those many. As in, "which of you owns how much of the road?" This isn't an issue for me, because again, there are already-defined rightful, original owners. I simply raised this question in regard to the argument of "taxpayers and users" as homesteaders.
I have no idea what you are saying, you are presenting contradicitons.
on the one hand "No legitimate owners among those many"
on the other "there are already-defined rightful, original owners"
OK let me try to simplify my position: Homesteading is not possible in the current roads because they are already owned by somebody (in whole or in parts by many). Who? The people whose lands were taken to built the road.
The "legitimate owners" response was to someone who claimed homesteading was still possible and that it was being done daily (by taxpayers and users). My intention here was to say that even if homesteading was possible (it isn't), there would appear this new problem of defining who ones what and to what extent. Simply a second counter-argument.
Hopefully I'm clear.
HUMAN ACTION
AJ: Seems whether Bardhyl is right about that would vary by location and population density.
Seems whether Bardhyl is right about that would vary by location and population density.
That's true.
Bardhyl N. Salihu:OK let me try to simplify my position: Homesteading is not possible in the current roads because they are already owned by somebody (in whole or in parts by many). Who? The people whose lands were taken to built the road.
you simply acknowledge that there are legitimate owners but there is a practical problem of determining who precisely they are. How is this principally different from other cases of disputed ownership ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
A few thoughts:
We can assume that taxes are paying right now for the use of the roads. It seems unlikely that the gov is giving something for free, or at the best price.
So that an entrapped person, who now isn't paying taxes to support the roads because roads are privatized, will be able to pay whatever fee the new road owner charges. The road owner, being a serious businesman presumably, is more interested in havign a satisfied customer than a bad reputation.
Another idea is that tickets for road use would probably be sold on the internet. The entrapee could have someone from the big city buy a two way ticket for him.
Another possibility is that when roads are divvied and privatized, those who need access to it will have the right to match any offer for roads immediately near their farm or whatever. Thus the entrapee could demand no one use his little plot of road if he has to pay too much for use of the rest of the road.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
nirgrahamUK: Bardhyl N. Salihu:OK let me try to simplify my position: Homesteading is not possible in the current roads because they are already owned by somebody (in whole or in parts by many). Who? The people whose lands were taken to built the road. you simply acknowledge that there are legitimate owners but there is a practical problem of determining who precisely they are. How is this principally different from other cases of disputed ownership ?
It's no different, but how does this play any role in here? The question is: Does the government have the right to sell something that doesn't belong to it?
Bardhyl N. Salihu:Does the government have the right to sell something that doesn't belong to it?
I think that it doesn't have the right. but I think its better than the government keeping it (which it also has no right to do)
Bardhyl N. Salihu: nirgrahamUK: Bardhyl N. Salihu:OK let me try to simplify my position: Homesteading is not possible in the current roads because they are already owned by somebody (in whole or in parts by many). Who? The people whose lands were taken to built the road. you simply acknowledge that there are legitimate owners but there is a practical problem of determining who precisely they are. How is this principally different from other cases of disputed ownership ? It's no different, but how does this play any role in here? The question is: Does the government have the right to sell something that doesn't belong to it?
It can do this from its role as arbitrator in property disputes, including disputes involving itself.
The key to privatization is of course denying government this privilege.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Bardhyl N. Salihu: Maybe that's the case in U.S. at a time when the land was in abundance and there were few owners of land, but that certainly isn't the case in my country where there were many small rural owners when the first roads were built.
Maybe that's the case in U.S. at a time when the land was in abundance and there were few owners of land, but that certainly isn't the case in my country where there were many small rural owners when the first roads were built.
Guessing that your home country is India, it must have been the case that land was held in feudal tenure as was the case in Europe, meaning that the lord building the roads had the right to build them, being on his land.
Smiling Dave,
First, I thank you for bringing attention to the main point in question.
Smiling Dave: A few thoughts: We can assume that taxes are paying right now for the use of the roads. It seems unlikely that the gov is giving something for free, or at the best price.
Absolutely true.
Smiling Dave: So that an entrapped person, who now isn't paying taxes to support the roads because roads are privatized, will be able to pay whatever fee the new road owner charges. The road owner, being a serious businesman presumably, is more interested in havign a satisfied customer than a bad reputation.
