Discussions with Block on the "entrapment" problem with private roads

Economics Political Theory
1

Here’s our exchange for a full understanding of the matter in discussion:

From: Bardhyl Salihu [mailto:bardhyls@gmail.com]
Sent: Fri 2/12/2010 12:06 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Regarding your solution to the “entrapment” problem in privately-owned roads

Dear Dr. Block,

I’m currently reading your book Privatization of Roads and Highways, and I just finished reading you critique of Van Dun on freedom and property (2010). I still have problems with your solution regarding the “entrapment” problem. Let me first define my understanding of it.

By “entrapment,” I understand the situation whereby a person is unable to move outside his/her premises (property) when his/her only “way out” is through a private road, either because the owner of the road has prohibited the person from using the road, or because he’s charging an exorbitant price which that person can’t afford.

Now you say that this situation can only occur very rarely, because before a person “in his right mind” buys property which is “isolated,” he/she will make sure the access to the “outside world” is warranted first. However, this does not deal with a situation where the person already owns property whose only way out is a governmentally-owned road (in which he/she has free, unlimited access), but that road suddenly gets privatized. In this case, that person is powerless to make any “escape” deals because the road does not constitute his property, it is government’s. Unless the government somehow “agrees with” the new private owner to cede free access to the “entrapped” persons, the problem will still exist. The only possible way in which this person can now move outside is if he asked the road owner not to stop him because he wants to homestead a place somewhere else (which the owner has to accept in order to avoid precluding or forestalling).

You probably have responses to this situation, it’s just that I’m unfamiliar them (haven’t met them yet) in your writings. That’s why I thought contacting you directly may help me understand the solution. This is one of the problems I see with privatizing roads, at least for now.

Regards,
Bardhyl

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Walter Block walterblock@cba.loyno.edu wrote:

Dear Bardhyl (if I may);

Please tell me a bit about yourself. Are you a student? Professor?

A very good question. Frankly, I hadn’t thought about it before; thanks for bringing it to my attention.

My thought is that the govt stole the land it used for “its” road from private sources. It did so either directly or indirectly. Directly, by seizing land, in an eminent domain case. Indirectly, by buying it from private owners, but with the money it stole from taxpayers. In either case, the govt cannot get any more rights than those it stole from the private sources, either directly or indirectly. So, when it sells or gives away “its” land to a new private owner, the new private owner cannot have any more rights to hem in people than the old ones had. But, in my view, the old ones had no such rights. So, then, neither can the new ones.

Murray Rothbard wrote something roughly on this question. Something about the government seizing, or selling, the Rockefeller estates, but I can’t seem to find this reference. So, a suggestion to you:

Please pardon this sentence in form letter style, but I make remarks of this sort often, and I find it saves me time. In order to get more answers/responses to your important question, and/or better publicize your point, I urge you to go to https://forum.freecapitalists.org/, and register it on that venue. If you do, please feel free to copy my answer along with your query.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics
College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504)864-7934
fax: (504)864-7970
[wblock@loyno.edu](mailto:wblock@loyno.edu)
2

It seems to me that this matter, if it does arise, is completely due to the previous actions of the state. The market cannot be faulted for this, and so you cannot formulate an argument against the privatization of roads on this basis. There is no doubt that the elimination of state interference in an area where the state has traditionally held a monopoly is bound to lead to some problems in the short term. This however, cannot be made into an argument for the continuation of the state monopoly for it leads to an inner contradiction: continuing the state monopoly on roads will only create more of these undesirable situations to be resolved in the case of state collapse or incapacitation. In other words, it is best to stop this process now and deal with the consequences of state monopoly as they currently exist rather than dealing with a potentially more severe problem further in the future.

An analogy could be made with public sector employment. Would it be best to eliminate government employment when it is at 10% of the population, or when it reaches 70%, and the country is bankrupt? The earlier action, however unpopular, would have led to less social chaos and human misery.

3

This argument doesn’t necessarily argue for continuous road & highway control by the government, it merely points out a problem that could arise from the privatization. If the government decided to give the road through concession, for example, they could set a condition which required the future road owner to allow these people access to the road in the same quantity or price as it allows other users that have more elastic demand (can choose other roads).

Your point in “privatizing as early as possible” is not a remedy here, because it’s exactly the privatization that puts these people into trouble. Again, not that this is an argument in favour of gov.'t control of roads, it simply shows that not everything is rosy with the privatization and that we may have to do a cost-benefit analysis to see whether it’s worth it or not. One thing is clear, though, these “entrapped” people would suffer dearly in such situations.

