4 ms·

> This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist I’m confused by this statement. You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your

> This is ignoring the point: positive rights should not exist I’m confused by this statement. You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. That’s a positive right and requires taking the rights of others, for example by enforcement of zoning laws that affect land owned by other people.

pandaman 5y ago
Positive right: somebody has to do something for me. Negative right: nobody must do something to me. The right of self-governance is a negative right. I can see how it can be confusing since you can re-phrase anything as either positive or a negative action e.g. "you must stop stealing my stuff so property is a positive right" and "you should not deny my need for healthcare ergo it's a negative right" so here is a trick you can use to distinguish one from another: a negative right will remain even in the absence of all other people while a positive right will disappear in such a case. So, for this case, the right of self-governance will remain if everyone else disappears since you can still make laws, obey them and enforce them on yourself thus it's a negative right.
- ubercow13 5y ago
  Calling changing the feeling of your neighbourhood, or indirectly reducing the market value of your land, 'doing something to you' in this context seems kind of stretching it.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  "I have the right to build apartments on the land I own." "I have the right to tell you what you can and can't build in my neighborhood." Which one is positive and which is negative?
  - pandaman 5y ago
    Neither is positive, both are negative. Also the former does not exist in reality, in fact you often don't have a right to build anything in a township thus you have to get a permission from the local government for almost any construction (with some things implicitly permitted).
    - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
      A "right" to stop other people from freely developing their property is absolutely a "positive right", or the whole dichotomy is incoherent.
    - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
      I guess I don't understand the distinction or how the second one isn't a positive right. By your own rule of thumb, if you take away other people then the right to tell others what they can/can't build disappears. > Also the former does not exist in reality Irrelevant, we're discussing how things should work not how they are.
      - pandaman 5y ago
        Who prevents you from telling anything if others don't exist? But I did not think you mean it literally, to be honest, I thought you meant allowing/disallowing construction in one's neighborhood. If other people did not exist you could just as easily allow and disallow construction, could not you?
        jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
        No? If other people didn't exist then there is nothing to disallow. We are talking about how people will go to meetings to try to veto building proposals.
        pandaman 5y ago
        I am not sure I understand. In your view, if I live in the middle of nowhere, with no people around me, then I don't have the right to disallow people into my home because nobody is coming? How is it different from me living in the center of NYC and not allowing people into my home, the result is the same - people are not coming into my home, are they?
        jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
- eli_gottlieb 5y ago
  1) Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim. This does not come free; it requires taxes, a police force, etc. 2) Property is delimited in scope. You own your parcel. You do not own the neighborhood, even partially. If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. You are, at that point, just a rent-seeking highway robber.
  - pandaman 5y ago
    All rights, positive and negative require the state to enforce them so if we were to accept your definition, the negative rights would not exist and the whole positive/negative qualification became moot. You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith? > If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
    - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
      >You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith? My "faith" doesn't matter. The logic of the argument matters. And frankly, you don't seem to be putting forward very logical arguments. >> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. > That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. That's not what the court found in that case. In that case, the court found that zoning was a valid extension of the authority of local governments. Local governments do not create negative-rights claims. Indeed, the zoning ordinance in question didn't even purport to do so. Now, I've never been arguing that local governments lack the authority to pass zoning restrictions, even if I think some zoning is bad substantively. I've been arguing that you, as a private individual, do not have a negative right to make up your own personal zoning code and enforce it on others, without the democratic authority of the local government. My argument here is entirely consistent with Euclid vs Amber, and frankly, your reference to the ruling is a non-sequitur.
alex_sf 5y ago
> You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. I agree. I was responding, in context, to the idea that people should be able to live wherever they want affordably.

pandaman 5y ago

Positive right: somebody has to do something for me. Negative right: nobody must do something to me. The right of self-governance is a negative right. I can see how it can be confusing since you can re-phrase anything as either positive or a negative action e.g. "you must stop stealing my stuff so property is a positive right" and "you should not deny my need for healthcare ergo it's a negative right" so here is a trick you can use to distinguish one from another: a negative right will remain even in the absence of all other people while a positive right will disappear in such a case. So, for this case, the right of self-governance will remain if everyone else disappears since you can still make laws, obey them and enforce them on yourself thus it's a negative right.

ubercow13 5y ago
Calling changing the feeling of your neighbourhood, or indirectly reducing the market value of your land, 'doing something to you' in this context seems kind of stretching it.
jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
"I have the right to build apartments on the land I own." "I have the right to tell you what you can and can't build in my neighborhood." Which one is positive and which is negative?
- pandaman 5y ago
  Neither is positive, both are negative. Also the former does not exist in reality, in fact you often don't have a right to build anything in a township thus you have to get a permission from the local government for almost any construction (with some things implicitly permitted).
  - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
    A "right" to stop other people from freely developing their property is absolutely a "positive right", or the whole dichotomy is incoherent.
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    I guess I don't understand the distinction or how the second one isn't a positive right. By your own rule of thumb, if you take away other people then the right to tell others what they can/can't build disappears. > Also the former does not exist in reality Irrelevant, we're discussing how things should work not how they are.
    - pandaman 5y ago
      Who prevents you from telling anything if others don't exist? But I did not think you mean it literally, to be honest, I thought you meant allowing/disallowing construction in one's neighborhood. If other people did not exist you could just as easily allow and disallow construction, could not you?
      - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
        No? If other people didn't exist then there is nothing to disallow. We are talking about how people will go to meetings to try to veto building proposals.
        pandaman 5y ago
        I am not sure I understand. In your view, if I live in the middle of nowhere, with no people around me, then I don't have the right to disallow people into my home because nobody is coming? How is it different from me living in the center of NYC and not allowing people into my home, the result is the same - people are not coming into my home, are they?
        jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
eli_gottlieb 5y ago
1) Property is a positive right. It requires that the state enforce your property claim. This does not come free; it requires taxes, a police force, etc. 2) Property is delimited in scope. You own your parcel. You do not own the neighborhood, even partially. If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. You are, at that point, just a rent-seeking highway robber.
- pandaman 5y ago
  All rights, positive and negative require the state to enforce them so if we were to accept your definition, the negative rights would not exist and the whole positive/negative qualification became moot. You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith? > If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
  - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
    >You are free to not recognize the existence of negative rights but then how can you argue over the distinction between positive and negative in a good faith? My "faith" doesn't matter. The logic of the argument matters. And frankly, you don't seem to be putting forward very logical arguments. >> If someone else wants to put up dense housing on their parcels, their property, there is no negative-right violation against you. > That's another POV you are entitled to but the courts found otherwise in the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. That's not what the court found in that case. In that case, the court found that zoning was a valid extension of the authority of local governments. Local governments do not create negative-rights claims. Indeed, the zoning ordinance in question didn't even purport to do so. Now, I've never been arguing that local governments lack the authority to pass zoning restrictions, even if I think some zoning is bad substantively. I've been arguing that you, as a private individual, do not have a negative right to make up your own personal zoning code and enforce it on others, without the democratic authority of the local government. My argument here is entirely consistent with Euclid vs Amber, and frankly, your reference to the ruling is a non-sequitur.

alex_sf 5y ago

> You don’t have an inalienable right to keep the area around your home exactly how you want it either. I agree. I was responding, in context, to the idea that people should be able to live wherever they want affordably.