login about faq

Regarding land in its natural state, pre-ownership, is ownership established over a walkway merely by man walking over it? Or is this temporary use not sufficient to establish ownership? If it is sufficient, how would a man establish that he was the first to walk it? If only repeated use is sufficient to establish ownership, what would happen when two objectivists simultaneously claim first rights of ownership? What if it is 10 Objectivsts - or 100? Wouldn't rational men conclude that it would be most efficient to share ownership of the established way? Ultimately, doesn't this rational decisionmaking lead to the establishment public ways with voluntarily chosen shared ownership rights and obligations? Aren't we, Objectivists, ignoring the nature of land and man's relationship to it, when we espouse the concept that ALL roads should be privately owned?

asked Nov 21 '13 at 10:41

MarcMercier's gravatar image

MarcMercier ♦
6712

edited Nov 22 '13 at 15:44

Walking over it is not sufficient, and private ownership doesn't prevent shared ownership a la joint tenancy.

When I read the statement that ALL roads should be privately owned I don't think it's meant to apply to unimproved paths in the wilderness. Roads are necessarily built and maintained by people.

(Nov 23 '13 at 06:41) anthony anthony's gravatar image

The topic of establishing original ownership of property is discussed in Ayn Rand's book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Chapter 10, "The Property Status of Airwaves." The article points to the Homestead Act of 1862 as a model for "establishing private ownership from scratch, in a previously ownerless area":

The government offered a 160-acre farm to any adult citizen who would settle on it and cultivate it for five years, after which it would become his property.... The citizens did not have to pay the government as if it were an owner; ownership began with them, and they earned it by the method which is the source and root of the concept of "property": by working on unused material resources, by turning a wilderness into a civilized settlement. Thus, the government, in this case, was acting not as the owner but as the custodian of ownerless resources who defines objectively impartial rules by which potential owners may acquire them.

The article goes on to explain that this pattern was not followed in the case of radio frequencies, but should have been. The article describes all the problems created by the idea of "public ownership" of radio frequencies and of broadcasters as duty-bound to serve the "public interest," and how that will end in outright censorship of broadcasting if the trend is not reversed. The article concludes:

The airways should be turned over to private ownership. The only way to do it now is to sell radio and television frequencies to the highest bidders (by an objectively defined, open, impartial process) -- and thus put an end to the gruesome fiction of "public property."

The question, however, concludes:

Aren't we, Objectivists, ignoring the nature of land and man's relationship to it, when we espouse the concept that ALL roads should be privately owned?

The issue of property rights extends far beyond roads. Ayn Rand's article begins with the following:

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property -- by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

This is not a denial of "the nature of land and man's relationship to it." On the contrary, it is a recognition of the law of causality, of the fact that the man-made is man-made, and that the makers rightfully have the first claim to it. Most roads, for example, are not merely "beaten paths," but have to be built and maintained. By whom? By what right does anyone else presume to exercise ownership over the builders' achievements? If the builders want to make their roads available to others voluntarily in a trade of some kind, either as business-to-consumer or in association with other owners as part of a larger enterprise, it's their right to do so; the right to property includes the right to offer it in mutually voluntary trade. (And "beaten paths" previously managed by government can be auctioned off as a means of converting them to private ownership.)

answered Nov 23 '13 at 01:04

Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Ideas for Life ♦
467718

Most roads, for example, are not merely "beaten paths," but have to be built and maintained. By whom? By what right does anyone else presume to exercise ownership over the builders' achievements?

In many cases the builder voluntarily relinquished their exclusive ownership by designating the area as a right of way. And the government then took over the job of maintenance.

I ask in another question ( http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/927/is-the-concept-of-a-right-of-way-legitimate ) whether or not a ROW is legitimate, and you seem to say it is. But a ROW isn't a privately owned.

(Nov 23 '13 at 06:47) anthony anthony's gravatar image

Here is a link to the ROW discussion. As I noted in my answer to that previous discussion, the term "legitimacy" may have epistemological, ethical, and/or political aspects. I also noted that many current principles of law may need to change under a proper system of laissez-faire with a proper government.

(Nov 23 '13 at 21:01) Ideas for Life ♦ Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Yeah, my current feeling is that the right of way is probably one of those principles, because it's epistemologically, ethically, and politically illegitimate. A property right can't be owned by everybody. Forget if it's a good idea or not. It's just not possible.

(Nov 24 '13 at 09:26) anthony anthony's gravatar image
showing 2 of 3 show all

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Share This Page:

Tags:

×154
×88
×39

Asked: Nov 21 '13 at 10:41

Seen: 792 times

Last updated: Nov 24 '13 at 09:34