5 ms·

Nothing man made is ever black and white. There is no universal physical law of morality. We can describe two different acts with the same word: > A guy stole

Nothing man made is ever black and white. There is no universal physical law of morality. We can describe two different acts with the same word: > A guy stole a sandwich from a super market because he was starving > A guy stole a Ferrari because he always wanted to drive a Ferrari These two things are not the same. The temporality of property rights is especially interesting. I hope you do realise that at some point in time there were no humans, and as such no such thing as property rights. When a human first laid claim on a stretch of land, you could argue that this in itself constituted theft, at this very moment this person deprived every other human being from accessing or cultivating this land. What moral right did this person have to claim this land? From there, millennia of war and conquest, laws and civilization. In Switzerland, where I'm from, patrician families still hold vast estates, dating back to feudal times. They legally own all of this but what about the morality of it? These estates were acquired centuries ago. By modern standards, the morality of it back then was clearly not given, because the wealth was amassed on the back of a populace in servitude. Add to this, that this has an impact on society today, by extension these inherited properties are limiting today's generations to express themselves.

vidarh 10y ago
> When a human first laid claim on a stretch of land, you could argue that this in itself constituted theft, at this very moment this person deprived every other human being from accessing or cultivating this land. What moral right did this person have to claim this land? In many countries, including Switzerland, there are of course specific laws that recognizes that property rights does not extend to full monopoly rights on land use. I'm from Norway, and the Nordic countries in particular have very extensive exemptions to private property rights that recognises that there are certain rights to land use, as a limited and fundamental resource, that are held in common irrespective of property rights. Sweden has this baked into the constitution. Norway until the late 50's I think did not have a law mentioning this right as it was considered so fundamental that it was long considered unnecessary to codify and courts would apply the principles anyway (this may not sound unusual from a common law perspective, but Norwegian law is a codified system of the Scandinavian model that evolved from Germanic law with Napoleonic influences, not at all a common law system) - the way you don't specifically cover the right to freely breathe the air. In Norway (and it's much the same in Sweden and Finland), this e.g. means that outside of urban settlements you don't need to ask permission to walk through a privately owned forest, or across a field, for example (though you may not walk across cultivated fields other than when frozen). Even if fenced in. Nor is the land owner entitled to stop you or erect barriers to prevent you access (that does not mean barriers are illegal if they have reasonable purposes, such as e.g. keep wild animals out, but there'd be expected to be gates etc. allowing access). You can pick berries or mushrooms etc. for your own consumption but not hunt without permission. You can camp. There are limits, but they are in line with what you would expect of considerate campers. It is also generally considered rude to e.g. camp right outside someone's garden without introducing yourself and asking, even if on land you may technically have right to camp on. There is a general zone of 100m along the shoreline that it is not normally permtted to build on, even if part of your property (though exemptions are granted, with the caveat that it is still not permitted to prevent access or usage of the immediate shoreline no matter how close you've been permitted to build). This is considered so ingrained in our culture that it is (or at least was when I was a kid) taught repeatedly in primary school. Fencing off or otherwise trying to restrict access to "utmark" ("outlying land"), even if it is your own property, is not just legally restricted but considered reprehensible and morally indefensible to the point where it regularly causes major outrage if someone is trying to push the limits (or e.g. if particularly extensive exemptions are given to build near the shore).
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Scotland has similar rights, England not so much, though there is a strong campaign for similar system to Scotland's.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    It was such a shock to move to England for me and see parks that closed at night (actually closed, with gates, and padlocks, as opposed to mostly symbolic "closing" of main gates you can just walk around which is the most I'm used to), and fences all over the place. How anyone can feel free in places where your ability to move about are so limited is beyond me... I still get this deep instinctual feeling that it's wrong when I e.g. walk along the Thames path and encounter gates that gets locked at certain times, or when I come across park squares with fences all around. I don't think people who have only ever lived in places where they encounter this regularly even understands how liberating it feels not to be locked in like that...
sheepdestroyer 10y ago
"La propriété, c'est le vol!" - Proudhon

vidarh 10y ago

> When a human first laid claim on a stretch of land, you could argue that this in itself constituted theft, at this very moment this person deprived every other human being from accessing or cultivating this land. What moral right did this person have to claim this land? In many countries, including Switzerland, there are of course specific laws that recognizes that property rights does not extend to full monopoly rights on land use. I'm from Norway, and the Nordic countries in particular have very extensive exemptions to private property rights that recognises that there are certain rights to land use, as a limited and fundamental resource, that are held in common irrespective of property rights. Sweden has this baked into the constitution. Norway until the late 50's I think did not have a law mentioning this right as it was considered so fundamental that it was long considered unnecessary to codify and courts would apply the principles anyway (this may not sound unusual from a common law perspective, but Norwegian law is a codified system of the Scandinavian model that evolved from Germanic law with Napoleonic influences, not at all a common law system) - the way you don't specifically cover the right to freely breathe the air. In Norway (and it's much the same in Sweden and Finland), this e.g. means that outside of urban settlements you don't need to ask permission to walk through a privately owned forest, or across a field, for example (though you may not walk across cultivated fields other than when frozen). Even if fenced in. Nor is the land owner entitled to stop you or erect barriers to prevent you access (that does not mean barriers are illegal if they have reasonable purposes, such as e.g. keep wild animals out, but there'd be expected to be gates etc. allowing access). You can pick berries or mushrooms etc. for your own consumption but not hunt without permission. You can camp. There are limits, but they are in line with what you would expect of considerate campers. It is also generally considered rude to e.g. camp right outside someone's garden without introducing yourself and asking, even if on land you may technically have right to camp on. There is a general zone of 100m along the shoreline that it is not normally permtted to build on, even if part of your property (though exemptions are granted, with the caveat that it is still not permitted to prevent access or usage of the immediate shoreline no matter how close you've been permitted to build). This is considered so ingrained in our culture that it is (or at least was when I was a kid) taught repeatedly in primary school. Fencing off or otherwise trying to restrict access to "utmark" ("outlying land"), even if it is your own property, is not just legally restricted but considered reprehensible and morally indefensible to the point where it regularly causes major outrage if someone is trying to push the limits (or e.g. if particularly extensive exemptions are given to build near the shore).

noir_lord 10y ago
Scotland has similar rights, England not so much, though there is a strong campaign for similar system to Scotland's.
- vidarh 10y ago
  It was such a shock to move to England for me and see parks that closed at night (actually closed, with gates, and padlocks, as opposed to mostly symbolic "closing" of main gates you can just walk around which is the most I'm used to), and fences all over the place. How anyone can feel free in places where your ability to move about are so limited is beyond me... I still get this deep instinctual feeling that it's wrong when I e.g. walk along the Thames path and encounter gates that gets locked at certain times, or when I come across park squares with fences all around. I don't think people who have only ever lived in places where they encounter this regularly even understands how liberating it feels not to be locked in like that...

sheepdestroyer 10y ago

"La propriété, c'est le vol!" - Proudhon