Frightening stuff

[Infohawk]

The trip to the moon is a fine example. You say there wasn't enough demand but I would guess the majority of Americans thought it was a good expenditure. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but it's something they wanted that private industry couldn't supply.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, it would not violate their property rights. People do not own all the space above and below their land.

That depends if they have mining rights.

Also - there was an interesting case of people watching (I believe it was an automobile race) an event at a private facility from the rooves of their houses, which overlooked the facility.

It was determined that these people did not have the right to look through the air above the track, which was not 'on their property'.

Now I thoguht this sounded fishy, but the track was apparently upset that these rooftop vantage points were actually the best seats (not) in the house.

Never-the-less, I can't imagine that you would stand by while someone built an overpass directly oer your house, absolutely destroying it's market value, without compensating you, because 'you don't own the space above your house'. Governments attempting to build highways have needed expropriation (with compensation) laws because they regularly run into people who refuse to part with their land voluntarily, at any price. This phenonmenon isn't going to go away when and if a market controls everything.

If you really think you would be okay with this being done above your house, I'd like to hear why you feel that way.

Walter Block, one of today's top libertarian thinkers has written articles on these topics, check out his publications at www.walterblock.com. Also, I highly recommend the debate that I linked to above on eminent domain.

We must differentiate between negative externalities and acts of aggression. Negative externalities are costs that are imposed upon other people through the course of our actions. Aggression on the other hand is an actual physical attack on someone's property or person. In the case of a bridge being built over someone's house, that might be a negative externality, but not an act of aggression. Negative externalities are around us all the time, but there is nothing unjust about them, and there is no way they can truly be quantified. Just by merely existing in our every day lives we impose negative externalities on people. It is simply part of life.

The building of a bridge over someone's house would give them an incentive to sell it before the land value went down. If they truly valued the house so much that they would not sell out, then let them keep it and bear the cost of the noise of traffic.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The trip to the moon is a fine example. You say there wasn't enough demand but I would guess the majority of Americans thought it was a good expenditure. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but it's something they wanted that private industry couldn't supply.

No, private industry certainly could have supplied it. There just wasn't enough demand for it for industry to justify producing a trip to the moon.

The majority of the people want an endless number of things, but it was only government, through its power to coercively expropriate private property to supply a trip to the moon. The idea that whatever a majority wants supplied should always be supplied is ridiculous, because under this premise the taxpayers would be bankrupt before the next morning (with government, the majority does not constitute a paying majority but rather the majority just constitutes a demanding majority, in the free market demand is always correlated with willingness to pay). The government today, however, tries to achieve the ideal of this premise as best as it can, and this has resulted in a huge amount of expropriation of private property.

 

[judasmachine]

Cool something like this could destroy the suburbs. Think those poor bastards who have to drive 45 miles to work downtown from their suburban estates would be paying through the nose to drive that damn Hummer.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Cool something like this could destroy the suburbs. Think those poor bastards who have to drive 45 miles to work downtown from their suburban estates would be paying through the nose to drive that damn Hummer.

They already do...

Holding total tax revenue constant, those who use less gas per mile than average will be better off with the new system.

But good try :thumbsup: We'll get those damn richies yet...mark my words

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Cool something like this could destroy the suburbs. Think those poor bastards who have to drive 45 miles to work downtown from their suburban estates would be paying through the nose to drive that damn Hummer.

They already do...

Holding total tax revenue constant, those who use less gas per mile than average will be better off with the new system.

But good try :thumbsup: We'll get those damn richies yet...mark my words

It's not about "The richies", it's about our planet, and our air. Which in L.A. is already bad enough "as is."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Walter Block, one of today's top libertarian thinkers has written articles on these topics, check out his publications at www.walterblock.com. Also, I highly recommend the debate that I linked to above on eminent domain.

We must differentiate between negative externalities and acts of aggression. Negative externalities are costs that are imposed upon other people through the course of our actions. Aggression on the other hand is an actual physical attack on someone's property or person. In the case of a bridge being built over someone's house, that might be a negative externality, but not an act of aggression. Negative externalities are around us all the time, but there is nothing unjust about them, and there is no way they can truly be quantified. Just by merely existing in our every day lives we impose negative externalities on people. It is simply part of life.

The building of a bridge over someone's house would give them an incentive to sell it before the land value went down. If they truly valued the house so much that they would not sell out, then let them keep it and bear the cost of the noise of traffic.

