Intellectual Property - In All Fairness!

[AyeYo]

Bridges and tunnels, man. Over and under your house. Bitcoin2cash suggested that at least once. He said, don't think two dimensionally.

hahahaha  I want to actually see him say that so I can laugh a little more.


My next question would be, if this is what highway interchanges look like with only ONE road owner...





...wtf are they going to look like with 4-5 road owners?

[1714317427]

1714317427

[1714317427]

1714317427

[1714317427]

1714317427

[1714317427]

1714317427

[Anonymous]

It would look just the same. It's just different sections would be owned by different businesses. It's in the best interest of everybody involved for it to be concise and navigable, thereby the roads would meet said desire.

[NghtRppr]

It's the idea that anyone would want to learn and keep up with private enforcement, different sets of laws on different roads or businesses, that you would want to spend all your time researching and hiring services, paying tolls, and monitoring changes in policies for every service provider.

Sounds like hell.

Which businesses will make more money, those that make doing business with them hell or those that figure out a way to make everything as simple as possible? Competition will make sure we don't have that kind of hell. Look at the current system. Do you actually know every law and every regulation? No, that's why we have lawyers. It's hard to see how the current system is any better than the unlikely worst case scenario you propose.

[AyeYo]

It would look just the same. It's just different sections would be owned by different businesses. It's in the best interest of everybody involved for it to be concise and navigable, thereby the roads would meet said desire.

Then there would be no freedom, because I would not be able to choose whose road to use.  There would be one road and everyone would have to use it.  It would actually be physically impossible for me to go more than 100 yards from my house without crossing said road, so I would be a prisoner in my own house if I did not wish to abide by the road owner's rules.

Did you think about what you say before you say it?  So much of the stupid shit you recommend goes against so much of the other stupid shit you recommend.

[FirstAscent]

That will be your house, somewhere underneath all of that.

[Hawker]

It's the idea that anyone would want to learn and keep up with private enforcement, different sets of laws on different roads or businesses, that you would want to spend all your time researching and hiring services, paying tolls, and monitoring changes in policies for every service provider.

Sounds like hell.

Which businesses will make more money, those that make doing business with them hell or those that figure out a way to make everything as simple as possible? Competition will make sure we don't have that kind of hell. Look at the current system. Do you actually know every law and every regulation? No, that's why we have lawyers. It's hard to see how the current system is any better than the unlikely worst case scenario you propose.

None of this applies if the area is a nuclear wasteland.  You really need to think that through.

[FirstAscent]

It's the idea that anyone would want to learn and keep up with private enforcement, different sets of laws on different roads or businesses, that you would want to spend all your time researching and hiring services, paying tolls, and monitoring changes in policies for every service provider.

Sounds like hell.

Which businesses will make more money, those that make doing business with them hell or those that figure out a way to make everything as simple as possible? Competition will make sure we don't have that kind of hell. Look at the current system. Do you actually know every law and every regulation? No, that's why we have lawyers. It's hard to see how the current system is any better than the unlikely worst case scenario you propose.

Well, what if the road outside my front door is one of those businesses that is like hell? And I don't want to keep lawyers in reserve so I can walk out my front door onto a street. And do I have to pay a toll every time I do that? Or am I billed monthly? Neither sounds appealing at all.

[NghtRppr]

Well, what if the road outside my front door is one of those businesses that is like hell? And I don't want to keep lawyers in reserve so I can walk out my front door onto a street. And do I have to pay a toll every time I do that? Or am I billed monthly? Neither sounds appealing at all.

When you buy a house, part of the process will be evaluating the access rights that come with the house. If can't get from your house to your workplace without paying a million dollars each trip, you wouldn't buy it. Knowing this, builders wouldn't build houses in those situations, they would either own the nearby roads and give you access rights as part of buying the house to entice you, (much like my subdivision has a pool for the entire neighborhood) or the home builder would have contract to with the road builders. Road builders want people to use the roads so they can make money. They won't make money if they can't get anyone to build houses or open businesses nearby. Home builders want people to buy their homes so they can make money. They won't make money if they can't get anyone to buy their houses.

As for how you pay for road usage, I cannot say. I can only tell you that if it's too inconvenient, someone else will find a better solution and make more money, eventually driving the others out of business. Market forces and competition act to tirelessly weed out incompetence and inefficiency.

[FredericBastiat]

I've got a question. It's not aimed at anybody, and anybody can answer, of course.

Assumptions:
1) All roads are private.
2) A new home owner X wants to move in.
3) X's new home lies adjacent to private road A.
4) X negotiates to pay for use of private road A at a rate of 5c/mi.
5) X finds 5c/mi as acceptable and buys the home.
6) The only easement away from X's property is A's road.

Scenario:
1) The owner of road A decides to raise the rate to 5000c/mi. It is his property and he can change the price as it is in his discretion and prerogative to do so.
2) X won't pay, or doesn't have the money to pay the new road rate.
3) X can't leave without trespassing, but does so anyway in violation of A's property rights.