Not sure about this. Not everyone will be able to pay "whatever fee," especially if that person has been paying taxes for the road his entire life and now finds himself trapped into more "taxes" (he has to pay for the road) when the privatization is supposed to relieve him of this. I'm not sure the "reputation" argument flies here, either. The owner will make sure the money he makes from these entrapped people compensates for the bad advertisement they generate. Besides, we usually abandon products/services when they dissatisfy us. Others' opinions only come into question when we want to try something new. In this sense, those people who use that road continuously will not bother to "punish" the owner in an act of generosity for the entrapped at the expense of their comfort.
Smiling Dave: Another idea is that tickets for road use would probably be sold on the internet. The entrapee could have someone from the big city buy a two way ticket for him.
Yes, but here we're talking about an illegal, illicit act. The entrapped can always jump in somebody else's car (whose registration plate will not indicate it's him), walk on foot the other side until he reaches a road where the asked fee is acceptable, or simply trespass. Obviously, the entrapped person will not die from his "entrapment", this was never in question.
Smiling Dave: Another possibility is that when roads are divvied and privatized, those who need access to it will have the right to match any offer for roads immediately near their farm or whatever. Thus the entrapee could demand no one use his little plot of road if he has to pay too much for use of the rest of the road.
This one is a very interesting (potential) solution. I have never come to think of it.
Bardhyl N. Salihu: Yes, but here we're talking about an illegal, illicit act. The entrapped can always jump in somebody else's car (whose registration plate will not indicate it's him), walk on foot the other side until he reaches a road where the asked fee is acceptable, or simply trespass. Obviously, the entrapped person will not die from his "entrapment", this was never in question.
Well then the entrapment problem is nothing more than the absurd claim to the unlimited right to travel at the expense of others simply because one bought property in their community. By this standard, any attempt by the community to enforce property rights on the roads will be an act of entrapment. Entrapment is nothing more than the exercise of property rights.
You can have property and entrapment, or you can have communism. There is no third way.
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu: nirgrahamUK: Bardhyl N. Salihu:OK let me try to simplify my position: Homesteading is not possible in the current roads because they are already owned by somebody (in whole or in parts by many). Who? The people whose lands were taken to built the road. you simply acknowledge that there are legitimate owners but there is a practical problem of determining who precisely they are. How is this principally different from other cases of disputed ownership ? It's no different, but how does this play any role in here? The question is: Does the government have the right to sell something that doesn't belong to it? It can do this from its role as arbitrator in property disputes, including disputes involving itself. The key to privatization is of course denying government this privilege.
Government's self-professed role as an arbitrator of this kind does not make it legitimate in any way to solve these disputes, I believe we all agree on this. We want the government away from this role. But the damage has been done, and with the original owners missing, we are in a deadlock. This simply shows again that getting rid off the government has a time dimension also. The quicker we do it, the more damage we will contain and the longer it exists, the more distortions will it create concerning rights of ownership.
Bardhyl N. Salihu: Government's self-professed role as an arbitrator of this kind does not make it legitimate in any way to solve these disputes, I believe we all agree on this. We want the government away from this role. But the damage has been done, and with the original owners missing, we are in a deadlock. This simply shows again that getting rid off the government has a time dimension also. The quicker we do it, the more damage we will contain and the longer it exists, the more distortions will it create concerning rights of ownership.
We can't be accountable for the chaos the government caused in the past. It has destroyed and redistributed a lot of property, and this cannot be undone.
What matters is reversing the most recent property rights violation.
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu: Maybe that's the case in U.S. at a time when the land was in abundance and there were few owners of land, but that certainly isn't the case in my country where there were many small rural owners when the first roads were built. Guessing that your home country is India, it must have been the case that land was held in feudal tenure as was the case in Europe, meaning that the lord building the roads had the right to build them, being on his land.
It's not India, it's Kosovo (recently declared independence from Serbia). At a time when the main roads were built, presumably after WWI, the density of the population, the underdeveloped rural nature of the country, as well as the anarchist anti-governmental mentality that Albanians had at that time meant that an overwhelming majority was privately owned by many people. When the Serbian government (which had Kosovo under occupation at that time) decided to built roads for their own uses, they used eminent domain to forcibly take land from many owners. So there.
Bardhyl N. Salihu: It's not India, it's Kosovo (recently declared independence from Serbia). At a time when the main roads were built, presumably after WWI, the density of the population, the underdeveloped rural nature of the country, as well as the anarchist anti-governmental mentality that Albanians had at that time meant that an overwhelming majority was privately owned by many people. When the Serbian government (which had Kosovo under occupation at that time) decided to built roads for their own uses, they used eminent domain to forcibly take land from many owners. So there.
Were all the roads in Kosovo built during the 1990's?