The only way you could sell before the land value went down is if you had 'inside information'. This would violate the perfect information required to make markets work perfectly (and the 'pretty good' information required to make them work 'pretty well'), by at least a large enough margin to put you in position to exploit the unknowing purchaser; thus creating a true market failure.

There are plenty of examples of negative externalities that you could have chosen. Building a bridge directly over someone else's property amounts to an act of violence against that individual; in effect you advocate punishing the person for not selling their home.

Note that the abuse could potentially be turned on the firm's head: Since the firm is expected to act rationally, they will accept any offer to purchase the property which is less than the cost of erecting the bridge (normally a substantial cost indeed). Since the property owner does not want to sell, OR have a highway over their house, they will seek the greatest payout, given that they are to be railroaded regardless. This creates an added incentive for property owners to hold out, hoping to be the 'marginal ' property that can extract the bridge money from the firm. So the outcome may be that the firm has to build a bridge over ALL the houses, because they all know if they hold out longest, they will receive a payout. Of course the road probably isn't feasible financially if the whole thing has to be a bridge... So even though there is demand, and there is no reason the land should be worth too much to allow building, there may be no highway. It's like the contest where you put your hand on a cadillac and whoever goes longest without ever breaking contact wins the car. It is impossible to determine who will choose to quit, because the marginal value of not quitting (until the next person quits) is zero, and the marginal value of not quitting (until the second last person quits) is so very high.

This sort of power-struggle is hardly indicative of a peaceful, coordinated market system.

I'm sorry, but this is an example where a market may not work well at all.

 

[NightCrawler]

After this then comes:

The fat and sugar tax, they put a device in everyone's stomach that tells the government how much fat and sugar you eat and you pay a tax on it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Walter Block, one of today's top libertarian thinkers has written articles on these topics, check out his publications at www.walterblock.com. Also, I highly recommend the debate that I linked to above on eminent domain.

We must differentiate between negative externalities and acts of aggression. Negative externalities are costs that are imposed upon other people through the course of our actions. Aggression on the other hand is an actual physical attack on someone's property or person. In the case of a bridge being built over someone's house, that might be a negative externality, but not an act of aggression. Negative externalities are around us all the time, but there is nothing unjust about them, and there is no way they can truly be quantified. Just by merely existing in our every day lives we impose negative externalities on people. It is simply part of life.

The building of a bridge over someone's house would give them an incentive to sell it before the land value went down. If they truly valued the house so much that they would not sell out, then let them keep it and bear the cost of the noise of traffic.

The only way you could sell before the land value went down is if you had 'inside information'. This would violate the perfect information required to make markets work perfectly (and the 'pretty good' information required to make them work 'pretty well'), by at least a large enough margin to put you in position to exploit the unknowing purchaser; thus creating a true market failure.

Who said markets worked perfectly? I never did. What I meant was, it would give people an incentive to sell out to the entrepreneur at a higher price than they would get once the freeway was built. The entrepreneur would have an incentive to bargain with them due to the fact that the freeway would cost a lot more if bridges were to be used.

There are plenty of examples of negative externalities that you could have chosen. Building a bridge directly over someone else's property amounts to an act of violence against that individual; in effect you advocate punishing the person for not selling their home.

Nope, no act of violence would be committed. Their physical property or person would be in no way damaged. The fact that their house would become less desirable to live in cannot be accounted for. The value of numerous items on the market go up and down due to the actions of individuals. For instance, I'm pretty sure that Henry Ford put a lot of horse & carriage firms out of business.

Note that the abuse could potentially be turned on the firm's head: Since the firm is expected to act rationally, they will accept any offer to purchase the property which is less than the cost of erecting the bridge (normally a substantial cost indeed). Since the property owner does not want to sell, OR have a highway over their house, they will seek the greatest payout, given that they are to be railroaded regardless. This creates an added incentive for property owners to hold out, hoping to be the 'marginal ' property that can extract the bridge money from the firm. So the outcome may be that the firm has to build a bridge over ALL the houses, because they all know if they hold out longest, they will receive a payout. Of course the road probably isn't feasible financially if the whole thing has to be a bridge... So even though there is demand, and there is no reason the land should be worth too much to allow building, there may be no highway. It's like the contest where you put your hand on a cadillac and whoever goes longest without ever breaking contact wins the car. It is impossible to determine who will choose to quit, because the marginal value of not quitting (until the next person quits) is zero, and the marginal value of not quitting (until the second last person quits) is so very high.

