Public to private roads, the hang up for me.

[klamath]

I can remember as teenager arguing passionately for all public roads being sold to private companies but I have problems with it now.
Millions of people have lost land to public imminent domain takings for the public roads in front of peoples houses. As most people around here I believe that private businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone. If I as a land owner had lost land for those roads I sure as hell would be pissed off if those public roads created by government takings are sold to a private corporation that could deny me access to my own property.
I can't see it as right for a private business to be handed this infrastructure created by governments along with the power to completely to control my property. This strikes me way to close to the power granted to the FED.
Private new roads are a different story.

[dannno]

I think it would be a different story if the Fed wasn't propping up these private corporations and funding their purchases of these roads.

I am not for privatizing roads at the moment, but I could imagine a scenario in a more free country where it would likely be the best solution.

[jkr]

private all terrain hovercraft...seriously

where we are going, we won't need "roads"

it is the design solution to a designed challenge(thats german for problem)

[tangent4ronpaul]

I think it would be a different story if the Fed wasn't propping up these private corporations and funding their purchases of these roads.

I am not for privatizing roads at the moment, but I could imagine a scenario in a more free country where it would likely be the best solution.

PURCHASE of these roads??? LOL!

we get robbed both to build them and through the taking of land - then the government GIVES these companies the roads in exchange for them maintaining them and the expected tax revenue. So we get to pay for them once, and then we have to pay for them again every time we want to use one.

GOVERNMENT SUCKS!

TOLL ROADS SUCK!

-t

[cheapseats]

Privatized infrastructure is an engraved invitation to Tyranny, via Monopoly.

[tangent4ronpaul]

private all terrain hovercraft...seriously

where we are going, we won't need "roads"

it is the design solution to a designed challenge(thats german for problem)

actually - I think you own so many feed of air above your property - just like owners of beach front property own something like 100' of water out from their beach...

anyone know?

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Privatized infrastructure is an engraved invitation to Tyranny, via Monopoly.

Kucinich was right about the power company in his area.

-t

[Meatwasp]

private all terrain hovercraft...seriously

where we are going, we won't need "roads"

it is the design solution to a designed challenge(thats german for problem)

I hope I am still around when that happens

[LibertyEagle]

But, if the company legitimately bought the lands, without any government help whatsoever, and paid to build and maintain the road themselves, there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

However, from what I have seen, what's going on right now is what tangent is talking about. :(

[jmdrake]

private all terrain hovercraft...seriously

where we are going, we won't need "roads"

it is the design solution to a designed challenge(thats german for problem)

Hovercraft only operate a few inches off the ground. While the might dispense with the need for roads it still requires the need to traverse across rights of way. You'd have to go a step further to a skycar.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01119/skycar_1119673i.jpg

[klamath]

private all terrain hovercraft...seriously

where we are going, we won't need "roads"

it is the design solution to a designed challenge(thats german for problem)

the trouble with hovercraft is they have to stay within ground effect hover. usually less than one half the diameter of the fan or rotor. Might not be appreciated to have people flying one half rotor disc over peoples houses.:D

[klamath]

But, if the company legitimately bought the lands, without any government help whatsoever, and paid to build and maintain the road themselves, there's nothing wrong with that, is there?However, from what I have seen, what's going on right now is what tangent is talking about. :(

I have not problem sith this. It is the public to private tranfer that gets me.

[heavenlyboy34]

excerpted from- (http://www.dullesgreenway.com/)
Private Roads Work (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/frazier3.html)


(http://www.dullesgreenway.com/)
The Dulles Greenway (http://www.dullesgreenway.com/) is a private road built in the western suburbs of Washington, D.C., in 1995. Though constructed with some restrictions set by the state, it was built with private money and is run as a for-profit business. The first year it opened, 6.1 million trips were made on the road. In 2006, 21 million trips were made. This type of private toll road has the ability to move large numbers of people without the aforementioned problems associated with the federal interstates that we are told are indispensable. It has shown its viability, and we might well be seeing many more of these private toll roads in the future.
One interesting example of private roads is in the city of North Oaks, Michigan (http://www.cityofnorth-oaks.com/). Not only does the city not own the roads, it doesn’t own any property. As it states on its website, “Because residents’ properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests only.” Perhaps one of these days cities such as North Oaks will be the norm.

