12

The Flawed Private Property Argument Against Immigration

Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 7 months ago to Politics
438 comments | Share | Flag

Private property rights can never be used to imprison people.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 14.
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The land wasn't landlocked prior to the sale, or it would have been deemed a fraudulent sale. But if after the sale, you close off a road that crosses your property that previously was used to access that property, then you would be forced to open it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't see a problem with a reasonable toll based on cost of upkeep.
    By the way, who owns the waterfront. It changes several times a day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No one advocates trespass on your private property, but even you have to have public access in order 'to carry on your activities'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And shortly after that speech, Lincoln had the Federal and State legislators, Governors, and attorney Generals thrown out of office and appointed his own, some not even from the individual state.
    It's never what they say, it's what they do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But Ayn Rand’s position appears to be at variance with your example of the Homestead Act as an implementation of “freedom to travel”. You said: “Public roads or thoroughfares were built into the structure of the Homestead Act.” Ayn Rand states that streets and roads should be “privately owned and privately run.” This clearly includes the right of the owner to refuse access to people that he or she does not wish to have as customers (such as, for instance, drunk drivers). In principle it is no different than the right of a bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Sometimes there may be “practical” difficulties to establishing and maintaining access to a given piece of property, but the free market is fully capable of overcoming such difficulties through transactions that satisfy the self-interest of all parties involved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ prof611 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The reason that I proposed this hypothetical nation was to reduce things to their simplest form, because your essay is much too difficult for me to clearly understand. I was a teacher for over 25 years, and that is what I used to do to explain complex ideas to my students. You, on the other hand, seem to revel in being obtuse. Your reply is a mastery of obfuscation. Telling me that I don't understand is of no help to me at all. If my example is wrong, please tell me what exactly is wrong with it!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah down vote the Gettysburg address...ewv, I assume. The reference was to establish that we the people of the United States own all land within its borders and appoint a government, chosen by the people, to act as the people steward on matter common to all the States. Typical.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is a distinction between preventing trespass on your private property versus claiming that the whole country is collectively "owned" as an excuse to prevent immigration.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A lawyer, wife or trusted friend is an individual who acts freely by right. The government is not and does not. Socialist collective ownership claimed to act on behalf of the collective of people is the opposite of private rights. Government land "ownership" means that no one owns it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ironically -- and inevitably -- it is the statists who are in practice doing the imprisonment under the excuse of land ownership to prevent access. "Landlocking" is generally supposed to be prohibited, yet they engage in it themselves. In a notorious case in Castine, Maine, a man bought water front property coveted by the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, a wealthy viro land trust started and funded with Rockefeller money and with the usual undue influence over government. The land was surrounded on three sides by Trust land and had traditional access across it via a road dating well before the Trust bought the surrounding land. The Trust shut off the access and convinced a sympathetic court to allow it because the inholding faced the water for "access" -- not only was the "access" restricted to the water, the waterfront side of the land faced a high, steep rock cliff down to the water, making it completely inaccessible.

    The Trust subsequently tried to force the new owner to surrender remaining property rights by organizing a "protest" by radical activists staging a "mass trespass" to politically impose a "public right" to an oceanfront trail (copying political techniques previously used in England to seize land rights in the name of the "public"). One of the activists slipped and bragged to a reporter that the Trust had organized it, which the otherwise sympathetic reporter included in the article, not realizing that the Trust tries to create an impression of non-involvement under a good-cop bad-cop scheme.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This government still recognizes grants given to individuals under the Spanish crown to settle land disputes in the Western states.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The discussion is fundamentally about what the rules should be and what they should be based on. "Equally playing by rules" no matter what they are is not the starting point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Much of the actual history of the settlement of the country was in accordance with correct principles despite the sordid history of those who tried to prevent the individualist claims of land ownership.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Our titles to land do not derive from acts of aggression. The land was settled and claimed despite the statism and aggression of both European royalty and primitive tribalists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The jurisdiction of the US government over dispensing unclaimed land in the west to settlers was not based on European grants under God or anyone else. The Kings' grants of land in the earlier colonies were historically nullified or otherwise wrested from their control and eventually ignored as irrelevant.

    Unclaimed lands in this context means unclaimed ownership, not improper political claims by previous statist governments subsequently thrown off the continent..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To your mind you are wrong. It's not a matter of what anyone "wants". Government action is not ownership. Government control is not ownership. Government jurisdiction is not ownership. Acknowledging and recording title to land ownership is not government ownership. The fact of government coercion is not an ownership right. Your confusion is not an expression of objective reality. Government "ownership" is a misuse of the term "ownership" not to be taken literally. Government control of the land claiming to be on behalf of the "people" is a socialist invalid concept of "ownership".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dkhaling...buddy...so far all you have done is question my intelligence.....So please explain to me why I as a third party have any duty whatsoever to this landowner to provide for him a right of way?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not the only way. Case in point. Friend of mine lived on the corner leading to two dead end streets. Traffic was fairly quiet. the area beyond street A. was zoned for development. It required road building. The beginning saw one half given approval the othe half denied approval. Developer bought a lot on Street B and built a road through it to the main area of interest. All perfectly with in the owners rights so far. Street B became a very unpleasant situation. To lessen the traffic on B the City council returned to street A. Owner refused. City needed five feet of the thirty available. Then declared eminent domaina and paid over market value for the 150 x five foot area needed. They also looked at the B Street continuation and took enough to bring that street up to standards to allow fire and emergency vehicles. It had been 2' too narrow. Once in place the new road on Street A allowed a greater traffic flow with decreased problems. Every step was done openly and with in the confines of the law. The recalcitrant owner sold out and left. The new owner said. I want a sidewalk on both sides. May i donate the land? It looks like a waiver of set back o f less than a foot. Everyone still living their was happy. The road on B Street was shut down and a house built on the lot. The sleep neighbor hood returned. Eminent Domain was never used. The first owner just signed the permission papers then sold out. But it would have been. Ability and will to use it. That town had a number of similar problems. No one had looked ahead or thought it through saying we'll never need that! 300 became 1200 became 2000 an now it's on it's way to 10,000. population. Why? The land use plan is set in stone and everyone is afraid to let the State back in asking for a change. At 5,000 they will need a new sewer and water system upgrade. Davis - Bacon will enter the picture again. No one wants to let the federal government in either. It's cheaper to buy up the the area and make a big park.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo