5 ms·

I disagree with you and take the extreme absolute property rights view. I believe that only through strong property protections can we experience liberty: when

I disagree with you and take the extreme absolute property rights view. I believe that only through strong property protections can we experience liberty: when one's ownership in property is secure, then one may plan for the future. Conversely, when one's control of property is subject to the arbitrary whims of the state, then one may not plan for the future, and economic growth is not possible. Many poor nations, for instance, have terrible land title systems, and the land may be taken from you by the local magistrate if you are not the proper color / religion / race or have not paid the proper bribes. Such is not a good environment in which to experience liberty. Sure, your empty field will always be open for the public to play football, but there will never be a factory in that field providing jobs and improving the general prosperity. I won't attempt to tackle "the public good" or "actively harms society" here. (I'm assuming that when you mention property that you mean "outside, unenclosed spaces." Do you also extend your view to the buildings on property? Offices? Private homes?)

michaelmrose 9y ago
Meanwhile as land becomes more scarce as population increases AND ownership of wealth which includes land becomes more concentrated in the hands of the few a shrinking minority will have any liberty by your own definition at all. In the US approximately 60% of households owned their home however of those most are owned by the bank. Only a steadily decreasing fraction are actually owned free and clear by those who reside there. Most of the US is in fact divided among those who will be kicked out next month if they don't make their rent and a higher class of renter who will be kicked out several months later if he doesn't catch up his mortgage payments. Both classes have little savings and may easily be a lost job away from homelessness.
literallycancer 9y ago
I've been to most countries in Europe, but I have only seen large swaths of land fenced off in the UK. So freedom to roam must be working well enough at least somewhere. There are a few legitimate reasons to have fences e.g. to along highways to keep out animals, but there is no reason why there couldn't be a gate every few hundred meters.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Actually most of Europe do not have freedom to roam in the legal sense, though might have more limited forms of it, and customs certainly are for not fencing everything in even when there is not explicit legal right of access. The UK on the other hand does have a legal form of freedom to roam that's very new, but very limited in terms of what is covered, so it affects very little land. Compare to the Nordic countries where e.g. it is actively illegal to e.g. fence in a privately owned forest most places, and barring restrictions on disturbing farm animals or ruining crops you can walk almost anywhere in rural areas, freely pick berries (outside of planted fields), mushrooms etc. even on private land, and even camp without needing to ask permission (but custom is to ask where it is convenient if you want to do so e.g. near a farm). Norway (the others might too, but it's Norway I know about) also have strict legal restrictions on building near the sea and blocking access to beaches etc. to protect public access.
vidarh 9y ago
Secure ownership does not require absolute property rights. There is not a single country in the world today that offers you absolute property rights, because it actively harms those around you. You are conflating the lack of absolute property rights with the other extreme. > I won't attempt to tackle "the public good" or "actively harms society" here. So in other words you constructed a strawman and didn't address the actual issue at all. The actual issue is the public good and the active harm to society and your neighbours that allowing anything near absolute property rights bring.

michaelmrose 9y ago

Meanwhile as land becomes more scarce as population increases AND ownership of wealth which includes land becomes more concentrated in the hands of the few a shrinking minority will have any liberty by your own definition at all. In the US approximately 60% of households owned their home however of those most are owned by the bank. Only a steadily decreasing fraction are actually owned free and clear by those who reside there. Most of the US is in fact divided among those who will be kicked out next month if they don't make their rent and a higher class of renter who will be kicked out several months later if he doesn't catch up his mortgage payments. Both classes have little savings and may easily be a lost job away from homelessness.

literallycancer 9y ago

I've been to most countries in Europe, but I have only seen large swaths of land fenced off in the UK. So freedom to roam must be working well enough at least somewhere. There are a few legitimate reasons to have fences e.g. to along highways to keep out animals, but there is no reason why there couldn't be a gate every few hundred meters.

vidarh 9y ago
Actually most of Europe do not have freedom to roam in the legal sense, though might have more limited forms of it, and customs certainly are for not fencing everything in even when there is not explicit legal right of access. The UK on the other hand does have a legal form of freedom to roam that's very new, but very limited in terms of what is covered, so it affects very little land. Compare to the Nordic countries where e.g. it is actively illegal to e.g. fence in a privately owned forest most places, and barring restrictions on disturbing farm animals or ruining crops you can walk almost anywhere in rural areas, freely pick berries (outside of planted fields), mushrooms etc. even on private land, and even camp without needing to ask permission (but custom is to ask where it is convenient if you want to do so e.g. near a farm). Norway (the others might too, but it's Norway I know about) also have strict legal restrictions on building near the sea and blocking access to beaches etc. to protect public access.

vidarh 9y ago

Secure ownership does not require absolute property rights. There is not a single country in the world today that offers you absolute property rights, because it actively harms those around you. You are conflating the lack of absolute property rights with the other extreme. > I won't attempt to tackle "the public good" or "actively harms society" here. So in other words you constructed a strawman and didn't address the actual issue at all. The actual issue is the public good and the active harm to society and your neighbours that allowing anything near absolute property rights bring.