This sort of power-struggle is hardly indicative of a peaceful, coordinated market system.

I'm sorry, but this is an example where a market may not work well at all.

People would try to fetch the highest price they could for their homes, but I do not see this as a market failure, this is simply just how the market works. Would people try to be the "bridge house" in order to attain this end? Maybe, but this is a problem the entrepreneur has to solve, and this is what entrepreneurs do for a living. Furthermore, your analysis precludes the possibility that the homeowners could bargain collectively with the entrepreneur. People for the most part are not totally irrational. I would also like to point out that your assumption that the entrepreneur would always buy a house for a cost less than that of building a bridge is not necessarily true. Let's suppose a group of homeowners collectively bargained with an entrepreneur, except for one: Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith is as selfish and as greedy as they come, and he believes as you do that the entrepreneur will buy his house for a cost that is slightly less than that of building a bridge. He decides to not cooperate, and not join in on the collective bargaining process that the other homeowners agreed to.

The other homeowners strike a deal and move away, while Mr. Smith remains. The entrepreneur attempts to bargain with him reasonably but he holds out in hopes of getting that "bridge premium." The entrepreneur, feeling as though he is being taken for a ride, builds a bridge over Mr. Smith's house anyways to make an example of him. In this way, I think it would be dangerous to be the "bridge house."
[/b]

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Cool something like this could destroy the suburbs. Think those poor bastards who have to drive 45 miles to work downtown from their suburban estates would be paying through the nose to drive that damn Hummer.

They already do...

Holding total tax revenue constant, those who use less gas per mile than average will be better off with the new system.

But good try :thumbsup: We'll get those damn richies yet...mark my words

It's not about "The richies", it's about our planet, and our air. Which in L.A. is already bad enough "as is."

Either way, if you wanna screw those people you'd want to avoid this bill as it does exactly the opposite

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Walter Block, one of today's top libertarian thinkers has written articles on these topics, check out his publications at www.walterblock.com. Also, I highly recommend the debate that I linked to above on eminent domain.

We must differentiate between negative externalities and acts of aggression. Negative externalities are costs that are imposed upon other people through the course of our actions. Aggression on the other hand is an actual physical attack on someone's property or person. In the case of a bridge being built over someone's house, that might be a negative externality, but not an act of aggression. Negative externalities are around us all the time, but there is nothing unjust about them, and there is no way they can truly be quantified. Just by merely existing in our every day lives we impose negative externalities on people. It is simply part of life.

The building of a bridge over someone's house would give them an incentive to sell it before the land value went down. If they truly valued the house so much that they would not sell out, then let them keep it and bear the cost of the noise of traffic.

The only way you could sell before the land value went down is if you had 'inside information'. This would violate the perfect information required to make markets work perfectly (and the 'pretty good' information required to make them work 'pretty well'), by at least a large enough margin to put you in position to exploit the unknowing purchaser; thus creating a true market failure.

Who said markets worked perfectly? I never did. What I meant was, it would give people an incentive to sell out to the entrepreneur at a higher price than they would get once the freeway was built. The entrepreneur would have an incentive to bargain with them due to the fact that the freeway would cost a lot more if bridges were to be used.

There are plenty of examples of negative externalities that you could have chosen. Building a bridge directly over someone else's property amounts to an act of violence against that individual; in effect you advocate punishing the person for not selling their home.

Nope, no act of violence would be committed. Their physical property or person would be in no way damaged. The fact that their house would become less desirable to live in cannot be accounted for. The value of numerous items on the market go up and down due to the actions of individuals. For instance, I'm pretty sure that Henry Ford put a lot of horse & carriage firms out of business.

Note that the abuse could potentially be turned on the firm's head: Since the firm is expected to act rationally, they will accept any offer to purchase the property which is less than the cost of erecting the bridge (normally a substantial cost indeed). Since the property owner does not want to sell, OR have a highway over their house, they will seek the greatest payout, given that they are to be railroaded regardless. This creates an added incentive for property owners to hold out, hoping to be the 'marginal ' property that can extract the bridge money from the firm. So the outcome may be that the firm has to build a bridge over ALL the houses, because they all know if they hold out longest, they will receive a payout. Of course the road probably isn't feasible financially if the whole thing has to be a bridge... So even though there is demand, and there is no reason the land should be worth too much to allow building, there may be no highway. It's like the contest where you put your hand on a cadillac and whoever goes longest without ever breaking contact wins the car. It is impossible to determine who will choose to quit, because the marginal value of not quitting (until the next person quits) is zero, and the marginal value of not quitting (until the second last person quits) is so very high.