[jmdrake]

actually - I think you own so many feet of air above your property - just like owners of beach front property own something like 100' of water out from their beach...

anyone know?

-t

From Wikipedia (not a perfect reference I know):

"At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land".

That sounds about right. Not a problem if we're talking about aircraft flying higher than this "reasonable amount" limit.

[Meatwasp]

Hovercraft only operate a few inches off the ground. While the might dispense with the need for roads it still requires the need to traverse across rights of way. You'd have to go a step further to a skycar.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01119/skycar_1119673i.jpg

I had this thing in my dream that the crafts would be made from a thick plastic that would not disenagrate in the sum. and if you crash you wouldn't hurt yourself. Also in my dream I saw magnets running it. Whatever that means .
sapping into the magnetic force of earth perhaps.

Not to high jack the thread proceed

[tangent4ronpaul]

From Wikipedia (not a perfect reference I know):

"At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land".

That sounds about right. Not a problem if we're talking about aircraft flying higher than this "reasonable amount" limit.

That sounds about right. The min legal altitude for aircraft is what 1,000' or 10,000'??? Well, except those that are "above" the law - you know - police and mil helo's/fighters... that like to fly over at near treetop level sometimes.... One would hope one didn't come along when I was firing off some of meh model rockets... though I haven't done that since I was a kid. Just sayin!

-t

[klamath]

That sounds about right. The min legal altitude for aircraft is what 1,000' or 10,000'??? Well, except those that are "above" the law - you know - police and mil helo's/fighters... that like to fly over at near treetop level sometimes.... One would hope one didn't come along when I was firing off some of meh model rockets... though I haven't done that since I was a kid. Just sayin!

-t

It's a 1000 feet above cities which is not really private property based but FAA airspace rules based.

[mczerone]

I have not problem sith this. It is the public to private tranfer that gets me.

I have a master plan for this.

Like Rome, the public works must be first split into a public triumvirate. After allocating all govt processes to each branch equally, the law of each must allow private competition in all areas and free alienability of the services provided by each branch.

That's it.


(Why 3? Why not 2 or 4? If there were only 2, then any conflict between them would be stalemated. There needs to be at least 3 to allow independent judgment of inevitable conflicts. So why not more? That's why free competition must be allowed: I'm not claiming that 3 is optimal, but that it is minimal, if 4 agencies need to provide justice, a fourth may be freely formed. If that proves inefficient or ineffective, a 5th or 6th may start up.)

[heavenlyboy34]

Privatized infrastructure is an engraved invitation to Tyranny, via Monopoly.

Only if "privatized" means owned by corporations(a government-created legal fiction). I don't see how private citizens or companies is any more "tyrannical" than those same people owning billboards, media outlets, theaters, etc.

Besides, we already have tyranny via (government) monopoly. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Further, here in AZ, we have an "Adopt a highway" program, in which private people can "adopt" highways-yet there is no tyranny. (granted this is not true privatization, but it is a halfway step) :cool:

[LibertyEagle]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01119/skycar_1119673i.jpg

oooooohhhh. I want one. :D

[tangent4ronpaul]

I have not problem sith this. It is the public to private tranfer that gets me.

This goes way past roads. So called "technology transfers" happen all the time. Research done with our tax dollars, the fruits of which are supposed to be "our" property. Look at NTIS - they charge out the nose for the results of gvmt research. The state dept language courses are supposed to be excellent, but some private company was given the rights to them and now they are only affordable by major corps. NSA has come up with some very cool algorithms - but they have been given away and only marketed as part of a propriatary product in mega-expensive products - but they have many, many uses that have nothing to do with snooping...

and on, and on...

It gets worse - the gvmt had gotten in the habit of using copy-written material in many manuals for an illustration or two and use this as a pretext to deny the public access to said documents/manuals.

-t

[mczerone]

It's a 1000 feet above cities which is not really private property based but FAA airspace rules based.

It's private property as far as airline companies can communicate ownership and defend it from intrusion. What does the FAA have to do with anything, aside from raising the same problems that the NTSB does on the ground?

[jkr]

the infrastructure is already here.
we just need to change the game
pot holes are non factors
roadways stay open because "wear" decreases
little hovering bumper cars...everywhere

think of the jobs...

[NYgs23]

I can't see it as right for a private business to be handed this infrastructure created by governments along with the power to completely to control my property.

