A question about private roads

[JayTee]

Another scenario. I don't know how the death star will factor into this.....but we'll see.

Scenario: There is one road in front of my home. I have to first enter this road to go anywhere. The guy who owns the road finds out that I nailed his daughter and bans me from his road. Am I just SOL?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
Another scenario. I don't know how the death star will factor into this.....but we'll see.

Scenario: There is one road in front of my home. I have to first enter this road to go anywhere. The guy who owns the road finds out that I nailed his daughter and bans me from his road. Am I just SOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends if it's that bill gates up to his dastardly schemes again.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Another scenario. I don't know how the death star will factor into this.....but we'll see.

Scenario: There is one road in front of my home. I have to first enter this road to go anywhere. The guy who owns the road finds out that I nailed his daughter and bans me from his road. Am I just SOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the precise reason ( [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ) that right-of-ways exist and are a legally recodred part of many real estate deeds and transactions.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another scenario. I don't know how the death star will factor into this.....but we'll see.

Scenario: There is one road in front of my home. I have to first enter this road to go anywhere. The guy who owns the road finds out that I nailed his daughter and bans me from his road. Am I just SOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the precise reason ( [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ) that right-of-ways exist and are a legally recodred part of many real estate deeds and transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just make sure there is no loophole or morals clause in the right of way provision, and wear your body armor when you try to use the road while the right of way clause is waiting to be adjudicated by the DRO.

[Borodog]

Easement.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another scenario. I don't know how the death star will factor into this.....but we'll see.

Scenario: There is one road in front of my home. I have to first enter this road to go anywhere. The guy who owns the road finds out that I nailed his daughter and bans me from his road. Am I just SOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the precise reason ( [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ) that right-of-ways exist and are a legally recodred part of many real estate deeds and transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just make sure there is no loophole or morals clause in the right of way provision, and wear your body armor when you try to use the road while the right of way clause is waiting to be adjudicated by the DRO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Righto.

AC-ism relies on the concept and existence of private property. As has been repeatedly observed in countries with laws that do not respect private property, investment is weak as there is no certainty that what you own today, you will own tomorrow.

The AC-ist philosophers on this forum appear to rely on the conjectured existence of private courts and security firms to adjudicate such matters.

Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power? AC-ists note how influenced and/or corrupted present-day government is (and it is, widely) but seem to take it as a matter of faith that private security adjudicators and enforcers will somehow be less self-interested and corruptible. Or am I misunderstanding the AC position in some manner?

The suggestion you make about being armed and wearing body armor while traversing disputed territory is actually better than it may seem. When individuals are widely armed, reconciliation tends to carry considerably less risk than confrontation. So a widely-armed populace will tend to get along better with each other in disputed matters.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that indeed is one force working in the direction you favor. Given the history of feudalism in the world, though, I'm far from convinced that it will constitute a sufficient force to withstand the pressures.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that indeed is one force working in the direction you favor. Given the history of feudalism in the world, though, I'm far from convinced that it will constitute a sufficient force to withstand the pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does the fact that you're scared give you or anyone the right to oppress others?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they can find a "non-corrupt" competitor. Once again you attribute more susceptibility to corruption to government officials than private individuals without the slightest bit of evidence or reason to believe that is true. Given mises tendency to make similar unsupportable proclamations and leaps of faith, that isn't surprising.