This sort of power-struggle is hardly indicative of a peaceful, coordinated market system.

I'm sorry, but this is an example where a market may not work well at all.

People would try to fetch the highest price they could for their homes, but I do not see this as a market failure, this is simply just how the market works. Would people try to be the "bridge house" in order to attain this end? Maybe, but this is a problem the entrepreneur has to solve, and this is what entrepreneurs do for a living. Furthermore, your analysis precludes the possibility that the homeowners could bargain collectively with the entrepreneur. People for the most part are not totally irrational.

But expropriation exists because some people, in some situations are irrational (or, place an infinite value on one particular option).

The analogy to technological improvement is promising, but ultimately flawed. Henry Ford didn't put Horse and Buggy companies out of business, customers did; he simply created a competing product that was better in almost every way. Building a highway over a house isn't competition for that house, so the analogy falls apart under 'relevent dissimilarity'.

Note that I don't go so far as to say a highway couldn't be built right beside my house, as long as the developer included the relevent noise and safety barriers, I would be upset, but really would have little recourse; this would be an 'externality'.

Building over my property would not be an externality, it would be physical violence to my property. I'm not sure why you shoose to press this issue; it may be relevent once in 50 years in a state of 30 million people, but it's still a case the market may not be able to solve.

Exactly how high would the bridge need to be, pray tell? I mean I could add a third story to my house, which might hit the bridge; surely the highway owner couldn't then lay claim to owning the space above my home; by what claim would he own it that I could not defend for myself simply by raising a flag over my roof before bridge construction started? Will this then degenerate into whether I can suspend or support an object at a height greater than the height the developer is willing to build the bridge to? What an absurd result that would be!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Walter Block, one of today's top libertarian thinkers has written articles on these topics, check out his publications at www.walterblock.com. Also, I highly recommend the debate that I linked to above on eminent domain.

We must differentiate between negative externalities and acts of aggression. Negative externalities are costs that are imposed upon other people through the course of our actions. Aggression on the other hand is an actual physical attack on someone's property or person. In the case of a bridge being built over someone's house, that might be a negative externality, but not an act of aggression. Negative externalities are around us all the time, but there is nothing unjust about them, and there is no way they can truly be quantified. Just by merely existing in our every day lives we impose negative externalities on people. It is simply part of life.

The building of a bridge over someone's house would give them an incentive to sell it before the land value went down. If they truly valued the house so much that they would not sell out, then let them keep it and bear the cost of the noise of traffic.

The only way you could sell before the land value went down is if you had 'inside information'. This would violate the perfect information required to make markets work perfectly (and the 'pretty good' information required to make them work 'pretty well'), by at least a large enough margin to put you in position to exploit the unknowing purchaser; thus creating a true market failure.

Who said markets worked perfectly? I never did. What I meant was, it would give people an incentive to sell out to the entrepreneur at a higher price than they would get once the freeway was built. The entrepreneur would have an incentive to bargain with them due to the fact that the freeway would cost a lot more if bridges were to be used.

There are plenty of examples of negative externalities that you could have chosen. Building a bridge directly over someone else's property amounts to an act of violence against that individual; in effect you advocate punishing the person for not selling their home.

Nope, no act of violence would be committed. Their physical property or person would be in no way damaged. The fact that their house would become less desirable to live in cannot be accounted for. The value of numerous items on the market go up and down due to the actions of individuals. For instance, I'm pretty sure that Henry Ford put a lot of horse & carriage firms out of business.

