Ownership...

[Scott Mayers]

I recently had attempted to fight a $250.00 fine for "Trespassing" on the CN railway. The track in question cuts off two or more miles of an area here in Saskatoon to an industrial and business district to which pedestrians are NOT allowed to cross this track without penalty. Without going into the details of my case, I have to ask what others think about the idea of "ownership"?

My initial understanding of "ownership" begins with questioning the meaning based on its etymological roots. Here, the root is "own". We don't question our 'right' to our own bodies and what we can hold directly. But to what extent is it "fair" that anyone can own a part of our environment? And what does it actually mean anyways?

Ownership to me is merely a 'right' imposed by some communal environmental force. All ownership is initially derived by merely either declaring it or stealing it by force from someone else. Either way, ownership is merely an imposition by some force granted to one person or persons to be able to have special privileges that others are not permitted in kind. To most, this is a God-granted right as if the Universe must physically obey this and others are subject to being a part of.

In reality, ownership is merely a privilege, not a 'right', with respect to nature and humanity. And only force itself is it's true source of its existence, often by originators who were, or still are, often totalitarian with respect to their internal mindset of what it means.

I believe ownership should NOT be an absolute allowance granted to anyone specifically. It has an advantage if it is only granted as a conditional agreement to maintain some function for a limited range of self-serving needs but emphasized only to serve the rest of society. That is, I believe we need a very limited form of ownership.

I also find the function of "corporate" ownership unacceptable to the degree it is given to private purposes. The topic of corporation is worth its own subject but with regards to granting a non-human entity person-hood, corporations should only be limited to public-owned entities that only serve a public concern, such as large infrastructure projects. Also, where it may be potentially proven to have some advantage to have private corporate projects, these should only be allowed for temporary purposes and permanently expire. Ownership should NOT belong to entities that lack full accountability (not limited liabilities).

What do others here think? I believe this an important political topic that has been long buried and should be readdressed. Note that I don't believe in the extreme of Communism but believe that we need to limit ownership if we are to find a better functioning and more fair society.

EDIT: For the question of a reference on OPs, here is one from Wikipedia to get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership

Edited June 22, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[TimG]

In reality, ownership is merely a privilege, not a 'right', with respect to nature and humanity. And only force itself is it's true source of its existence, often by originators who were, or still are, often totalitarian with respect to their internal mindset of what it means.

Fee simple ownership in Canadian law means the owner has a 100% right to decide who can enter the property or not. This is an extremely reasonable provision and the concept of ownership has no meaning without it.

That said, exceptions are allowed and governments can define rights of way for a public purpose that allow people to access a property without permission of the owner but these are exceptions - not the rule. So in the case of CN properties the public right of way would be limited to the area where a road crosses the tracks and no where else. It don't see any problem with this.

I also find the function of "corporate" ownership unacceptable to the degree it is given to private purposes.

Corporations are groups of people and allow people to pool resources in order to accomplish some objective. The ability of corporations to own assets is central to their purpose and it makes no sense to treat corporations differently than people when it comes to property ownership.

Lastly, I suspect the reason for your ticket is for liability reasons. i.e. if CN simply accepted trespassing it would then be liable for things the trespassers did. By issuing tickets CN can now argue in court that it is not responsible for people breaking the law. If you have a problem with this the blame rests with lawyers and courts which routinely ignore common sense when it comes to finding someone to pay for bad events. Fix that problem and CN would likely have no problem with people crossing the tracks.

Edited June 22, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

For me "ownership" establishes control and responsibility.

It can either be allocated, awarded, purchased, or assumed. It may be an idea, a song, a literary piece, a piece of real estate or any other material thing. You have the right to gain from that ownership and/or you have to assume liability for that ownership.

[Freddy]

if you can enforce it, and a majority accepts it. You can pretend paper is worth something.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Freddy

[Scott Mayers]

Fee simple ownership in Canadian law means the owner has a 100% right to decide who can enter the property or not. This is an extremely reasonable provision and the concept of ownership has no meaning without it.

That said, exceptions are allowed and governments can define rights of way for a public purpose that allow people to access a property without permission of the owner but these are exceptions - not the rule. So in the case of CN properties the public right of way would be limited to the area where a road crosses the tracks and no where else. It don't see any problem with this.

Corporations are groups of people and allow people to pool resources in order to accomplish some objective. The ability of corporations to own assets is central to their purpose and it makes no sense to treat corporations differently than people when it comes to property ownership.