What should the legal consequence of X's trespass of A's road be?

[FirstAscent]

I've got a question. It's not aimed at anybody, and anybody can answer, of course.

Assumptions:
1) All roads are private.
2) A new home owner X wants to move in.
3) X's new home lies adjacent to private road A.
4) X negotiates to pay for use of private road A at a rate of 5c/mi.
5) X finds 5c/mi as acceptable and buys the home.
6) The only easement away from X's property is A's road.

Scenario:
1) The owner of road A decides to raise the rate to 5000c/mi. It is his property and he can change the price as it is in his discretion and prerogative to do so.
2) X won't pay, or doesn't have the money to pay the new road rate.
3) X can't leave without trespassing, but does so anyway in violation of A's property rights.

What should the legal consequence of X's trespass of A's road be?

This is the whole point. Consider this:

Y is the owner of road A. Y charges 5c/mi. Now Z buys road A from Y. Z ups the rate, and changes the way the road can be used. Ever had your cell provider be bought out? It's not uncommon for service providers to buy other service providers, and then phase out programs, pricing, etc. It's very annoying. If we're annoyed enough, we switch providers. But how do you switch roads?

Ever here the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Sure you have. Is the government broken? In many ways. Is road management one of them? Not really.

Let's be honest. The current system of road management is much preferable to these crackpot solutions. And it already exists! The takeaway from all this is this: stop the silly debates about proposing to the letter the concept of property rights for everything. It doesn't make sense.

[FredericBastiat]

This is the whole point. Consider this:

Y is the owner of road A. Y charges 5c/mi. Now Z buys road A from Y. Z ups the rate, and changes the way the road can be used. Ever had your cell provider be bought out? It's not uncommon for service providers to buy other service providers, and then phase out programs, pricing, etc. It's very annoying. If we're annoyed enough, we switch providers. But how do you switch roads?

Ever here the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Sure you have. Is the government broken? In many ways. Is road management one of them? Not really.

Let's be honest. The current system of road management is much preferable to these crackpot solutions. And it already exists! The takeaway from all this is this: stop the silly debates about proposing to the letter the concept of property rights for everything. It doesn't make sense.

You didn't answer the question. What should be the consequence of the trespass?

Additionally, which was the greater right, the right to not be circumscribed or the right to not be trespassed? What would be a good free market solution? What or which crackpot solutions would you be referring to?

[FirstAscent]

What or which crackpot solutions would you be referring to?

Any idea which leads us down the road of having to address these questions when they don't require addressing with our current solution. Why do you obsess over this stuff? I think most people do not want all roads to be private. It would suck. Is that too hard to accept?

The idea of private roads really sucks. How can you tell? Because you have these dilemmas when you start discussing them.

[FredericBastiat]

Any idea which leads us down the road of having to address these questions when they don't require addressing with our current solution. Why do you obsess over this stuff? I think most people do not want all roads to be private. It would suck. Is that too hard to accept?

The idea of private roads really sucks. How can you tell? Because you have these dilemmas when you start discussing them.

To say that a current system is good just because it is, probably isn't going to win you many supporters. I'm sure we're all aware of all of the dastardly things governments have done in the past to their civilians to know that it isn't as great as you think it is.

I don't have a problem with private roads actually. I do think there are some edge cases that need addressing, but I don't think they have impossible solutions, they may even have better solutions. You can't say private roads suck. I've driven on a few, and didn't have any problems at all. If anything, just rephrasing the contract language would probably solve most issues.

I've got a dilemma for you. What about eminent domain (used for roads all the time)? That's a really nasty dilemma. Solve that one.

[Hawker]

Well, what if the road outside my front door is one of those businesses that is like hell? And I don't want to keep lawyers in reserve so I can walk out my front door onto a street. And do I have to pay a toll every time I do that? Or am I billed monthly? Neither sounds appealing at all.

When you buy a house, part of the process will be evaluating the access rights that come with the house. If can't get from your house to your workplace without paying a million dollars each trip, you wouldn't buy it. Knowing this, builders wouldn't build houses in those situations, they would either own the nearby roads and give you access rights as part of buying the house to entice you, (much like my subdivision has a pool for the entire neighborhood) or the home builder would have contract to with the road builders. Road builders want people to use the roads so they can make money. They won't make money if they can't get anyone to build houses or open businesses nearby. Home builders want people to buy their homes so they can make money. They won't make money if they can't get anyone to buy their houses.

As for how you pay for road usage, I cannot say. I can only tell you that if it's too inconvenient, someone else will find a better solution and make more money, eventually driving the others out of business. Market forces and competition act to tirelessly weed out incompetence and inefficiency.

I notice you keep avoiding the fact that in your utopia, people will have to deal with being nuked.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

Please answer the question I asked earlier.  You say that people who are dangerous should not have nuclear weapons.  How would you prevent someone like Jared Laughner having a nuke?  Or is it your position that it would have been OK for him to plant a nuclear bomb in Tuscon and leave town before it detonated?