You don't control the property now. It hardly makes a difference to me whether the original thief (government) still holds the stolen goods or whether he handed it to his accomplices. You are right, however, that this is a problem, not just with roads, but with the privitization of all "public" property. Often, "privitization" simply amounts to the government giving away loot to its corporate cronies, under the mask of a "free market" reform. This is little more than rank feudalism, but, needless to say, it does nothing but smear honest free market principles.

Ideally, all that property should be "privatized" by being given back to its owners. But usually this is impossible: the original owners are nowhere to be found or would be unable to prove their case. The solution offered by Murray Rothbard, which I agree with, is that, if no previous legitimate owner can demonstrate a claim, governments should simply abandon their "property" leaving it unowned and open to homesteading. Thus, the government should simply abandon the roads and allow people to take them over on a first-use basis.

[tangent4ronpaul]

oooooohhhh. I want one. :D

Ditto! - but I think they start at about 1 Mil each....

-t

[mczerone]

This goes way past roads. So called "technology transfers" happen all the time. Research done with our tax dollars, the fruits of which are supposed to be "our" property. Look at NTIS - they charge out the nose for the results of gvmt research. The state dept language courses are supposed to be excellent, but some private company was given the rights to them and now they are only affordable by major corps. NSA has come up with some very cool algorithms - but they have been given away and only marketed as part of a propriatary product in mega-expensive products - but they have many, many uses that have nothing to do with snooping...

and on, and on...

It gets worse - the gvmt had gotten in the habit of using copy-written material in many manuals for an illustration or two and use this as a pretext to deny the public access to said documents/manuals.

-t

RSA encryption can be done with a cheap graphing calculator, but patent law has made it prohibitively expense for the common consumer to actually secure their information. And RSA encryption is no more patentable than the fact that the operation 2+3=5 is reversible if you ask what you get when you take 3 away from 5. It's a little more complicated, but you basically have a function that has very high costs of invertability (to find which inputs correspond to a specific output), and you can't use it because it was developed for use in 'national security' applications.

[Justin D]

I'm thinking that some highways could be privately owned so that the road would be properly maintained to accomodate high speed traffic. Side roads could become common property to be used by slow moving traffic. This way people could have unrestricted access to their private property.

[tangent4ronpaul]

excerpted from- (http://www.dullesgreenway.com/)
Private Roads Work (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/frazier3.html)


(http://www.dullesgreenway.com/)
The Dulles Greenway (http://www.dullesgreenway.com/) is a private road built in the western suburbs of Washington, D.C., in 1995. Though constructed with some restrictions set by the state, it was built with private money and is run as a for-profit business. The first year it opened, 6.1 million trips were made on the road. In 2006, 21 million trips were made. This type of private toll road has the ability to move large numbers of people without the aforementioned problems associated with the federal interstates that we are told are indispensable. It has shown its viability, and we might well be seeing many more of these private toll roads in the future.
One interesting example of private roads is in the city of North Oaks, Michigan (http://www.cityofnorth-oaks.com/). Not only does the city not own the roads, it doesn’t own any property. As it states on its website, “Because residents’ properties extend to halfway across the road, all residential roads in the City are private and for the use of North Oaks residents and their invited guests only.” Perhaps one of these days cities such as North Oaks will be the norm.

I've used the Dulles Greenway - didn't know it was built with private $$$ - first one I've ever heard of that was built this way.

I do GUARANTEE you that emanate domain was used to steal the land. No way that could have been built without it.

Also, they have cops waiting like speed traps by the toll gates for toll jumpers and patrolling it. Real "private" - hu?

-t

[klamath]

It's private property as far as airline companies can communicate ownership and defend it from intrusion. What does the FAA have to do with anything, aside from raising the same problems that the NTSB does on the ground?
Not quite sure what your point is but I was stating that the airspace limits the FAA rules apply are based on their own ideas but not the private ownership of airspace rules set up by the SCOTUS

[tangent4ronpaul]

RSA encryption can be done with a cheap graphing calculator, but patent law has made it prohibitively expense for the common consumer to actually secure their information. And RSA encryption is no more patentable than the fact that the operation 2+3=5 is reversible if you ask what you get when you take 3 away from 5. It's a little more complicated, but you basically have a function that has very high costs of invertability (to find which inputs correspond to a specific output), and you can't use it because it was developed for use in 'national security' applications.