Note that the abuse could potentially be turned on the firm's head: Since the firm is expected to act rationally, they will accept any offer to purchase the property which is less than the cost of erecting the bridge (normally a substantial cost indeed). Since the property owner does not want to sell, OR have a highway over their house, they will seek the greatest payout, given that they are to be railroaded regardless. This creates an added incentive for property owners to hold out, hoping to be the 'marginal ' property that can extract the bridge money from the firm. So the outcome may be that the firm has to build a bridge over ALL the houses, because they all know if they hold out longest, they will receive a payout. Of course the road probably isn't feasible financially if the whole thing has to be a bridge... So even though there is demand, and there is no reason the land should be worth too much to allow building, there may be no highway. It's like the contest where you put your hand on a cadillac and whoever goes longest without ever breaking contact wins the car. It is impossible to determine who will choose to quit, because the marginal value of not quitting (until the next person quits) is zero, and the marginal value of not quitting (until the second last person quits) is so very high.

This sort of power-struggle is hardly indicative of a peaceful, coordinated market system.

I'm sorry, but this is an example where a market may not work well at all.

People would try to fetch the highest price they could for their homes, but I do not see this as a market failure, this is simply just how the market works. Would people try to be the "bridge house" in order to attain this end? Maybe, but this is a problem the entrepreneur has to solve, and this is what entrepreneurs do for a living. Furthermore, your analysis precludes the possibility that the homeowners could bargain collectively with the entrepreneur. People for the most part are not totally irrational.

But expropriation exists because some people, in some situations are irrational (or, place an infinite value on one particular option).

Under my scenario they pay a price.

The analogy to technological improvement is promising, but ultimately flawed. Henry Ford didn't put Horse and Buggy companies out of business, customers did; he simply created a competing product that was better in almost every way. Building a highway over a house isn't competition for that house, so the analogy falls apart under 'relevent dissimilarity'.

Henry Ford's actions decreased the value that people had for horse and buggies, just as building a bridge over someone's house would decrease the value people would have for that house. The highway is competition for the house. Everything is competition with everything else. All potential ends are competition with all other potential ends, and hence, all scarce means are competition for all other scarce means.

Note that I don't go so far as to say a highway couldn't be built right beside my house, as long as the developer included the relevent noise and safety barriers, I would be upset, but really would have little recourse; this would be an 'externality'.

They would have no obligation to do so, to force them to do so would be an act of aggression on your part.

Building over my property would not be an externality, it would be physical violence to my property. I'm not sure why you shoose to press this issue; it may be relevent once in 50 years in a state of 30 million people, but it's still a case the market may not be able to solve.

I'm not pressing the issue, I'm applying the axiom of non-aggression. The axiom of non-aggression is an attempt to answer one very important question: What is your legal (notice, not moral or any other word) obligation to society? The best answer is: your only legal obligation to society is to not initiate physical aggression against anyone else. Once this is understood, things relating to externalities and other incidents which people cannot be held accountable for are ridiculous, and opens up the door to law that creates unnecessary coercion (i.e. law that does not follow the axiom of non-aggression).

Exactly how high would the bridge need to be, pray tell? I mean I could add a third story to my house, which might hit the bridge; surely the highway owner couldn't then lay claim to owning the space above my home; by what claim would he own it that I could not defend for myself simply by raising a flag over my roof before bridge construction started? Will this then degenerate into whether I can suspend or support an object at a height greater than the height the developer is willing to build the bridge to? What an absurd result that would be!

That is where the bargaining process comes into play, and also where private law makes up for the soft edges of libertarianism.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

But expropriation exists because some people, in some situations are irrational (or, place an infinite value on one particular option).

Under my scenario they pay a price.

The analogy to technological improvement is promising, but ultimately flawed. Henry Ford didn't put Horse and Buggy companies out of business, customers did; he simply created a competing product that was better in almost every way. Building a highway over a house isn't competition for that house, so the analogy falls apart under 'relevent dissimilarity'.

Henry Ford's actions decreased the value that people had for horse and buggies, just as building a bridge over someone's house would decrease the value people would have for that house. The highway is competition for the house. Everything is competition with everything else. All potential ends are competition with all other potential ends, and hence, all scarce means are competition for all other scarce means.

Note that I don't go so far as to say a highway couldn't be built right beside my house, as long as the developer included the relevent noise and safety barriers, I would be upset, but really would have little recourse; this would be an 'externality'.

They would have no obligation to do so, to force them to do so would be an act of aggression on your part.

Building over my property would not be an externality, it would be physical violence to my property. I'm not sure why you shoose to press this issue; it may be relevent once in 50 years in a state of 30 million people, but it's still a case the market may not be able to solve.

I'm not pressing the issue, I'm applying the axiom of non-aggression.

