On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Lombardi Lisa Marie wrote:
>
> Society has always decided how many of the bundle of sticks is actually
> yours to do with as you please, and of course tried to mediate between
> different neighbors's views of where my bundle ends and yours begins.
> But no-where is there any legal support for the idea that your "right" to
> do with your property as you please trumps my right to quiet use and
> enjoyment of my own. In short, your right to swing your fist stops at my
> nose.
I would disagree with Lisa's next to last sentence. I think that
a property right gives one person or group the legal support of the
state to impose costs on another. For example, in Miller at al. v.
Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928) the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment
of the Virginia Supreme Court to chose the rights of apple tree land
owners over the rights of cedar tree land owners in a situation in
which both trees were needed in the life cycle of a rust disease. The
Virginia court held that the cedar tree owners had to destroy their
trees without compensation when they were within a two mile radius of
an apple orchard. This case simply illustrates that property
rights determine whose interests count when interests conflict. They
determine who is free and who is controlled by the freedom
of others. This case also suggests the reciprocal nature of property
rights.
For more info on this case and the associated issues, I would
suggest Law and Economics by W.J. Samuels and A.A. Schmid (eds.), the
chapter on "Interrelations between Legal and Economic Processes." by
W.J. Samuels.
Steve Cooke