5 ms·
I fully agree here. If you want to buy a plot of land, and leave it totally untouched, you should be able to, no matter what that land is, where it is, and what
by jdasdf 5y ago
I fully agree here. If you want to buy a plot of land, and leave it totally untouched, you should be able to, no matter what that land is, where it is, and what it could be used for.
I hold the same stance on being able to own an empty field in the middle of a high cost of living city, when that field could easily be built up into an apartment. Its your property, you should be the one deciding.
Ultimately private property ownership rights should be strengthened, and that is something that both conservationists, and those who seek to make use of the land for their own profit should agree on.
Unfortunately, like with many things, people are often jealous and unhappy about letting others do as they like with their own things. This should always be called out for the immoral greed that it is.
There are certainly arguments to be made that property owners have some responsibility to those around them, and society in general.
I don't think anyone would make a serious argument that a property owner should simply be able to store large amounts of fuel and explosives in the middle of town without taking any precautions to avoid accidental explosions that would harm peoples lives.
But the problem that i often see is that the restrictions and responsibilities grow and grow and grow, until they are entirely disconnected with the goals of public protection of life and property.
No, there is no legitimate reason for zoning. No, there is no legitimate reason to prevent or enforce resource collection. No, there is no legitimate reason to mandate specific color to be used when painting a building, or that said building follows any specific design requirements or safety requirements.
There are certainly certain requirements that should be enforced in order to protect other quiet enjoyment of their own land. For example, it makes perfect sense that noise levels be set, or emissions standards be set and that property owners should be responsible for ensuring that their property is not throwing out noise or emissions onto the commons and other properties above said standards.
That's perfectly legitimate.
But enforcing how those owners adhere to those standards is not.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThe property rights issue at question here is if the owner should be able to preferentially sell or or lease it to uses it aligns with, and not to the highest bidder. E. G. If you have a plot in the city and want to lease it to an interest you agree with.
- jdasdf 5y agoThey certainly should, but once sold, it's sold and you have no further interest in it.
- pc86 5y agoTypically yes, but isn't the issue here that they purchased natural resource extraction rights as well? Those explicitly disappear after a certain amount of time if they're not used.
- pc86 5y agoPrivate citizens and corporations can absolutely do this, provided they're not discriminating against a protected class. A covenant or warranty on a deed are some ways of doing this, but you can also just not sell. I think a bigger question in this instance is whether the government should be making these types of pseudo-moral decisions or if they should be bound by more restrictions than the average citizen/corporation.
- antifa 5y ago> Unfortunately, like with many things, people are often jealous and unhappy about letting others do as they like with their own things. This should always be called out for the immoral greed that it is. Ah yes, the classic "calling people out for immoral greed is the real immoral greed" This is like if I bought all the vegetables in the world and decided to bury them at a secret location. Well of course, if you didn't like that, it's not because your entire family is starving to death, it would be because you were the one being greedy and immoral, and you should mind your own business. You're not arguing against authoritarianism, you're actually saying it's good, you're mostly just defining who the authoritarians should be.
- Ensorceled 5y ago> No, there is no legitimate reason for zoning. No, there is no legitimate reason to prevent or enforce resource collection. No, there is no legitimate reason to mandate specific color to be used when painting a building, or that said building follows any specific design requirements or safety requirements. You've established that you draw the line at "store large amounts of fuel and explosives", but this would allow me to buy a house in a quiet neighbourhood, tear it down and build an auto shop, a 24/7 manufacturing facility or a night club.
- jdasdf 5y ago> this would allow me to buy a house in a quiet neighbourhood, tear it down and build an auto shop, a 24/7 manufacturing facility or a night club. And that's just fine. If they are causing noise above the standard, or causing emissions, then then should surely be brought to answer for that. But if they take precautions to ensure noise levels aren't above the standard (which should be the same everywhere), there is no problem at all to build a nightclub there.
- kansface 5y agoYou presuppose that there is ever any sort of enforcement for noise pollution, or any other form of the degradation of the commons.
- jdasdf 5y agoThat issue is solved by not restricting enforcement to police.
- antifa 5y agoSo... mob justice?
- jdasdf 5y agoSimply allowing private citizens to bring forth any charges that the police is allowed to bring forth would suffice. If a police officer can issue a ticket for making too much noise, or bring someone to court for polluting too much there is no reason why any other citizen should be prohibited from doing the same on the exact same terms.
- RandomLensman 5y agoSocieties decide what they deem "legitimate reason", so you can like or dislike it - if you cannot get enough people on your side, unlikely to matter. And no, sitting on a resource and not using it is - at least in edge cases - not ok. Leaving other people to die because you refuse to extract something life saving on your property might push the bounds of propriety, for example.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoTFA is about public land that is not for sale, only up for potential leasing arrangments to allow for resource extraction. Questions about property rights do not apply (certainly not to the same extent)