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu: Yes, but here we're talking about an illegal, illicit act. The entrapped can always jump in somebody else's car (whose registration plate will not indicate it's him), walk on foot the other side until he reaches a road where the asked fee is acceptable, or simply trespass. Obviously, the entrapped person will not die from his "entrapment", this was never in question. Well then the entrapment problem is nothing more than the absurd claim to the unlimited right to travel at the expense of others simply because one bought property in their community. By this standard, any attempt by the community to enforce property rights on the roads will be an act of entrapment. Entrapment is nothing more than the exercise of property rights. You can have property and entrapment, or you can have communism. There is no third way.
I never raised the question on the level of principles, whether the private road owner has the right to do it or not. I fully recognize that he does. I never said the private road owner should be forced to give way for the entrapped, or that he does not have the right to demand any fee as he pleases for the use of his property.
I was merely pointing out an externality of the privatization which can have a very negative effect on some individuals, and was seeking solutions to this (I know the free market has them).
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu: It's not India, it's Kosovo (recently declared independence from Serbia). At a time when the main roads were built, presumably after WWI, the density of the population, the underdeveloped rural nature of the country, as well as the anarchist anti-governmental mentality that Albanians had at that time meant that an overwhelming majority was privately owned by many people. When the Serbian government (which had Kosovo under occupation at that time) decided to built roads for their own uses, they used eminent domain to forcibly take land from many owners. So there. Were all the roads in Kosovo built during the 1990's?
Er.. no? I don't understand your point here..
Bardhyl N. Salihu: I was merely pointing out an externality of the privatization which can have a very negative effect on some individuals, and was seeking solutions to this.
I was merely pointing out an externality of the privatization which can have a very negative effect on some individuals, and was seeking solutions to this.
Some people will always lose out when the state's privileges are eliminated. I don't see why that causes a problem.
Bardhyl N. Salihu: Er.. no? I don't understand your point here..
Serbia ceased to exist as a state after WWI and only reappeared after the Iron Curtain went down.
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu: I was merely pointing out an externality of the privatization which can have a very negative effect on some individuals, and was seeking solutions to this. Some people will always lose out when the state's privileges are eliminated. I don't see why that causes a problem.
Sure, and it's not a problem when the people who lose out are the ones that lived off others. In this case, all that has happened with privatization is that the parasitical cord has been cut and that's good. But to have "innocent" people suffer from privatization is a thorn in my eye, and that's the drive behind me seeking solution for this problem.
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu: Er.. no? I don't understand your point here.. Serbia ceased to exist as a state after WWI and only reappeared after the Iron Curtain went down.
Maybe I should have used the more formal names. At the time of WWI, Serbia was within a federate called the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs which later become the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1928. The kingdom was disrupted during WWII and re-emerged after the war as a group of 7 socialist federal units. This was until the 1990s when the wars broke out and the unions were disbanded into the states that we know today.
This discussion has gone astray way too far.
Of course it can. Read the example of my home country. There's no way on earth to find the legitimate land owners for permission in order to assume the full ownership of the road.
No it can't. If ex hypothesi it is not a legitimate owner itself it can do nothing to stop anyone else from expropriating it that would be legitimate. The fact that it "can" as a matter of practicality would then be irrelevant, if you granted that prior premise. It'd be optimal if it were done in an organised fashion that led to as few injustices as possible, but if no such solution is retrievable, the state has no argument against "its" holdings being stripped away from it.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: Of course it can. Read the example of my home country. There's no way on earth to find the legitimate land owners for permission in order to assume the full ownership of the road. No it can't. If ex hypothesi it is not a legitimate owner itself it can do nothing to stop anyone else from expropriating it that would be legitimate. The fact that it "can" as a matter of practicality would then be irrelevant, if you granted that prior premise. It'd be optimal if it were done in an organised fashion that led to as few injustices as possible, but if no such solution is retrievable, the state has no argument against "its" holdings being stripped away from it.
You quoted me out of context. I didn't say the state can "hinder privatization." I said the problem (entrapment) can. Look it up again. And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found).
Bardhyl N. Salihu:And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found).
If the original owners can't be found, then who cares what they think?
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu:And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found). If the original owners can't be found, then who cares what they think?
Anyone who abides by libertarian principles. Though I do agree that these principles may have to be broken for a greater good. Hence the entrapment.