RSA was developed by academics, not the government. It does, however fall under ITAR regulations re: export restrictions and key length in this country is restricted. You can get software with much stronger keys from overseas sites.

The cat is out of the bag!

-t

[johnrocks]

Pardon the pun but that too is a road I can't go down, a private road here and there,sure but totally, it just wouldn't work, you'd have toll booths every mile and they'd be crooked as hell with so many not wanting a road going through their property.

[klamath]

This goes way past roads. So called "technology transfers" happen all the time. Research done with our tax dollars, the fruits of which are supposed to be "our" property. Look at NTIS - they charge out the nose for the results of gvmt research. The state dept language courses are supposed to be excellent, but some private company was given the rights to them and now they are only affordable by major corps. NSA has come up with some very cool algorithms - but they have been given away and only marketed as part of a propriatary product in mega-expensive products - but they have many, many uses that have nothing to do with snooping...

and on, and on...

It gets worse - the gvmt had gotten in the habit of using copy-written material in many manuals for an illustration or two and use this as a pretext to deny the public access to said documents/manuals.

-t

The FCC is another one. The FCC used to issue radio licenses based on bandwith and interference but they handed it over to a private corporation. If a person wants a license for a commercial radio transmiter he has to find out if he will be interfering with any current users on his own but then has to pay this private corporation for the license when they did absolutely nothing except collect the money. This is what gives privatization a bad name.

[Elwar]

When purchasing property, the seller may put whatever terms they want on the purchase agreement. What would most likely happen would be that the seller (the government) would add a stipulation of free movement for those who live along that road or require it for movement.
As the Tiger Woods debacle showed, there are private roads in front of people's houses and the private company has not held the homeowners hostage with the monopoly of their access.

As for the government stealing your land and then selling it to a private company...the issue here is the theft. Would you be against the government selling off it's other lands?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Would you be against the government selling off it's other lands?

Depends - selling off the national forests/parks would be a disaster!

-t

[Meatwasp]

I don't know if this was mentioned. There is an outfit called Nature conservancy. They have approached me wanted to buy the Flat. I know about those people . The buy private property and than sell it to the government and making the government ownership of land even greater.

[klamath]

When purchasing property, the seller may put whatever terms they want on the purchase agreement. What would most likely happen would be that the seller (the government) would add a stipulation of free movement for those who live along that road or require it for movement.
As the Tiger Woods debacle showed, there are private roads in front of people's houses and the private company has not held the homeowners hostage with the monopoly of their access.

As for the government stealing your land and then selling it to a private company...the issue here is the theft. Would you be against the government selling off it's other lands?

In the case of a government forcing the business to provide rightaways then it is no different than public owned corporation except the public one would be non profit. There is no room for a competitive road option for those land owners in which case it is a monoply with no checks or balances. Some places it would work, some places it would not.

[Anti Federalist]

But, if the company legitimately bought the lands, without any government help whatsoever, and paid to build and maintain the road themselves, there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

However, from what I have seen, what's going on right now is what tangent is talking about. :(

I would think there would be no problem, as long as they didn't do what railroads did in the 19th century, which paved the way for Kelo in 2005: use government eminent domain power in order to force people to turn over their property to a private company.

Turning over publicly built roads to private speculators after the roads have been bought and paid for, people displaced from the land they were on and then charging money above and beyond what the upkeep costs of the road are, is not "private enterprise" or "free market" in any way, shape or form.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

The whole "public" vs. "private" thing is kind of a false dichotomy, and I wish an-caps would stop perpetuating it.

From the standpoint of Lockean/Rothbardian/RonPaulian property rights, all roads are effectively unowned (just as with anything else that tax dollars have tainted), being the product of theft and violence. What's to be done with things like roads, which are shared by the public, is just a logical extension of what happens when someone refuses to pay taxes - they should be taken control of by those who immediately benefit from them.

Let's say 5 miles of Road X runs through Libertytown. The folks of Libertytown should make a pact to take care of this strip of road in what way they can, guard it with guns if necessary, and firmly tell the state to go fuck itself. If this happened in a few choice places around the country, half our work would be done.


