4 ms·

Are property rights freedom-preserving? One of the most infuriating bits of my visit to the US West coast was driving up from LA to SF and a lot of the really n

Are property rights freedom-preserving? One of the most infuriating bits of my visit to the US West coast was driving up from LA to SF and a lot of the really nice bits of coast not being accessible to the public. There's compromises like germanic Jedermansrecht [0], but overall I think limiting property rights is often a net gain of freedom. I do agree on the problem of NYMBYism though. There's a funny-if-not-so-sad dispute here in Berlin at the moment, where the leftist state government is desperately trying to build public housing while the leftist local government in the district of Lichtenberg is blocking a major developing due to local concern. Sadly I can't find an article in English, but I am sure there are dozens if not hundreds of examples for that. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

reducesuffering 5y ago
All of the California coastline is public.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  California coast is public up to mean high tide. This is appreciably different from, for example, Oregon where it is public further in (typically to the vegetation line, details are slightly complex). It makes it significantly easier for California property owners to de facto remove public access to beaches, which is very common in some areas. On top of this, CA courts have often been reluctant to enforce public rights to beaches.
quartesixte 5y ago
Those coast lines are most likely either inaccessible due to environmental protection concerns, or just straight up not easily accessible — lots of cliffs on the West Coast. Or just not very fun to be on. The beach cities of Southern California are blessed with having some of the most accessible beaches.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> Are property rights freedom-preserving? You’ll find that historically speaking “freedom” and “property rights” are treated as synonymous for some political theorists, including the ones that founded the United States. This is one of the foundational aspects[0] of liberalism that has come to rule the western world; the idea that property rights are sacred and must have an exceptionally high bar for the collective to intercede on. Whether or not that equivalence is true is a debatable matter. One of the unfortunate outcomes is the ability for the individual to withdraw their property from public use, often to the detriment of the whole (such as the beach example you provided). Also, the fact that the founding thinkers of liberalism and America itself tended to own slaves or trade in them doesn’t necessarily disprove the basic argument, but it’s a pretty strong counter point at least. 0 - There are of course other tenants to liberalism that I’ve not included here, due to their irrelevance for the subject at hand.
- foopfoop 5y ago
  > There are of course other tenants to liberalism You mean "tenets", but in a discussion about property rights I approve of the play on words.

reducesuffering 5y ago

All of the California coastline is public.

jcrawfordor 5y ago
California coast is public up to mean high tide. This is appreciably different from, for example, Oregon where it is public further in (typically to the vegetation line, details are slightly complex). It makes it significantly easier for California property owners to de facto remove public access to beaches, which is very common in some areas. On top of this, CA courts have often been reluctant to enforce public rights to beaches.

quartesixte 5y ago

Those coast lines are most likely either inaccessible due to environmental protection concerns, or just straight up not easily accessible — lots of cliffs on the West Coast. Or just not very fun to be on. The beach cities of Southern California are blessed with having some of the most accessible beaches.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> Are property rights freedom-preserving? You’ll find that historically speaking “freedom” and “property rights” are treated as synonymous for some political theorists, including the ones that founded the United States. This is one of the foundational aspects[0] of liberalism that has come to rule the western world; the idea that property rights are sacred and must have an exceptionally high bar for the collective to intercede on. Whether or not that equivalence is true is a debatable matter. One of the unfortunate outcomes is the ability for the individual to withdraw their property from public use, often to the detriment of the whole (such as the beach example you provided). Also, the fact that the founding thinkers of liberalism and America itself tended to own slaves or trade in them doesn’t necessarily disprove the basic argument, but it’s a pretty strong counter point at least. 0 - There are of course other tenants to liberalism that I’ve not included here, due to their irrelevance for the subject at hand.

foopfoop 5y ago
> There are of course other tenants to liberalism You mean "tenets", but in a discussion about property rights I approve of the play on words.