Exactly how high would the bridge need to be, pray tell? I mean I could add a third story to my house, which might hit the bridge; surely the highway owner couldn't then lay claim to owning the space above my home; by what claim would he own it that I could not defend for myself simply by raising a flag over my roof before bridge construction started? Will this then degenerate into whether I can suspend or support an object at a height greater than the height the developer is willing to build the bridge to? What an absurd result that would be!

That is where the bargaining process comes into play, and also where private law makes up for the soft edges of libertarianism.

[/quote]
Dude, you're unbelievable.

Nothing gives you the right to take action while ignoring the costs you impose on others; because there is no logical cut-off, except possibly causing death, at which point you would be required to start considering those costs.

Do actions we take affect other people? Of course they do. I get in line to buy a cup of coffee, and I may make the person behind me have to choose whether to be late for a meeting, when otherwise they would not need to make the choice.

I don't cut my grass often enough, and I slightly depress the value of surrounding homes.

You can even build a highway behind my house, and you still aren't directly infringing on my property.

But you can't arbitrarily choose a height above or below my property that I don't own. This does direct damage to my property, and forces me to bear the cost of the risk that whatever you build will break and cause more damage to me or my property.

Also: Yes, of course you should be required to provide safety and noise barriers; afterall, if something goes wrong, it will be your higway intruding on my property, not the other way around; if I get hit by an out of control car because you refused to build a barrier, it's your fault, not mine. Similarly with noise; you have tohe ability to mitigate your effect on me (in the caser of close proximity to a highway, we are talking about hearing loss, not inconvenience). You therefore have an obligation to do so. I don't have to pay you to not expose me to risk; that's blackmail. There's simply no way around this.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

But expropriation exists because some people, in some situations are irrational (or, place an infinite value on one particular option).

Under my scenario they pay a price.

The analogy to technological improvement is promising, but ultimately flawed. Henry Ford didn't put Horse and Buggy companies out of business, customers did; he simply created a competing product that was better in almost every way. Building a highway over a house isn't competition for that house, so the analogy falls apart under 'relevent dissimilarity'.

Henry Ford's actions decreased the value that people had for horse and buggies, just as building a bridge over someone's house would decrease the value people would have for that house. The highway is competition for the house. Everything is competition with everything else. All potential ends are competition with all other potential ends, and hence, all scarce means are competition for all other scarce means.

Note that I don't go so far as to say a highway couldn't be built right beside my house, as long as the developer included the relevent noise and safety barriers, I would be upset, but really would have little recourse; this would be an 'externality'.

They would have no obligation to do so, to force them to do so would be an act of aggression on your part.

Building over my property would not be an externality, it would be physical violence to my property. I'm not sure why you shoose to press this issue; it may be relevent once in 50 years in a state of 30 million people, but it's still a case the market may not be able to solve.

I'm not pressing the issue, I'm applying the axiom of non-aggression.

Exactly how high would the bridge need to be, pray tell? I mean I could add a third story to my house, which might hit the bridge; surely the highway owner couldn't then lay claim to owning the space above my home; by what claim would he own it that I could not defend for myself simply by raising a flag over my roof before bridge construction started? Will this then degenerate into whether I can suspend or support an object at a height greater than the height the developer is willing to build the bridge to? What an absurd result that would be!

That is where the bargaining process comes into play, and also where private law makes up for the soft edges of libertarianism.

Dude, you're unbelievable.

I'm unbelievable because I use reason instead of cow towing to emotion? Guilty as charged.

Nothing gives you the right to take action while ignoring the costs you impose on others; because there is no logical cut-off, except possibly causing death, at which point you would be required to start considering those costs.

Do actions we take affect other people? Of course they do. I get in line to buy a cup of coffee, and I may make the person behind me have to choose whether to be late for a meeting, when otherwise they would not need to make the choice.

I don't cut my grass often enough, and I slightly depress the value of surrounding homes.

You can even build a highway behind my house, and you still aren't directly infringing on my property.

But you can't arbitrarily choose a height above or below my property that I don't own. This does direct damage to my property, and forces me to bear the cost of the risk that whatever you build will break and cause more damage to me or my property.