The anarchist caucus of the Young Americans for Freedom, in their 1969 manifesto The "Tranquil" Statement (its authors included Karl Hess), expressed sympathy with radical students who had occupied their college campuses. In response to right-wing denunciations of such crimes against "private property," the Statement remarked that

the issue of private property does not belong in a discussion of American universities. Even those universities that pass as private institutions are, in fact, either heavily subsidized by federal grants, or, as in many cases, supported by federal research funds. Columbia University is an excellent example. Nearly two thirds of Columbia's income comes from governmental rather than private sources. How, then, can anyone reasonably or morally consider Columbia University to be private [?].... And in so far as it is public (government owned) property (that is, stolen property), the radical libertarian is justifiedin seizing that property and returning it to private or communal control. This, of course, applies to every institution of learning that is either subsidized by the government or in any way aiding the government in its usurpation of man's basic rights. (3)

Private corporations "in any way" receiving government subsidies, of course, might be excused for seeing ominous potential in this principle.

Murray Rothbard, taking the same position in an editorial in The Libertarian, ridiculed the "grotesque" Randian argument that Columbia was "private property," and that the students therefore were in violation of these "sacred rights":

Apart from the various specific tie-ins with the State which the Columbia rebels were pinpointing..., nearly two-thirds of Columbia's income comes from governmental rather than private sources. How in the world can we continue to call it a private institution?...

To defend the "private-property" rights of "frankly state-owned" universities was, self evidently, absurd. In such cases,

government property is always and everywhere fair game for the libertarian; for the libertarian must rejoice every time any piece of governmental, and therefore stolen, property is returned by any means necessary to the private sector.... Therefore, the libertarian must cheer any attempt to return stolen, governmental property to the private sector: whether it be in the cry, "The streets belong to the people", or "the parks belong to the people", or the schools belong to those who use them, i.e. the students and faculty. The libertarian believes that things not properly owned revert to the first person who uses and possesses them, e.g. the homesteader who first clears and uses virgin land; similarly, the libertarian must support any attempt by campus "homesteaders" the students and faculty, to seize power in the universities from the governmental or quasi-governmental bureaucracy. (4)

-Kevin Carson, Libertarian Property and Privatization (http://www.mutualist.org/id45.html)

[klamath]

I my part of the woods where people are buying rural tracks of land and building houses on them, they are forming road associations where all the people on the road system pay yearly dues to keep the snow plowed, graded and repaired. I know some people refuse to pay and there are no teeth in the association to force them so they pretty much get the free use of the work of the association.

[pdavis]

The whole "public" vs. "private" thing is kind of a false dichotomy, and I wish an-caps would stop perpetuating it.

From the standpoint of Lockean/Rothbardian/RonPaulian property rights, all roads are effectively unowned (just as with anything else that tax dollars have tainted), being the product of theft and violence. What's to be done with things like roads, which are shared by the public, is just a logical extension of what happens when someone refuses to pay taxes - they should be taken control of by those who immediately benefit from them.

Let's say 5 miles of Road X runs through Libertytown. The folks of Libertytown should make a pact to take care of this strip of road in what way they can, guard it with guns if necessary, and firmly tell the state to go fuck itself. If this happened in a few choice places around the country, half our work would be done.



-Kevin Carson, Libertarian Property and Privatization (http://www.mutualist.org/id45.html)

+1

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I can remember as teenager arguing passionately for all public roads being sold to private companies but I have problems with it now.
Millions of people have lost land to public imminent domain takings for the public roads in front of peoples houses. As most people around here I believe that private businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone. If I as a land owner had lost land for those roads I sure as hell would be pissed off if those public roads created by government takings are sold to a private corporation that could deny me access to my own property.
I can't see it as right for a private business to be handed this infrastructure created by governments along with the power to completely to control my property. This strikes me way to close to the power granted to the FED.
Private new roads are a different story.

Public property is owned by the people. Private property isn't. Why would you desire to take away property from the people?
See, you don't seem to understand that the king (emperor) once owned everything including private and public property. As the first born customarily went into the employment of the king (monarchy), the second born by tradition went into the services of the pope (Church). All other children in the family went about the illegal business of surviving on property owned by the king and the pope. What was the result of this? A penalty or, as it would later be known, a tax.
Over the years and after buckets and buckets of blood, the property transferred over from the king to the people.
So, why are you so willing to let them give it back to tyranny?