Yep,
The liability of demonstrating that such assets would have been bequeathed, via the family, etc, falls on the asserter. For example, if a title to a parcel of land had been established, and then the government called upon eminent domain to build a highway through my land, once that government had been disposed, I would (presumably) have proper documentation to show that I still own the land upon which the highway was built, but providing such documentation falls upon me. Conversely, if such parcels were states owned (say a state park) and were sold to developers, who sold it to me, then I must demonstrate that such road access was implicit upon the purchase of the home. What I may find is that I am now paying toll fees to a developer. But if the developer is truly specialized he will sell off the roads to a toll-company. There are 5.7 million miles of highway in this country so I’m not worried about monopoly pricing or drastic fees. Such road owners still face a downward sloping demand curve and there are substitute ways to leave ones property. The key to remember is that as libertarians we are not efficiency pushers for the state. If someone falls into a zero-sum transaction, then so be it.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Bardhyl N. Salihu: Anyone who abides by libertarian principles.
Anyone who abides by libertarian principles.
Libertarian principles are for the living.
And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found).
In which case they're open for homesteading...
Jon Irenicus: And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found). In which case they're open for homesteading...
Unowned property is open for homesteading, not property whose owner you don't know. If that was the case, people in a libertarian society would run into property conflicts on a daily basis.
Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu: Anyone who abides by libertarian principles. Libertarian principles are for the living.
A dead owner doesn't mean a relinquished property right, someone might have inherited the title.
Jeremiah Dyke: Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu:And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found). If the original owners can't be found, then who cares what they think? Yep, The liability of demonstrating that such assets would have been bequeathed, via the family, etc, falls on the asserter. For example, if a title to a parcel of land had been established, and then the government called upon eminent domain to build a highway through my land, once that government had been disposed, I would (presumably) have proper documentation to show that I still own the land upon which the highway was built, but providing such documentation falls upon me. Conversely, if such parcels were states owned (say a state park) and were sold to developers, who sold it to me, then I must demonstrate that such road access was implicit upon the purchase of the home. What I may find is that I am now paying toll fees to a developer. But if the developer is truly specialized he will sell off the roads to a toll-company. There are 5.7 million miles of highway in this country so I’m not worried about monopoly pricing or drastic fees. Such road owners still face a downward sloping demand curve and there are substitute ways to leave ones property. The key to remember is that as libertarians we are not efficiency pushers for the state. If someone falls into a zero-sum transaction, then so be it.
So you can go and access any land until the rightful owner comes and proves you that you're in the wrong zone? I'm not sure about the libertarian position on this, but I think you have to make sure first that the property you're accessing is unowned rather than access it and leave the burden of proof on the owner. I think this would undermine the libertarian essence of private property, which is to reduce property conflicts. But you may still be right on this: you can access property on your own risk, meaning that you have to make sure that property is unowned before you decide to homestead it. If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law.
Bardhyl N. Salihu: If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law.
If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law.
You also risk loosing your investment. Whatever labour and resources you put in maintenance or improvement of this property.
But it seems obvious that this is correct. Imagine finding what appears a stray dog. Do you need to 'prove' that this is a stray before you can adopt it? And to whom would you even present this 'proof'?
Bardhyl N. Salihu: Jeremiah Dyke: Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu:And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found). If the original owners can't be found, then who cares what they think? Yep, The liability of demonstrating that such assets would have been bequeathed, via the family, etc, falls on the asserter. For example, if a title to a parcel of land had been established, and then the government called upon eminent domain to build a highway through my land, once that government had been disposed, I would (presumably) have proper documentation to show that I still own the land upon which the highway was built, but providing such documentation falls upon me. Conversely, if such parcels were states owned (say a state park) and were sold to developers, who sold it to me, then I must demonstrate that such road access was implicit upon the purchase of the home. What I may find is that I am now paying toll fees to a developer. But if the developer is truly specialized he will sell off the roads to a toll-company. There are 5.7 million miles of highway in this country so I’m not worried about monopoly pricing or drastic fees. Such road owners still face a downward sloping demand curve and there are substitute ways to leave ones property. The key to remember is that as libertarians we are not efficiency pushers for the state. If someone falls into a zero-sum transaction, then so be it. So you can go and access any land until the rightful owner comes and proves you that you're in the wrong zone? I'm not sure about the libertarian position on this, but I think you have to make sure first that the property you're accessing is unowned rather than access it and leave the burden of proof on the owner. I think this would undermine the libertarian essence of private property, which is to reduce property conflicts. But you may still be right on this: you can access property on your own risk, meaning that you have to make sure that property is unowned before you decide to homestead it. If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law.