4

As a quick rebuttal I would first ask why think in such 2-dimensional cardinal directions? Why not exiting ones property via the sky or a tunnel? Secondly, and more pressing of a point, who cares? If one accepts true ownership of property then you must accept the possibility of legally being entrapped. The problem is that people wish to insert a disclaimer into every radical situation in favor of protecting the individual. Why? What is innate about the individual that allows them authorization to such a disclaimer? Furthermore, such a disclaimer is really purporting that individual A owns their property up until that ownership causes misfortune upon individual B, vice versa. In this case who own what? Why shouldn’t someone have the right to build a large electric fence around their property, even if such a fence were entrap another individual? Are we forgetting that the entrapped individual may still exchange for their freedom? And even if the entrapper doesn’t wish to exchange with that individual, they may still appeal to outside individuals (unless we are doubting the market for such an occasion).

Maybe the private firm HOUSE REMOVAL–specializing in cases where individuals are entrapped can swoop their house up and relocate it.

Maybe private charity firms seek to help the individual.

Maybe the individuals life insurance company hires people to entrap the entrapper or force monetary penalties on him

5

Privatisation always must be pursued by libertarians in one way or another. There is no option of or argument for state control, so if this is not an attempt at an argument for government control, what is it? Entrapment is solvable via easements. If easements were not acquired, other avenues must be pursued. Caveat emptor.

6

Well, you can always build a road of your own after buying property on other possible “escape” areas, but how much will that cost you? The same goes for helicopters and tunnels. HOUSE REMOVAL can take care of it and simply hand you the bill in the end, but it won’t magically make the expansion/construction/flying cheaper. You’ll still have to pay a very high price, if not higher than digging or flying yourself (due to the packaged service). I don’t know if life insurance would cover this. Besides, nobody who isn’t in a such position will have to be insured because they know they will make sure that they don’t fall in such a situation when they buy property. This problem only affects people in ex post, those that have already had property dependent on one exit only, which means that they can’t have any insurance whatsoever.

But I like your suggestion that people “must accept the possibility of legally being entrapped.” I wouldn’t have a problem with this problem turning up in an already-free enterprise system. But when you have the government relinquish control of resources in favour of private individuals (and make us happy), this problem arises in existence. It’s its correlation with privatization that bothers me.

7

Jon,

It’s a suggestion that maybe there’s another way which I described earlier, with the possibility of conditional concessions.

8

I would also just like to add one more thing here that is rarely mentioned. The current system of government-controlled roads does not protect an individual against entrapment. The government can initiate a state of entrapment any time it desires. Under situations of martial law, or if individuals act in a way that the state disapproves of, the government can effectively sequester you from the the property of others using their roads. Indeed, the state does this incredibly frequently, as for instance with a police stand-off. In light of this, it would seem terribly odd for you to argue against the hypothetical entrapment that might occur initially when roads are first privatized, but ignore completely the greater issue of widespread existing entrapment which is carried out by the state all the time. Taken in this light, the argument for road privatization is also an argument against state entrapment.

9

I have shown how this is false in my post above. Entrapment can and does occur under a system of state-operated roads.

10

“Let us illustrate with a hypothetical example. Suppose that libertarian agitation and pressure has escalated to such a point that the government and its various branches are ready to abdicate. But they engineer a cunning ruse. Just before the government of New York state abdicates it passes a law turning over the entire territorial area of New York to become the private property of the Rockefeller family. The Massachusetts legislature does the same for the Kennedy family. And so on for each state. The government could then abdicate and decree the abolition of taxes and coercive legislation, but the victorious libertarians would now be confronted with a dilemma. Do they recognize the new property titles as legitimately private property? The utilitarians, who have no theory of justice in property rights, would, if they were consistent with their acceptance of given property titles as decreed by government, have to accept a new social order in which fifty new satraps would be collecting taxes in the form of unilaterally imposed “rent.” The point is that only natural-rights libertarians, only those libertarians who have a theory [p. 31] of justice in property titles that does not depend on government decree, could be in a position to scoff at the new rulers’ claims to have private property in the territory of the country, and to rebuff these claims as invalid. As the great nineteenth-century liberal Lord Acton saw clearly, the natural law provides the only sure ground for a continuing critique of governmental laws and decrees.1 What, specifically, the natural-rights position on property titles may be is the question to which we now turn.”