[klamath]

Public property is owned by the people. Private property isn't. Why would you desire to take away property from the people?
See, you don't seem to understand that the king (emperor) once owned everything including private and public property. As the first born customarily went into the employment of the king (monarchy), the second born by tradition went into the services of the pope (Church). All other children in the family went about the illegal business of surviving on property owned by the king and the pope. What was the result of this? A penalty or, as it would later be known, a tax.
Over the years and after buckets and buckets of blood, the property transferred over from the king to the people.
So, why are you so willing to let them give it back to tyranny?
???

[malkusm]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, and I haven't read it myself (it's only been out for a year or so), but I have a great deal of respect for Walter Block:

http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Roads-Highways-Walter-Block/dp/193355004X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259797068&sr=8-1

I will reserve judgment on the subject until I read it. (Perhaps this is a good gift request for us all to make during the holiday season?) :)

[tremendoustie]

I can remember as teenager arguing passionately for all public roads being sold to private companies but I have problems with it now.
Millions of people have lost land to public imminent domain takings for the public roads in front of peoples houses. As most people around here I believe that private businesses have the right to refuse business to anyone. If I as a land owner had lost land for those roads I sure as hell would be pissed off if those public roads created by government takings are sold to a private corporation that could deny me access to my own property.
I can't see it as right for a private business to be handed this infrastructure created by governments along with the power to completely to control my property. This strikes me way to close to the power granted to the FED.
Private new roads are a different story.

You have the right to access your property -- a person can't buy up a ring around your property and choke you off. It's called right to travel -- it's been around for a long time. Property borders often became right-of-ways for locals.

Also, I think the proper way to cede residential roads back to the people is for each homeowner to regain the road near him/her. Only major highways and the like would be auctioned off.

[klamath]

You have the right to access your property -- a person can't buy up a ring around your property and choke you off. It's called right to travel -- it's been around for a long time. Property borders often became right-of-ways for locals.

Also, I think the proper way to cede residential roads back to the people is for each homeowner to regain the road near him/her. Only major highways and the like would be auctioned off.

So what happens when certain property owners decide to only let those people they want on that road in front of their property?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

???

Okay. Let us use Walmart as an example here. Let's say the supermarket decides to support the state in taking away any easement from the people. In other words, if the Walmart employees decide to campaign for a Union, then they will need the easement so they will be off Walmart property. This area is that portion of the easement, public property, that is owned by the people along the street or freeway. By the state taking away easement from the people, the people lose the right to campaign for unions or whatever makes them happy.
But ultimately Walmart itself will lose its own property back to tyranny. In other words, as public property continues to be owned less by the people and more by the necessary tyranny set up to control the people, then less and less people who own Walmart will own the property that Walmart sets upon.
So, it is actually in the best interest of Walmart to support the people in their campaign to own public property.
You know, you put those question marks in your post like a sophisticate who knows what he or she is talking about. Yet, humorous as it is, what I know is self evident and unalienable meaning that I needn't the services of an education or of an expert to explain it to me.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So what happens when certain property owners decide to only let those people they want on that road in front of their property?

How is that enforceable? Secondly, it's in their best interests to keep that road as a right-to-travel thoroughway. Besides in many residential areas the street infront of your house, or at least in part, is owned by you. How often do we hear of these things? It's no different than sidewalks in front of your house. Yes, people actually do care about their neighbors.

All secondary roads, that is, all non-highway roads should be immediately ceded back to the rightful owners. What would then happen in pretty much every case would be the selling of the roads to private companies.

For Highways and inter-states they should be immediately sold to private companies. Eminent Domain should be immediately repealed and made illegal. Not only that, but building codes and regulations should be repealed, or in the very least amended to allow for unrestrained and unfettered road, bridge, etc. construction.

In 5 years you would immediately see a 100% increase in the quality of the roads, and traffic times would be drastically reduced. The State could careless about what we think of the roads, we are stuck. Many times politicians don't care until the roads are so bad that it becomes a priority. Even then, it is glossed over.

For those who fear private monopolies let me tell you, that no private company would tell anyone they couldn't drive on their roads. For instance, in towns businesses would pay a small fee for unobstructed thorough fare, and as we have now, we would have meters for parking. Payment wouldn't be a problem. The roads would be far more accessible in a private system than they currently are now. Secondly, innovation/profit motive would spur amazing growth and renaissance. For instance triple layered highways. You could have 8 line highways on the same stretch of land we have now that is used for roads.