Lastly, I suspect the reason for your ticket is for liability reasons. i.e. if CN simply accepted trespassing it would then be liable for things the trespassers did. By issuing tickets CN can now argue in court that it is not responsible for people breaking the law. If you have a problem with this the blame rests with lawyers and courts which routinely ignore common sense when it comes to finding someone to pay for bad events. Fix that problem and CN would likely have no problem with people crossing the tracks.

The 100% right is a problem if and where this is actually true. I do believe that most people automatically presume this. I agree to the limited privilege (as Big Guy above presumes) but NOT to absolute ones that arbitrarily act against such purposes.

With regards to corporations, the original intent of this invention served good purposes. But with today's evolution of it, I disagree with private absolution of ownership in a corporate body without accountability. The incentive of limited liability, and the lack of realistic limits of how long or how much such entities can be privileged in law make them inevitable to lead to eventual forms of government that are non-democratic as they both hide the 'owners' and restrict them from being liable to the communities in which they serve. The "profit" incentive is troublesome too. While the profit to a public corporation serves the public, this type of privilege serves a fair purpose to everyone. But a government that opts to privilege private incorporation, this 'person' is privileged to gain by investment with the benefit to pass on losses to the whole of society when things fail (in their capacity to go bankrupt without any investors' risk of loss outside of initial investments, for instance.)

With regards to the CN, they are privileged with their own police force that has the equal force in law as our regular police departments on OUR tax dollars which unfairly privileges them a protected status fully paid for by us even greater than other private owners. (This is something I believe if most taxpayers knew would go against too since it unfairly privileges some private 'persons' over all others.) This barrier (the two-mile track) acts as a troll charge. They claim that this is done for 'my' protection. I try to compare this to me having a concealed weapon and being granted special privilege to charge someone for walking past me on a public sidewalk as it could place them at risk of me potentially shooting them! I was crossing this as a pedestrian in an area that I could see for two miles in both directions and in which is a well-worn path to which many people require crossing regardless. As such, it is no different than building a bridge, presenting it as a public and free service until a time when it defeats all other options (such as earlier fairy crossings that no longer exist or are allowed in law) At such a later time, the owner(s) then opt to extort the less privileged to cross. (This is why the Romans eventually became despised in ancient times and the initial causes of what became "Christianity".)

Ownership needs to be limited. Also, we should not be able to arbitrarily be able to pass on inheritance to others, another topic in its own right.

[Scott Mayers]

if you can enforce it, and a majority accepts it. You can pretend paper is worth something.

The key word is "majority". But this requires a means to do this democratically. And a representative democracy of our Canadian form is NOT sufficient for this purpose.

[TimG]

The 100% right is a problem if and where this is actually true.

It is true and it is not a problem. You don't have a right to enter a bank building at night without permission just because you feel like it. I also think that the vast majority of people understand this and the only issue is people don't realize that railways are private property.

But with today's evolution of it, I disagree with private absolution of ownership in a corporate body without accountability.

Corporations are liable for what is done with the property and in some cases the directors of the company are personally liable (i.e. for environment cleanup). I see no issues with the implementation of the law today. If anything, the law has gone too far in imposing liability for events that a reasonable person could not foresee.

With regards to the CN, they are privileged with their own police force that has the equal force in law as our regular police departments on OUR tax dollars which unfairly privileges them a protected status fully paid for by us even greater than other private owners.

Please provide links substantiating your claim that the CN police are funded by taxpayers. As for the ticket: they are no different than the tickets you get for parking in a private parking lot. You can ignore them, however, CN could refer the debt to collection agency and mess up your credit report.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/if-i-get-a-ticket-from-a-private-company-do-i-have-to-pay-it/article22458805/

Ownership needs to be limited.

It is already limited. A right of way can be granted across any property if it is in the public interest. The problem is you insisted in walking in an area where no right of way has been requested or granted. It is quite ridiculous to expect the right of way to be automatic. If you think a right of way should exist for the corridor you want to use you should take it up with your city council who has to power to ask/demand that one be set up. Edited June 22, 2015 by TimG

[Freddy]

The key word is "majority". But this requires a means to do this democratically. And a representative democracy of our Canadian form is NOT sufficient for this purpose.

Then you must rally the people who, like you, oppose this unacceptable law, And defy it. By exercising your right to demonstrate and parade your defiance, by Marching on parliament hill to demonstrate your sovereignty.

If it's not worth all that time then it might not be as big of a deal as you first thought.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Freddy

[Topaz]

Yeah, I heard about this on the news, and their point is, the safety of people because many times the engineer can't see if anyone is on the tracks and its takes many many feet to stop the train. Too many young people have been killed lately on the tracks and I can understand the companies point of view.