FNL - The Libertarian Creed - Chapter 2: Property and Exchange - MNR

Win. [:)]

11

If we accept that there is a way (HOUSE REMOVAL) upon which to leave your property, then we are no longer dealing with entrapment. You have thus repositioned yourself into an argument of price discrimination i.e. these companies may charge TOO much. No need to debate price prejudice. Of course we always have the charity route. If such entrapment has an annual probability of 1:1,000,000 then we are dealing with roughly 6,000 cases a year. Charity may suffice to help these 6000 individuals. Wwe can only hope for a higher probability like 1:1,000, meaning there will be greater competition among the HOUSE REMOVAL firms to bid the price down.

Furthermore, if you have a life insurance policy of a high amount (which may be recommended if your house is located in a HIGH PROBAILITY OF ENTRAPMENT ZONE–having only one exit) then it may be within the interests of the insurance company to bail you out, that is, if by being entrapped your are surley going to die.

You’re also bypassing what effects such a action would have on the entrapper. Headlines read, “Entrapper kills a family of five”. I would never hire, trade, exchange, insure, sell, pull out from a fire, perform CPR, etc for this asshole. And if a large majority of the population felt the same way, he may become blacklisted from any services and thus become socially or materially entrapped.

12

JosephBright,

The government can initiate any type of entrapment even if the roads were wholly privatized, providing there is some government. All those reasons you mentioned: martial law, disapproved behaviour, or police stand-offs can be also used as reasons to invade private owners’ roads, regardless whether they control them or not. In this light, this doesn’t serve as a strong counter-argument because it fails in distinction (it applies to both).

Make no mistake, my situation is not hypothetical. I know houses back in my home country that have only one direct access to a road (without a possibility to build a way out on the other sides). If those roads were privatized and the owners decided to charge them exorbitant prices, these people would be severely damaged.

13

There is no entrapment problem if one correctly understands the benefit of the division of labor.

14

And that is because the method of “privatization” by the state is completely illegitimate. What exactly do you contend is the proper method for the state to de-statize / de-socialize? i.e the one you are assuming in your posts.

15

Jeremiah Dyke,

I never meant entrapment in the complete, physical sense of the word. That wouldn’t prompt me to start a debate at all. I meant it in a manner which you have possible alternatives, but they are extremely problematic to be carried out due to economical and technical challenges.

I don’t think these entrapments would lead to extreme situations of total isolation and death from hunger, because people (e.g. relatives) would still trespass to help them. In this sense, I don’t think many people will be willing to give up their road preferences for this. Some of them might not even know of these situations. Diamonds cause bloody wars in Africa, yet people buy them for fun.

16

Conza88,

I’m thinking of a concession: the government still owns the road but gives it out to a private firm/individual to operate it and accrue all the benefits. In addition, the government sets conditions such as those against entrapment.

17

Concession? Sounds more like fascism.

Public-Private Partnerships: The Worst of Both Worlds - Block

If anything, again.. the problem is that way the state has “privatized”. The method & the state are to blame. There are other methods of de-statization / de-socialization, that would lead to avoiding such entrapment. How familiar are you with them? It seems to me, you believe there is only one way? i.e that mentioned?

18

Concessions have been around long before fascism.

19

“A concession is a special right or privilege that is given to someone.”

You’re not suggesting that the government / state grants rights, are you? … I didn’t think so.

Privilege, yes… and?

“the government still owns the road but gives it out to a private firm/individual to operate it and accrue all the benefits.”

“Public – private partnerships (PPP) are thus part and parcel of both fascism and socialism; they constitute a partial state ownership of the means of production. As well, they are emblematic of fascism, and government is the senior partner, and its regulations still determine the actions of these public – private partnerships.”

20

But would such form of privatisation really be just? Under libertarian theory it would not be. In the matter of privatisation of state factories in the Soviet Union Rothbard argued that they already have legitimate owners - the people who work in those factories and interact with them on a daily basis thus homesteading them. So a situation where such a factory would be privatised by being sold by the state to a millionaire owner could not be supported on natural rights grounds.

Block on the other hand asserts all public property (not just the parts you can mix your labour with) is unowned property and therefore viable to get homesteaded. The example he gives is a homeless person who takes refuge in a public library - he can not be rightfully ejected.

If we merge these two arguments does it not follow that the rightful owners of such a road are the people who use it daily and for whom it is critical? They - in the manner of the aforementioned library bum - homestead this public, and therefore unowned, road every day. So the only truly rightful privatisation is one where the state recognises their ownership of this road. Not one where it transfers its title to an unrelated 3rd entity.

Consider for example a case where the ownership of the sidewalk in front of your house is given to a politically connected businessman upon payment of a symbolic price to the state and a hefty bribe to an individual state official in charge of privatising sidewalks, would you feel like your sidewalk has been stolen from you? I think you would.

So this problem is a problem of imperfect privatisation rather than a problem of a fully libertarian privatisation.