To keep traffic flowing, more than likely the payment would be through subscription. Sticker on your car. This all ready happens on many private roads. People are willing to pay more for reduced transit times. For instance, in Florida there are the "public" roads with no tolls, that take forever to transit, then there are toll roads that cost a few bucks and reduce your travel times by over 200-300%. Many people choose the latter than the former. Roads would be a very lucrative business.

YouTube - 20/20 - Bailouts & Bull**** - Pt. 2 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1Gw)

Also read Block's privatization of the roads.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So what happens when certain property owners decide to only let those people they want on that road in front of their property?

Yes. I have explained this to a homeless person being forced to walk along the feeder of a freeway to get to a tent he'd set up in the woods. I advised him that he had the right to walk on the parking lot in order to get from public easement to public easement and then eventually to the property he was trespassing on.
By the way, the New Covenant: Love thy neighbor as thyself, only applied to the early Christian slaves meeting under overturned vessels as trespassers. Don't believe me? Well, then try loving the physical neighbor living next to you sometime as yourself. Until I tried this, I got along with the neighbor to the east of me. I haven't much talked to them since. My other neighbor dumped his heavy garbage in front of my yard causing me to receive a 250 dollar citation.
But, yes, we do have the right to get to our property if no road allows us to.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

How is that enforceable? Secondly, it's in their best interests to keep that road as a right-to-travel thoroughway. Besides in many residential areas the street infront of your house, or at least in part, is owned by you. How often do we hear of these things? It's no different than sidewalks in front of your house. Yes, people actually do care about their neighbors.

All secondary roads, that is, all non-highway roads should be immediately ceded back to the rightful owners. What would then happen in pretty much every case would be the selling of the roads to private companies.

For Highways and inter-states they should be immediately sold to private companies. Eminent Domain should be immediately repealed and made illegal. Not only that, but building codes and regulations should be repealed, or in the very least amended to allow for unrestrained and unfettered road, bridge, etc. construction.

In 5 years you would immediately see a 100% increase in the quality of the roads, and traffic times would be drastically reduced. The State could careless about what we think of the roads, we are stuck. Many times politicians don't care until the roads are so bad that it becomes a priority. Even then, it is glossed over.

For those who fear private monopolies let me tell you, that no private company would tell anyone they couldn't drive on their roads. For instance, in towns businesses would pay a small fee for unobstructed thorough fare, and as we have now, we would have meters for parking. Payment wouldn't be a problem. The roads would be far more accessible in a private system than they currently are now. Secondly, innovation/profit motive would spur amazing growth and renaissance. For instance triple layered highways. You could have 8 line highways on the same stretch of land we have now that is used for roads.

To keep traffic flowing, more than likely the payment would be through subscription. Sticker on your car. This all ready happens on many private roads. People are willing to pay more for reduced transit times. For instance, in Florida there are the "public" roads with no tolls, that take forever to transit, then there are toll roads that cost a few bucks and reduce your travel times by over 200-300%. Many people choose the latter than the former. Roads would be a very lucrative business.

YouTube - 20/20 - Bailouts & Bull**** - Pt. 2 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1Gw)

Also read Block's privatization of the roads.

Perhaps we need to quit thinking so much so that we can get in touch with our collective conscience where the self evident and unalienable truth resides. Once we understand that this truth is indestructable and, thus, undeniable, then we won't be worried so much about trying to manipulate others towards that which is in their best interest. All this high mindedness is supposed to be the way of the stuffy Europeans while we are supposed to be out fishing or whatever makes us happy.

[klamath]

Okay. Let us use Walmart as an example here. Let's say the supermarket decides to support the state in taking away any easement from the people. In other words, if the Walmart employees decide to campaign for a Union, then they will need the easement so they will be off Walmart property. This area is that portion of the easement, public property, that is owned by the people along the street or freeway. By the state taking away easement from the people, the people lose the right to campaign for unions or whatever makes them happy.
But ultimately Walmart itself will lose its own property back to tyranny. In other words, as public property continues to be owned less by the people and more by the necessary tyranny set up to control the people, then less and less people who own Walmart will own the property that Walmart sets upon.
So, it is actually in the best interest of Walmart to support the people in their campaign to own public property.
You know, you put those question marks in your post like a sophisticate who knows what he or she is talking about. Yet, humorous as it is, what I know is self evident and unalienable meaning that I needn't the services of an education or of an expert to explain it to me.

