Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Right-of-way



Once upon a time, I believed that if your property ended up being surrounded by the property of others and they refused to let you cross their property to get to and from your property, it was "just too bad". You might starve but you had no right to complain if they wouldn't allow you to cross-- it was their property, after all. Your death was just the price of protecting their property rights.

Then someone reminded me of the concept of right-of-way.

It was something I hadn't considered before.

Now, obviously, I don't believe rights are (or can be) granted by courts or government. Either they exist, or they don't. I don't believe rights obligate anyone to do anything beyond not violating the life, liberty, or property of others.

Does right-of-way violate the property rights of some to prevent them from violating the life and liberty and property rights of another? Maybe.

Right-of-way has been recognized as a human right for centuries. That doesn't necessarily mean it really is a natural human right, though.

The purpose behind right-of-way seems to be to prevent someone from claiming property rights as justification to cause harm to the life, liberty, and property of someone else. To keep "property rights" from being used as a weapon to violate the property rights-- and more-- of others.

Perhaps the property rights of one can't outweigh the life, liberty, AND property rights (combined) of another.

Having right-of-way doesn't include the right to steal, vandalize, litter, homestead, or otherwise damage the property while you are passing through. "Leave nothing but footprints; take nothing but pictures" doesn't begin to go far enough when talking about exercising right-of-way. Keep your hands in your pockets and move along. Leave no footprints if it can be avoided, and take no pictures.

Those who believe property rights give a person the right to do anything they want to other people on their own property, claiming property rights as the justification, would probably disagree and discount the idea of right-of-way, or maybe place some arbitrary conditions beyond those rational ones I've pointed out.

Right-of-way makes ethical sense to me, but I'm open to arguments for and against.
-

Writing to promote liberty is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

16 comments:

  1. "Those who believe property rights give a person the right to do anything they want to other people on their own property"

    I see what you're trying there. Doesn't work. Claiming the right to set prior rules for use of one's property isn't claiming "the right to do anything they want to other people on their own property."

    Right of way is certainly an interesting subject, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Either people have the right to keep you trapped in your home because they surround you, or they don't. If they do, then that's just the way it is. If they don't, then that's also just the way it is.

      Delete
    2. True. And like I said, that's an interesting question.

      But it's not the same question as "do people have the right to tell you what you can bring on their property, and are they magically responsible for whatever happens if you don't like what they tell you?"

      Delete
    3. California has a law which allows that if a land owner has allowed, even passively, the public to pass upon his land without seeking to forbid the public for a period of seven years, that portion of his land is now in the public domain.

      I've known of a few ranchers who by their own neglect or their ignorance of the law did allow a cattle gate to be used by the occasional hiker, etc to enter onto privately held grazing lands. In one instance, one of the 'trespassers' took umbrage to the fact that one day the rancher changed locks on the gate and posted a sign saying No Trespassers.

      The guy got an attorney and sued on behalf of some environmental group. They won! This even though in that particular case it had been less than seven years of random people traipsing across the lands.

      That wasn't the end of it. There was an amended action whereby the plaintiff argued that from time to time he had wandered from the now visible trail to set off to explore the private lands. Therefore, it wasn't merely a narrow swath through the lands but now several acres wide from one end to another.

      Unfortunately that rancher had just prior decided to plant nut orchard too. Except now he was interfered from permanent placement of irrigation equipment on that side of his property (across the public RoW). It was an economic bust. Anecdote? Yes. But it happens often.

      My own brother I told to padlock the gate at the back of his property. He argued why, its difficult to get to. I showed him the footprints and that someone(s) had been blazing a trail right up to and apparently through his property. He became a believer.

      Maybe a surprise to you but in the western states where there are large tracts of land, there are what I call 'professional trespassers' who use the law to chip away at property rights. Like I said, I've known of several who have lost title to parts of their lands.

      Rick

      Delete
    4. And to make it more fun, the courts have decided that because a land owner had not posted a Stay Out! sign on the property, it was A-OK to enter onto the land. Later court decisions put a finer point on it, the No Trespass signs had to be posted every so many feet along the boundary of the property. Exactly how many feet apart is usually left up to the county to decide.

      Of course them bent on crossing lands will simply remove any sign they encounter.

      (I'm being lazy, I could look up the actual laws instead of being somewhat vague about it. But so could anyone else.)

      Rick

      Delete
    5. Yes, Rick. I know of many examples like those you mention. I used to know a landowner who actually had his gates locked by trespassers on occasion. They bought their own locks and placed them on his gates to keep him out. He cut the locks, obviously. He wasn't someone I would have messed with, but I was smarter than his enemies. LOL

      He even offered to let me live on his land for free, just to keep this sort of thing from happening. I should have taken him up on it.

      In no possible reasonable way should right-of-way ever be interpreted to cause someone to lose use of their property, or to tolerate damage. But government isn't reasonable.

      Delete
  2. Technology will add to the travel puzzle when we finally get flying cars...or species hybridization.

    Would love to have a pair of foldable wings. Mine will be leathery, no feathers for me! I ain't gonna look like no big bird flying around.

    With more biology aloft, invest in windshield cleaners or government approved diapers for the more conscientious!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Flying doesn't help if they say the air (or space) above their property is their property. You'd probably still need right-of-way to deal with those kind of people.

      Delete
    2. I believe that Rothbard dealt with this and he compared property being surrounded to a person being surrounded (and basically detained) by a large group of other people. Do you have the right to break through and obtain your freedom from the surround? Of course!

      Tahn

      Delete
    3. As to your right to do anything to anyone on your own property, I believe The Non Aggression Principle to be a supreme principle of civilization. You cannot violate the NAP, even on your own property. HOWEVER, if you advise someone that they are trespassing and they ignore you, then it is they who is violating the NAP and you certainly have the right of self defense.

      Personally, I believe in the 3 strikes rule as in ; 1. This is private property (politely) . 2. This is private property and you are trespassing 3. This is private property, you are trespassing and leave NOW. After this last command is when its proper etiquette to rest your hand on your pistol. Using force to defend your property against invasion is not a violation of the NAP.

      Tahn

      Delete
    4. The National Airspace is owned by the public, administered by D.C. jerks. As the airspace is usually for navigation, the bottom of the airspace is typically around 400' agl (above ground level). One exception is that airspace for the purpose of taking off and landing aircraft, obviously that airspace descends to the ground but the lateral limits are around 1/2 s.m. from the designated landing field.

      Within the use of private property is the enjoyment of privacy. There is little privacy when you have aircraft above your property at low altitudes, or these days some guy with a drone. Your right to privacy supersedes any interest drone guy has, or even police helicopter. But good luck prevailing over the latter, wheelbarrels of money required.

      Rick

      Delete
  3. unclear how one can use a right-of-way through property of others-- without "using" that property and "leaving footprints"on that property. If payment is not agreed to in advance, then isn't that theft?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly don't know. Part of me says yes, and part of me says no.

      Delete
    2. See, Flag Lots. Sometimes made from errors in surveying, sometimes from splitting of land into parcels by less formal means.

      https://www.landrushnow.com/what-is-a-flag-lot

      Rick

      Delete
    3. That's an interesting situation.

      Delete
  4. "Your right to privacy"

    What are the justifications for, and properties of, this supposed "right?"

    ReplyDelete