[FirstAscent]

Please answer the question I asked earlier.  You say that people who are dangerous should not have nuclear weapons.  How would you prevent someone like Jared Laughner having a nuke?  Or is it your position that it would have been OK for him to plant a nuclear bomb in Tuscon and leave town before it detonated?

No, you see, according to these guys, that wouldn't be OK if it detonated. Upon detonation, he would then be subject to being sued. Perhaps bitcoin2cash had friends and family in Tucson. He could then file a lawsuit. Remember, everything is reactionary, not proactive.

[NghtRppr]

Y is the owner of road A. Y charges 5c/mi. Now Z buys road A from Y. Z ups the rate, and changes the way the road can be used. Ever had your cell provider be bought out? It's not uncommon for service providers to buy other service providers, and then phase out programs, pricing, etc. It's very annoying. If we're annoyed enough, we switch providers. But how do you switch roads?

The reason why we tolerate the possibility of cell phone rates being indiscriminately raised is the very fact we can switch providers easily. Who in their right mind would buy a house with only a 2 year contract that says nothing about the future increases of road rates? Who in their right mind would build a house with the only service being a road that can have it's price skyrocket at will?

[Anonymous]

Addressing the nuke question:

No nuke owner in his right mind would sell to Jared Laughner without verification it's for proper defense purposes and that's assuming Laughner could afford one. Laughner pulling a nuclear jihad against his college would lead to the providing shop to go out of business. If we go further down the line, suppliers wouldn't sell to shops who don't properly verify consumers or they would absolutely lose all reputation as a nuke maker.

That's not including other factors including private security forces that would admonish and regulate the nuke trade comprehensively. The benefit is if they failed then we can get a new security force that regulates nukes correctly.

[NghtRppr]

Please answer the question I asked earlier.  You say that people who are dangerous should not have nuclear weapons.  How would you prevent someone like Jared Laughner having a nuke?  Or is it your position that it would have been OK for him to plant a nuclear bomb in Tuscon and leave town before it detonated?

If someone kills people and is likely to be a continual threat, nobody will want to have him around. He'll be effectively banned for everyone else's private property. If you were a mall owner, road owner, etc. Would you have people like him on your property? No, of course not. If he is likely to use a nuclear bomb to murder, he won't be allowed to have one. If he is likely to use a gun to murder, he won't be allowed to have one.

Remember, everything is reactionary, not proactive.

You don't have to wait for the mugger's bullet to rip through your flesh before you can defend yourself.

[FredericBastiat]

The reason why we tolerate the possibility of cell phone rates being indiscriminately raised is the very fact we can switch providers easily. Who in their right mind would buy a house with only a 2 year contract that says nothing about the future increases of road rates? Who in their right mind would build a house with the only service being a road that can have it's price skyrocket at will?

It isn't so much that it shouldn't happen, but that it can happen. In the cases where the contract can be changed by the prerogative of the road owner (increasing his rates), what does the home owner then do? What is the consequence and resolution procedure in court due to his trespass? For the time being the home owner is prevented from leaving his home by the excessive rate increases due to his circumstances effected by the road owner.

Maybe the road owner doesn't want to commit to a fixed price structure, or have his property under continual lease. Maybe he wants to convert his road to some other use. It is his property, and unless he permanently contracts with his neighbors for its use, he may withdraw at any time at his own discretion. I'm personally not aware of any contracts that are of an indefinite nature.

[Anonymous]

The reason why we tolerate the possibility of cell phone rates being indiscriminately raised is the very fact we can switch providers easily. Who in their right mind would buy a house with only a 2 year contract that says nothing about the future increases of road rates? Who in their right mind would build a house with the only service being a road that can have it's price skyrocket at will?

It isn't so much that it couldn't happen, but that it can happen. In the cases where the contract can be changed by the prerogative of the road owner (increasing his rates), what does the home owner then do? What is the consequence and resolution procedure in court due to his trespass? For the time being the home owner is prevented from leaving his home by the excessive rate increases due to his circumstances effected by the road owner.

Maybe the road owner doesn't want to commit to a fixed price structure, or have his property under continual lease. Maybe he wants to convert his road to some other use. It is his property, and unless he permanently contracts with his neighbors for its use, he may withdraw at any time at his own discretion. I'm personally not aware of any contracts that are of an indefinite nature.

No road owner in his right mind would charge a fucking fee to drive on his road. For one, there is no way to enforce such bullshit. Nobody is going to use your fucking road. Society is going to build around the son-of-a-bitch.

It is so unprofitable for such a road to exist that it wouldn't be built. No home owner isn't going to be obfuscated by some retard. This scenario is unlikely to occur in any case.

What most likely happen that a sub-company from a group of businesses that want to bring more consumers to their store will maintain and build roads for residents free of charge and collect profits in people being able to actually drive to their places of business. Fuck, the roads will most likely be mutually-owned property by the people that live on the street and they will pay a HOA fee to have it cleaned, paved, etc.

I mean, is it that hard to conger up an actual desirable and viable solution?

In conclusion, you people are frankly being naive.