>
> Actually, I see the argument the other way: private property "nuts" are
> trying to expand the idea of private property outwards, towards
> boundaries that we have never seen in this country and may only have some
> historical existence in feudal europe. That everything is the lord's,
> including the wildlife and the fish and the water, was explicitly
> rejected by the colonialists and then by the founding fathers, in part
> because it led to social abuses. They went back instead to the idea of
> the commons, which was known from pre-enclosure england and other places,
> where resources were held, and used, in common.
>
There are certain defined common rights, which I agree are valid.
However, using someone else's property without compensation is also a
"taking".
> There were fewer clashes over those commons simply becuase there were
> fewer people, populations being kept in check by such things as the
> Black Death.
>
> 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.
>
> The impacts of land use are felt beyond the bounds of the parcel actually
> used; people may have known that intuitively for a while, but maybe it
> didn't matter in a relatively uncrowded world. Now we do know it, and it
> does matter, and so the burden of proof is shifting onto the proponent of
> use to show that his activity will not impair my quiet use and
> enjoyment. And that is where the burden should be: not on me, who is
> after all only seeking to live in peace and harmony, but on the person
> who will potentially disrupt my ability to do so.
>
But we all have personal definitions of what really impacts us. Is the
fact that someone accross the road is building a house that blocks my
view of the mountain causing me disruption? Certainly. Is it wrong?
No. If you wanted a nice view of the mountain, you should have baought
that portion of land.
> Public resources belong to us all, and our rights to them have not been
> extinguished. That is also a property right. No-one owns the fish, the
> wildlife, the water exclusively, such that he can "take" my property
> right away. How much impact is considered a take in this sense? Well,
> our laws say, for instance, the loss of species. the loss of water
> quality. The loss of water quantity as a component of water quality.
Public resources are a completely different issue. We can and do *vote*
on how these resources are used, and I have no problem with this. What I
do have a problem with is the gov't imposing restrictions on private
owners without just compensation. This is actually a constitutional
violation.
>
> This is the discussion point these days. Not, the triumph of property
> rights, but whose property rights. And then we get right back into
> issues of social justice, which is where the colonialists started. Do we
> all lose our public property for the benefit of the (usually already
> wealthy) few?
>
Whose property rights is truly what the discussion is about. I prefer to
allow the people who *paid* for the land decide. Trying to make this a
rich vs. poor thing is not what this is about. It is about what
ownership is and how do we treat it. We are not(or are not supposed to
be) a socialist state. I really don't know where the "life should be
easy", "I'm entitled to whatever *I* decide is a right", etc attitude got
started? Any ideas?
> Read William Kitteredge's "Owning it All." I'll post my favorite quote
> from it tomorrow.
OK.
Best,
Andy