It may be my personal error in interpretation but I’m finding it hard to narrow the scope of your question. We are only speaking of homesteading and land acquisition as it applies to the case of entrapment correct?
If so, we can further narrow our scope to situations where title to land ownership is not traceable. Thus, we are looking at situations where documentation cannot be ascertained, or in essence, when the state is eliminated how do you divide the land?
There are many possibilities to do this, which we can discuss after it is submitted that this is indeed what you are referring to but first we must accept that we are only discussing efficiency, not ethics. If Bill Gates out bids everyone for the highways this is no less equitable then it being distributed to the poor (though it may be more or less efficient).
Marko: Bardhyl N. Salihu: If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law. You also risk loosing your investment. Whatever labour and resources you put in maintenance or improvement of this property. But it seems obvious that this is correct. Imagine finding what appears a stray dog. Do you need to 'prove' that this is a stray before you can adopt it? And to whom would you even present this 'proof'?
Good point. So I guess that the current state roads are open for homesteading at least for the time being (until the original owners come and show proof of their ownership).
Jeremiah Dyke: Bardhyl N. Salihu: Jeremiah Dyke: Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu:And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found). If the original owners can't be found, then who cares what they think? Yep, The liability of demonstrating that such assets would have been bequeathed, via the family, etc, falls on the asserter. For example, if a title to a parcel of land had been established, and then the government called upon eminent domain to build a highway through my land, once that government had been disposed, I would (presumably) have proper documentation to show that I still own the land upon which the highway was built, but providing such documentation falls upon me. Conversely, if such parcels were states owned (say a state park) and were sold to developers, who sold it to me, then I must demonstrate that such road access was implicit upon the purchase of the home. What I may find is that I am now paying toll fees to a developer. But if the developer is truly specialized he will sell off the roads to a toll-company. There are 5.7 million miles of highway in this country so I’m not worried about monopoly pricing or drastic fees. Such road owners still face a downward sloping demand curve and there are substitute ways to leave ones property. The key to remember is that as libertarians we are not efficiency pushers for the state. If someone falls into a zero-sum transaction, then so be it. So you can go and access any land until the rightful owner comes and proves you that you're in the wrong zone? I'm not sure about the libertarian position on this, but I think you have to make sure first that the property you're accessing is unowned rather than access it and leave the burden of proof on the owner. I think this would undermine the libertarian essence of private property, which is to reduce property conflicts. But you may still be right on this: you can access property on your own risk, meaning that you have to make sure that property is unowned before you decide to homestead it. If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law. It may be my personal error in interpretation but I’m finding it hard to narrow the scope of your question. We are only speaking of homesteading and land acquisition as it applies to the case of entrapment correct? If so, we can further narrow our scope to situations where title to land ownership is not traceable. Thus, we are looking at situations where documentation cannot be ascertained, or in essence, when the state is eliminated how do you divide the land? There are many possibilities to do this, which we can discuss after it is submitted that this is indeed what you are referring to but first we must accept that we are only discussing efficiency, not ethics. If Bill Gates out bids everyone for the highways this is no less equitable then it being distributed to the poor (though it may be more or less efficient).
Yes, my question was first with regard to the possibility of homesteading in absence of ownership documentation, and then with regard to division if homesteading under such circumstances is possible. What I can understand from our discussions is that you are free to homestead any property (land in our case) at your own risk, and should be recognized as a legitimate homesteader until the rightful owner comes and presents valid ownership documentation for the land. I'm a little bit confused though, why isn't this a matter of ethics but efficiency? I think that deciding who of those millions of homesteaders (both taxpayers and users) deserve what part of the road is a matter of ethics rather than efficiency.