I put those question marks because I was not sure what you were saying but your reply was rather insulting. Oh well.

People can drap their natural rights, constitutional rights, etc. like a sheet over the real and only true law of the universe, pure brutal force, but the real law is always and forever rearing it head up through the sheet. In other words all of our civilized rights are laying on a foundation of the real law. He who can harness the true law of the universe will win. Many of men attempt but most die because the law kills them.

[klamath]

How is that enforceable? Secondly, it's in their best interests to keep that road as a right-to-travel thoroughway. Besides in many residential areas the street infront of your house, or at least in part, is owned by you. How often do we hear of these things? It's no different than sidewalks in front of your house. Yes, people actually do care about their neighbors.

All secondary roads, that is, all non-highway roads should be immediately ceded back to the rightful owners. What would then happen in pretty much every case would be the selling of the roads to private companies.

For Highways and inter-states they should be immediately sold to private companies. Eminent Domain should be immediately repealed and made illegal. Not only that, but building codes and regulations should be repealed, or in the very least amended to allow for unrestrained and unfettered road, bridge, etc. construction.

In 5 years you would immediately see a 100% increase in the quality of the roads, and traffic times would be drastically reduced. The State could careless about what we think of the roads, we are stuck. Many times politicians don't care until the roads are so bad that it becomes a priority. Even then, it is glossed over.

For those who fear private monopolies let me tell you, that no private company would tell anyone they couldn't drive on their roads. For instance, in towns businesses would pay a small fee for unobstructed thorough fare, and as we have now, we would have meters for parking. Payment wouldn't be a problem. The roads would be far more accessible in a private system than they currently are now. Secondly, innovation/profit motive would spur amazing growth and renaissance. For instance triple layered highways. You could have 8 line highways on the same stretch of land we have now that is used for roads.

To keep traffic flowing, more than likely the payment would be through subscription. Sticker on your car. This all ready happens on many private roads. People are willing to pay more for reduced transit times. For instance, in Florida there are the "public" roads with no tolls, that take forever to transit, then there are toll roads that cost a few bucks and reduce your travel times by over 200-300%. Many people choose the latter than the former. Roads would be a very lucrative business.

YouTube - 20/20 - Bailouts & Bull**** - Pt. 2 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1Gw)

Also read Block's privatization of the roads.

Concrete T barriers. I know of multiple cases of people shuting down access to rightaways on their property. The courts are filled with cases of neighbors at war in court over rightaways. most of it because personal fights.
Quality of roads only improve if you have competition.

[LibForestPaul]

I would think there would be no problem, as long as they didn't do what railroads did in the 19th century, which paved the way for Kelo in 2005: use government eminent domain power in order to force people to turn over their property to a private company.

Turning over publicly built roads to private speculators after the roads have been bought and paid for, people displaced from the land they were on and then charging money above and beyond what the upkeep costs of the road are, is not "private enterprise" or "free market" in any way, shape or form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Why hasn't any libertarians taken over and "given bank" the land? Theres nothing there! Any libertarians here in Conn want to run for city office? I'll donate...

[LibForestPaul]

IMHO, that would be the perfect opening salvo for libertarian party/ GOP takeover...

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I put those question marks because I was not sure what you were saying but your reply was rather insulting. Oh well.

People can drap their natural rights, constitutional rights, etc. like a sheet over the real and only true law of the universe, pure brutal force, but the real law is always and forever rearing it head up through the sheet. In other words all of our civilized rights are laying on a foundation of the real law. He who can harness the true law of the universe will win. Many of men attempt but most die because the law kills them.


A natural right reduces down like DnA. It isn't something that we can deny. There exists no alternate theory to it, no legal challenge, and no philosophical argument. It is the equivalent of saying: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It isn't known to our minds but in the heart of our souls. It is so self evident and unalienable as the Truth that even a king can't deny it lest he be deemed a tyrant (bingo!). As I've pointed out before, as Americans we don't need any further manipulation. We have inherited from our Christian Founding Fathers a Civil Purpose choosing apart from the world to adopt a new formal culture! Any further manipulation by the inferior cultures goes beyond the ideal put forth by our Christian Founding Fathers of a more perfect government, the necessary tyranny established by them to govern over us. The opinion you express above has long been defeated and will continue to be so forever so why do you continue wasting your time in such vanity dallying around in such matters of inconsequence?