Also: Yes, of course you should be required to provide safety and noise barriers; afterall, if something goes wrong, it will be your higway intruding on my property, not the other way around; if I get hit by an out of control car because you refused to build a barrier, it's your fault, not mine. Similarly with noise; you have tohe ability to mitigate your effect on me (in the caser of close proximity to a highway, we are talking about hearing loss, not inconvenience). You therefore have an obligation to do so. I don't have to pay you to not expose me to risk; that's blackmail. There's simply no way around this.

Libertarianism is a theory that is like a sphere. It is a sphere with a hard center, but soft edges. We know for a fact that shooting at people randomly on the street is an act of aggression etc. On the soft edges of libertarianism are questions like "how much? how far? for how long?" Once again, these are questions that are answered by private law. A 100% objective theory of law is impossible, and libertarianism does not attempt to provide this. The most controversial result of libertarianism of course is its ultimate conclusion is that all governments are immoral and should be abolished. In any event, none of those externalities are bonified acts of aggression, but this does not preclude the fact that under private law they could be classified as such i.e. if contracts were signed prohibiting these activities. Professor Walter Block has written/co-authored numerous articles on blackmail, and came to the conclusion that it should be legalized. See Blackmail Section Here


[/quote]

 

[OutHouse]

First: Bad thread title.

Second; this is a stupid idea. If anybody thinks its a good idea for the governement to know exactly where you go, have been, or going is a good idea need to move to soviet russia.

Third: Who is to say this wont be used for "other" purposes. like stop you for using a certain road during a certain time period. And if you do guess what, instead of being taxed you get sent to jail.

 

[miketheidiot]

Why don't they just increase the gas tax. It penalizes drivers who drive small more efiecnt cars and lets people will their H2's and escalades and whatever off even though they due more damage. Either way the number of miles you drive is still linear with they number of miles you drive. A "use" taxes just places more of the burden on the vehicles that aren't the problem.

Also how much would 10million of these monitors cost to install? How much more to prevent against fraud? Do people driving through the state have to pay any of these taxes? What about truckers, from say, Nevada or oregon? How do you seperate the oregon and california miles, or don't you? If out of state truckers don't need them, how do you impose taxes to make up for their damage to the road? I could go on.

It would cost more to impliment it then it would generate in revenue. Gas tax is simple and straightfoward, and has relatively small overhead. I see no reason for this. :thumbsdown:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, it would not violate their property rights. People do not own all the space above and below their land.

That depends if they have mining rights.

Also - there was an interesting case of people watching (I believe it was an automobile race) an event at a private facility from the rooves of their houses, which overlooked the facility.

It was determined that these people did not have the right to look through the air above the track, which was not 'on their property'.

Now I thoguht this sounded fishy, but the track was apparently upset that these rooftop vantage points were actually the best seats (not) in the house.

Never-the-less, I can't imagine that you would stand by while someone built an overpass directly oer your house, absolutely destroying it's market value, without compensating you, because 'you don't own the space above your house'. Governments attempting to build highways have needed expropriation (with compensation) laws because they regularly run into people who refuse to part with their land voluntarily, at any price. This phenonmenon isn't going to go away when and if a market controls everything.

If you really think you would be okay with this being done above your house, I'd like to hear why you feel that way.

I though this idea came from Wrigley feild and the rooftop bars where people would watch the games from.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

We must differentiate between negative externalities and acts of aggression. Negative externalities are costs that are imposed upon other people through the course of our actions. Aggression on the other hand is an actual physical attack on someone's property or person. In the case of a bridge being built over someone's house, that might be a negative externality, but not an act of aggression. Negative externalities are around us all the time, but there is nothing unjust about them, and there is no way they can truly be quantified. Just by merely existing in our every day lives we impose negative externalities on people. It is simply part of life.

The building of a bridge over someone's house would give them an incentive to sell it before the land value went down. If they truly valued the house so much that they would not sell out, then let them keep it and bear the cost of the noise of traffic.

So basically you do what the capitalist wants whether you want to or not. I think this is about as passive aggressive as it gets. Infact its downright tyrannical. This anarcho capitalism crap is some nasty sh!t.

Also private companies did provide the first roads in america. The lack of competion led to exorbitant prices. Unless you plan on having 3 or 4 parallel road or routes with similar lengths to the same place, their is no competiion and they can charge whatever they like. And having 3 or 4 roads all going from roughly one place to rougly another place is very inefficent. Talk about much more capital cost for the same benefit. In case you hadn't noticed roads are expensive.