Bardhyl N. Salihu: Jeremiah Dyke: Bardhyl N. Salihu: Jeremiah Dyke: Stranger: Bardhyl N. Salihu:And no one can assume rightful control of those roads if he doesn't get permission from the original (current) owners (who unfortunately can't be found). If the original owners can't be found, then who cares what they think? Yep, The liability of demonstrating that such assets would have been bequeathed, via the family, etc, falls on the asserter. For example, if a title to a parcel of land had been established, and then the government called upon eminent domain to build a highway through my land, once that government had been disposed, I would (presumably) have proper documentation to show that I still own the land upon which the highway was built, but providing such documentation falls upon me. Conversely, if such parcels were states owned (say a state park) and were sold to developers, who sold it to me, then I must demonstrate that such road access was implicit upon the purchase of the home. What I may find is that I am now paying toll fees to a developer. But if the developer is truly specialized he will sell off the roads to a toll-company. There are 5.7 million miles of highway in this country so I’m not worried about monopoly pricing or drastic fees. Such road owners still face a downward sloping demand curve and there are substitute ways to leave ones property. The key to remember is that as libertarians we are not efficiency pushers for the state. If someone falls into a zero-sum transaction, then so be it. So you can go and access any land until the rightful owner comes and proves you that you're in the wrong zone? I'm not sure about the libertarian position on this, but I think you have to make sure first that the property you're accessing is unowned rather than access it and leave the burden of proof on the owner. I think this would undermine the libertarian essence of private property, which is to reduce property conflicts. But you may still be right on this: you can access property on your own risk, meaning that you have to make sure that property is unowned before you decide to homestead it. If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law. It may be my personal error in interpretation but I’m finding it hard to narrow the scope of your question. We are only speaking of homesteading and land acquisition as it applies to the case of entrapment correct? If so, we can further narrow our scope to situations where title to land ownership is not traceable. Thus, we are looking at situations where documentation cannot be ascertained, or in essence, when the state is eliminated how do you divide the land? There are many possibilities to do this, which we can discuss after it is submitted that this is indeed what you are referring to but first we must accept that we are only discussing efficiency, not ethics. If Bill Gates out bids everyone for the highways this is no less equitable then it being distributed to the poor (though it may be more or less efficient). Yes, my question was first with regard to the possibility of homesteading in absence of ownership documentation, and then with regard to division if homesteading under such circumstances is possible. What I can understand from our discussions is that you are free to homestead any property (land in our case) at your own risk, and should be recognized as a legitimate homesteader until the rightful owner comes and presents valid ownership documentation for the land. I'm a little bit confused though, why isn't this a matter of ethics but efficiency? I think that deciding who of those millions of homesteaders (both taxpayers and users) deserve what part of the road is a matter of ethics rather than efficiency.
I’m open to criticism about the ethical stance, but here is my opinion. Since the land we are discussing is currently under government control, any acquisition to the private sector would free up resources being devoted to it. Thus, people in the southern part of the state will be free from paying for roads in the northern part of the state (vice versa). Who becomes the homesteader (new title holder) is irrelevant to the concern of ethics since the current state of ownership is unethical. Therefore, we only need to decide an efficient way of title transfer.
For example, the state could disappear, leaving the distribution of the land to the first person to mix land-and-labor or proves ownership.
A better way to divide would be for individuals to prove how much money they have invested into it and they would need to be compensated by the buyer. If you make 100,000 a year and .05% of your total wealth is dedicated to state roads you could do some math in terms of a percentage share of each road (like a stock), etc
If the owner is in principle someone you can find, then sure, but if they're not even in principle knowable, then it might as well be unowned.
Jon Irenicus: Unowned property is open for homesteading, not property whose owner you don't know. If that was the case, people in a libertarian society would run into property conflicts on a daily basis. If the owner is in principle someone you can find, then sure, but if they're not even in principle knowable, then it might as well be unowned.
But that is not even the problem here, the problem is that there are multiple claimants to the same state-owned property, and he wants to add to these hypothetical absentees.
Yeah, their claims don't count for much though for the reasons I outlined.
Bardhyl N. Salihu:So you can go and access any land until the rightful owner comes and proves you that you're in the wrong zone? I'm not sure about the libertarian position on this, but I think you have to make sure first that the property you're accessing is unowned rather than access it and leave the burden of proof on the owner. I think this would undermine the libertarian essence of private property, which is to reduce property conflicts. But you may still be right on this: you can access property on your own risk, meaning that you have to make sure that property is unowned before you decide to homestead it. If you make a mistake, you will have to compensate the rightful owner. This in turn would discourage people to engage in such acts, thereby reducing property conflicts in a small scale. Again, I'm not sure about this part of libertarian law.
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, for the would-be trespasser to be guilty of trespass, the owner must prove ownership. The burden of proof will always be on the owner.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
OK, so I guess the roads are open for homesteading and they have been homesteaded all these years by people who paid and used them. Thus now it's a question of dividing the fair share to each of them. Let's assume that is done and all the owners decided to sell their parts to one entrepreneur who wants to operate the entire road. Now we are back to the main question: What happens to people who have only one exit (through this road) and are charged exorbitant prices? Shall we simply accept it as a disadvantage for them due to road owner's exercise of property rights, or is there a direct or indirect solution to this problem? (Please exclude ideas already offered above)