[August1991]

I have to ask what others think about the idea of "ownership"?

Do you "own" the area above your home? If a plane flies over your house, can you charge WestJet for their use of your airspace?

Do you "own" the ground below your home? If Exxon discovers oil below your house, whose oil is it? Yours?

=====

Scott, ownership (property law), along with contract law, are the basis of a civilized society - IMV, they form the "rule of law".

[The_Squid]

I prefer the concept of "every man's right to roam" that several Nordic countries have.

The ticket handed out in the OP would not happen in Finland. Which, if it doesn't cause anyone any harm, should be the case. There was no disruption to the property... there is no reason that people shouldn't be allowed to cross some railroad tracks. It seems completely idiotic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Finland

In Finland, the freedom to roam and related rights are called "jokamiehenoikeus" in Finnish and "allemansrätten" in Swedish (lit. "the everyman's right"), similar to other Nordic countries.

Everyone may walk, ski or cycle freely in the countryside where this does not harm the natural environment or the landowner, except in gardens or in the immediate vicinity of people's homes (yards). Fields and plantations, which may easily be harmed, may usually not be crossed except in the winter.

One may stay or set up camp temporarily in the countryside, a reasonable distance from homes, pick mineral samples, wild berries, mushrooms and flowers (as long as they are not protected species). One may fish with a rod and line (only still waters), row, sail or use a motorboat on waterways (with certain restrictions), and swim or bathe in both inland waters and the sea. One can walk, ski and ice fish on frozen lakes, rivers and the sea.

[-1=e^ipi]

There is no a priori moral basis for ownership of property.

However, ownership of private property allows individuals to benefit from their labour and investments, which results in a more productive and prosperous society. So property rights are justified because they lead to good outcomes.

Take first nations on reserves, who do not own their houses and often do not have private ownership because so much is owned communally. As a result, the incentive to invest in your land is very small, and you cannot leverage your land with a bank to finance capital to start a business. As a result, people on reserves are poorer than they could otherwise be due to lack of property rights.

Also, how to native rights, the indian act and treaties fit into this discussion?

[Scott Mayers]

TimG,

Thanks for the link on private companies. However, I had to go to our public court to appeal a charge of something of which I did not actually do. I was charged only approaching the crossing and was still on the grass. I asked the charging officer how he defined the supposed limits without property markers and/or signs. He pointed to one on the bridge ahead of which I could not even read yet. He should have given me a mere warning as his charge was based on a thought-crime that hadn't actually been committed. The judge almost gave me the case except he mentioned something to which I responded out of court-expected etiquette. So he opted to stay the charge but then was stuck trying to argue why. He already pre-established my concern fairly but then after pissing him off, he gave the following reason: since the track is raised, this should stand clearly to indicate the nature of its private property to which my approach is sufficient to determine ANY reasonable person that it was private. What he didn't seem to be aware of was that the gradual incline was only designed to enable it to bridge over a highway and then declined back to the regular ground-level.

This is where I have to agree with The_Squid. The judge further stated that he had no power to alter the way the CN had been privileged but that I'd have to challenge this within the political system through my MP. I told him that he DID have the power. This is why such cases are even allowed to be tried. Judges have a right to interpret cases individually and so he could have fairly given me fairness here by throwing it out under the circumstances.

He also added that all CN and CP rail police are equally empowered to enforce ALL laws on par with our public police officers. So, unless he didn't realize it, he was setting a precedent to conserve this view. It is like the CN and CP got a field promotion (where merely an accident of being presumed a higher rank in the field gives you the promotion). I'm hoping you're right on the traffic private company thing. I already announced clearly that I would still NOT pay any fine. I was given three weeks to pay and this has passed. I would have re-challenged this but the appeal would at least cost as much as the ticket. [This is supposedly the cost for the court transcription I must pay for as a pre-requisite to use for another trial.] So this basically assures complete and unfair power by such private companies to freely charge without accountability.

With respect to other comments on 'ownership', we need to recognize degrees of rights. As for a private company to a right to protect out of fear of others transferring liability, this isn't absolutely true either. They could opt to build a tunnel or walkway over these areas; they could build a fence to clearly indicate their 'ownership'. Also, if someone were to break into your home, you cannot use any more force than that which the offender is using or you too can be liable. This isn't the case with powerful corporations that get such privileges. The CN police are licenced to carry fire arms and can use this where thought needed. A private home owner cannot use a gun against an intruder not at least carrying the same!!