7 ms·

Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.

by tabeth 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago
You can believe in property rights without believing that they are not subject to any limitations.
clavalle 9y ago
Like any right, there is no absolute. When your rights conflict with my rights there has to be a limit placed on one, the other, or both. Finding a simplistic approach that will work in 100% of cases is impossible. Once that is realized you can both hold the general idea that private property rights be respected /and/ that public access to public property be granted as well whenever possible. The idea is to minimize the encroachment of one against the other and to find a balance for each situation where the question is hazy.
cortesoft 9y ago
Not sure what you mean? This is about dealing with competing property rights.. in California, the coastline itself is owned by the public, so this is about how these two property claims are resolved. This is similar to if you had a piece of property, and then someone else bought all the property around yours and cut off access to your property. Are they required to give you access or not? What sort of access?
djur 9y ago
I also believe in a more limited concept of private property, but setting that aside: Property ownership in the Anglo-American legal system has always been subject to limitations. Property owners have common-law obligations both to the government (traditionally the sovereign) and to other private citizens. These are typically easements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement). The US Constitution specifies that the government cannot take property without "just compensation". The legal dispute at issue here is whether California requiring Khosla to permit people to travel through his property to reach the beach is a "taking" or whether it is simply enforcing an existing easement that was already established at the time he purchased the property.
GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
The property right in question is the public's right to the beach, which is public property; we'd have to look at the code to see where the property line ends. If there's some inlet cove or the like surrounded by cliffs, but you own all the land accessing it then generally you can't put up a fence that stops the public from accessing the beach. Edit: remembered a notable exception, but it was on a military base

Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.

by tabeth 9y ago

Can someone explain to me how one can believe in property rights and also be against this? fwiw I think property rights should be drastically scaled back.

dragonwriter 9y ago

You can believe in property rights without believing that they are not subject to any limitations.

clavalle 9y ago

Like any right, there is no absolute. When your rights conflict with my rights there has to be a limit placed on one, the other, or both. Finding a simplistic approach that will work in 100% of cases is impossible. Once that is realized you can both hold the general idea that private property rights be respected /and/ that public access to public property be granted as well whenever possible. The idea is to minimize the encroachment of one against the other and to find a balance for each situation where the question is hazy.

cortesoft 9y ago

Not sure what you mean? This is about dealing with competing property rights.. in California, the coastline itself is owned by the public, so this is about how these two property claims are resolved. This is similar to if you had a piece of property, and then someone else bought all the property around yours and cut off access to your property. Are they required to give you access or not? What sort of access?

djur 9y ago

I also believe in a more limited concept of private property, but setting that aside: Property ownership in the Anglo-American legal system has always been subject to limitations. Property owners have common-law obligations both to the government (traditionally the sovereign) and to other private citizens. These are typically easements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement). The US Constitution specifies that the government cannot take property without "just compensation". The legal dispute at issue here is whether California requiring Khosla to permit people to travel through his property to reach the beach is a "taking" or whether it is simply enforcing an existing easement that was already established at the time he purchased the property.

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago

The property right in question is the public's right to the beach, which is public property; we'd have to look at the code to see where the property line ends. If there's some inlet cove or the like surrounded by cliffs, but you own all the land accessing it then generally you can't put up a fence that stops the public from accessing the beach. Edit: remembered a notable exception, but it was on a military base