4 ms·
> Not at all. I'm not telling anybody how to be happy. Well, you were. You said it's hard to be pursue happiness without property rights. Anyway, you're confl
by vacri 9y ago
> Not at all. I'm not telling anybody how to be happy.
Well, you were. You said it's hard to be pursue happiness without property rights.
Anyway, you're conflating two aspects of property rights. First, the mere concept of property rights: property exists, people use it in some manner, therefore some sort of access right is involved. Second, the actual private ownership and enforcement of property. I've never seen a libertarian argue in favour of Right to Roam over private property (or any other kind of public access right). It's a simplistic philosophy wherein the right to private property trumps any concern other than the right to be free in action - it has no answers when dealing with real-world issues like scarcity of common goods such as water supplies.
To be more specific then, when I say that libertarianism is overly interested in property rights, I don't mean the merest hint of humans interacting with property. I mean that too much of their central philosophy is based around control of private property and enforcement thereof.
- WalterBright 9y ago> I've never seen a libertarian argue in favour of Right to Roam over private property (or any other kind of public access right). Much of private property has easements on it for various purposes. Some of these are created by the landowner and sold, some are created by the government for various purposes using the power of Eminent Domain. I've seen easements for the purpose of a public trail. I don't see any particularly unlibertarian thing about it, though the government does abuse Eminent Domain from time to time. Property rights do tend to be complicated, that's why there are lawyers that specialize in it. One of my neighbors didn't read the title report on his house before he bought it, and discovered to his chagrin that the property behind him had an easement across his property for a driveway to access that lot when it got developed. Oops. It pays to read the title report.
- todd8 9y agoI own a lot right now that grants me an easement for access to it. The easement was established by the original developer that laid out the roads and property lines for the whole subdivision. This easement crosses a corner of a neighbor's lot. The neighbor asked me to sell the easement back to him or enter into a contract with him that I wouldn't use it. He wanted to put his driveway there. I refused because part of the value in my purchase of the lot is the access that the easement grants to me and the neighbor wasn't willing to pay what I considered it to be worth. My neighbor went ahead and put a very nice driveway, stone wall and garden over my easement; if I ever decide to build on my lot I expect there might be some hard feelings when the bulldozer arrives.
- WalterBright 9y ago> You said it's hard to be pursue happiness without property rights. You can parse my language however you want, but let's cut to the chase. There's a commune in America you can join, where you won't own anything, you share with every other member. The average length of time members stay is about a year and a half. Evidently, they didn't find happiness there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Wind_Community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Wind_Community And just to be clear, libertarianism means you're free to form communes if you want. You just are not allowed to force people to join, nor are you allowed to prevent anyone from leaving. You can choose the property-right-less lifestyle if you like. Isn't freedom great?