Keene Activist May Be Jailed Tomorrow Morning 8/15 Over a U-Turn!

[EthanAllen]

What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.

[jaqeboy]

Congrats to Dave M. for his willingness to go to jail for this.  We were certain that is what would happen. 
I have never been to traffic court before.  They were initially seeing people in line the way mcdonalds serves burgers.  I was surprised.  Traffic court is a big business. 

It definitely is - I've always wanted to bring an adding machine and tally up all they bring in in fines on a given day.

On the other hand, they have high overhead and there may be as many as 9 people involved, running up salary costs. I estimated once that it costs them $120 each 15 minutes for just the salaries, not the rent and heat. They were anxious for a case with a $120 fine not to be heard! That must be the reason why - Somewhere there is an administrative judge/beancounter that is telling the judge to speed it up and don't have protracted hearings because they can't even break even on those.

The National Motorists' Association says fight every ticket!

[J’raxis 270145]

What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.

Not everyone supports privatization of roads. I've suggested before that either:—

• Roads are one of the few things that should be held "in common." The change from the status quo would be that roads would need to be 100% funded through some form of voluntary user fee, such as tolls or a gasoline tax, and not through involuntary taxation.
  
  
• Roads could be "privatized," not by selling them off to a for-profit corporation, but by founding a new non-profit company that would be contractually obligated (by their articles of incorporation/charter) to serve the public and keep the roads open to all.

[EthanAllen]

What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.

Not everyone supports privatization of roads. I've suggested before that either:—

• Roads are one of the few things that should be held "in common." The change from the status quo would be that roads would need to be 100% funded through some form of voluntary user fee, such as tolls or a gasoline tax, and not through involuntary taxation.
  
  
• Roads could be "privatized," not by selling them off to a for-profit corporation, but by founding a new non-profit company that would be contractually obligated (by their articles of incorporation/charter) to serve the public and keep the roads open to all.

I believe the term you are looking for then is not "privatized" but "mutualized".

If a road is built contiguous with privately owned land, then why should a private landowner profit?

[CNHT]

From what I understand, he did it late at night when there was basically no one else on the road.  Not what I'd call dangerous.

OH God! Just reading this gave me the creeps.

It reminds me of the time I was driving across Kansas, not a car in sight, and I made a sort of U-turn because I thought I was lost.
Actually it was on a divided highway, and I used the little road that goes in between, so it was not really a turn in the street itself.
When I got stopped, I had a gun shoved into my face, for absolutely no reason.
The terror still lingers when I think about it, even though it was in 1972...

[dalebert]

What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.

Why is that ironic? Those are not contradictory positions.

[J’raxis 270145]

I believe the term you are looking for then is not "privatized" but "mutualized".

You mean my second point? No, that's still privatization—it's releasing the land into private hands, isn't it? It's simply structuring the corporation in a different manner, so we can sort of achieve a "best of both worlds" situation: The land is no longer government controlled, no longer paid for by tax dollars and coercion, thus satisfying most libertarian concerns, and the land is still held in a manner that maintains the commons and the public good, thus satisfying most progressive/leftist concerns.

[coffeeseven]

Congrats to Dave M. for his willingness to go to jail for this.  We were certain that is what would happen. 
I have never been to traffic court before.  They were initially seeing people in line the way mcdonalds serves burgers.  I was surprised.  Traffic court is a big business. 

It definitely is - I've always wanted to bring an adding machine and tally up all they bring in in fines on a given day.

On the other hand, they have high overhead and there may be as many as 9 people involved, running up salary costs. I estimated once that it costs them $120 each 15 minutes for just the salaries, not the rent and heat. They were anxious for a case with a $120 fine not to be heard! That must be the reason why - Somewhere there is an administrative judge/beancounter that is telling the judge to speed it up and don't have protracted hearings because they can't even break even on those.

The National Motorists' Association says fight every ticket!

They don't have to break even. Can't justify more taxes applied to their budget next year if the start showing a profit.

[EthanAllen]

What I find very ironic is that the people who are trying to argue that there is a common right of way for individual travel on the public highways want to privatize the highways which would get rid of common right of ways.

Why is that ironic? Those are not contradictory positions.

There will be no enforceable common right of way for all individuals on private roads.

[penguins4me]

There's not an enforceable right-of-way for all individuals on public roads right now! Try driving without a license plate, or inspection tags, or with a cracked window, or any other item on a long list of "because we say so" laws.

[EthanAllen]

There's not an enforceable right-of-way for all individuals on public roads right now! Try driving without a license plate, or inspection tags, or with a cracked window, or any other item on a long list of "because we say so" laws.

That's because there are two different principles at work. One is a common right of way contained within the roadway which is an individual equal right but subordinated. The actual road itself is owned collectively which is a joint right. Because it is a joint right then theoretically each joint owner must get the permission from each of the other owners prior to use (consensus) or from their delegated authority who can set terms and conditions of use (regulations).

The same is true for sidewalks but you don't need a license to walk on the sidewalk. The common right of way principle is not subordinated. You just can't infringe on the equal rights of others (common rights) in it's use. That is why the police officer in Dada's open carry video said people can not congregate on a sidewalk (three across) and they have to keep on moving.

[dalebert]

There will be no enforceable common right of way for all individuals on private roads.

Right, because they would be private. The rules would be set by the owner, and because she would hope people want to use the road, she would likely keep them reasonable.

What we have now is an elite class claiming authority over roads and driving. There is still a profit motive, but it's not legitimate because their authority is not legitimate, and we have a monopoly on roads by this illegitimate entity which makes them dangerous. The notion of public property or collective property is a farce, and so is not recognized by those who don't see government as legitimate.

[EthanAllen]

The rules would be set by the owner, and because she would hope people want to use the road, she would likely keep them reasonable.

I don' want to give up a common right for the hope someone will be "reasonable".

The notion of public property or collective property is a farce, and so is not recognized by those who don't see government as legitimate.

Do you understand the difference between "common" rights/property and "collective" rights/property? People use the word "public" to mean both.

[Caleb]

Ethan, it seems to me that a good description of a common area would be: Definition 1) an area that is open to the use of everyone, so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others to use the area.

You seem to be slipping in another definition of a common area:  Definition 2) An area that is under the control of an authoritarian regime that may make and enforce whatever rules it wants.

If an individual commits no force or fraud, and is not obstructing others or creating any victims in the common area, he's sound as a pound in my book.

But you have repeatedly said things like "you have to keep moving in a common area so as not to obstruct the other passersby (even if there are no other passersby) because the courts have so ruled" and things of this ilk. Do you not see that you are slipping in definition 2?

[dalebert]

Do you understand the difference between "common" rights/property and "collective" rights/property? People use the word "public" to mean both.

The discussion of those concepts has been beaten to death on this forum before. Are you Frank?